Yeah! Fuck the Frey's! Here is one of my favorite convos from ADWD. Don't really think its a spoiler but I'll put one just in case.
Jared: The Red Wedding was the Young Wolf's work. He changed into a beast before our eyes and tore out the throat of my cousin Jinglebell, a harmless simpleton. He would have slain my lord father too, if Ser Wendel had not put himself in the way.
Davos: Is it your claim that Robb Stark killed Wendel Manderly?
Jared: And many more. Mine own son Tytos was amongst them, and my daughter's husband. When Stark changed into a wolf, his northmen did the same. The mark of the beast was on them all. Wargs birth other wargs with a bite, it is well-known. It was all my brothers and I could do to put them down before they slew us all.
Davos: Ser, may I have your name?
Jared: Ser Jared, of House Frey.
Davos: Jared of House Frey, I name you liar.
.
I want to say that to someone before I die.
Steve: "Yeah I totally hooked up with Kate Upton before she was famous. I went to the same high school as her and..."
Rewatch if through the series with my girlfriend whose never seen it before, just hit season 3 episode 9 the red wedding. Her actual words when the episode ended "What the fuck? What the actual fuck? Why am I watching this series? All the good people die!"
She swears she's not watching any more episodes. I hope she changes her mind on this...even if that last sentiment remains true.
I really feel like it's placement at the end of S3 and the shows greater emphasis on Robb really alters the context of that scene for more bleak.
I thought it was more shocking and disappointing in the books. The show probably did emphasize Robb more, but the books made it more clear what a bad ass tactical commander and leader he was. He was the only Stark that was actually succeeding, and making the Lannisters feel the hurt. Every battle he had was a major success pulled out from seemingly impossible situations. I don't know if the show made it clear that he was actually kind of succeeding on a micro level. Also, it's placement about 2/3 of the way through the book made it really surprising, you expect big important shit to happen at the end, not 2/3 of the way through when the dude is just making a pit stop on his way to take back him homeland!
The book also made me think Arya died, which was just too fucking much.
Rewatch if through the series with my girlfriend whose never seen it before, just hit season 3 episode 9 the red wedding. Her actual words when the episode ended "What the fuck? What the actual fuck? Why am I watching this series? All the good people die!"
She swears she's not watching any more episodes. I hope she changes her mind on this...even if that last sentiment remains true.
I really feel like it's placement at the end of S3 and the shows greater emphasis on Robb really alters the context of that scene for more bleak.
I thought it was more shocking and disappointing in the books. The show probably did emphasize Robb more, but the books made it more clear what a bad ass tactical commander and leader he was. He was the only Stark that was actually succeeding, and making the Lannisters feel the hurt. Every battle he had was a major success pulled out from seemingly impossible situations. I don't know if the show made it clear that he was actually kind of succeeding on a micro level. Also, it's placement about 2/3 of the way through the book made it really surprising, you expect big important shit to happen at the end, not 2/3 of the way through when the dude is just making a pit stop on his way to take back him homeland!
The book also made me think Arya died, which was just too fucking much.
Yeah this is part of what I'm talking about though, it happens and then shit keeps going. The people riding high at the end of the Red Wedding have fallen or are falling too by the end of the book.
Rewatch if through the series with my girlfriend whose never seen it before, just hit season 3 episode 9 the red wedding. Her actual words when the episode ended "What the fuck? What the actual fuck? Why am I watching this series? All the good people die!"
She swears she's not watching any more episodes. I hope she changes her mind on this...even if that last sentiment remains true.
I really feel like it's placement at the end of S3 and the shows greater emphasis on Robb really alters the context of that scene for more bleak.
I thought it was more shocking and disappointing in the books. The show probably did emphasize Robb more, but the books made it more clear what a bad ass tactical commander and leader he was. He was the only Stark that was actually succeeding, and making the Lannisters feel the hurt. Every battle he had was a major success pulled out from seemingly impossible situations. I don't know if the show made it clear that he was actually kind of succeeding on a micro level. Also, it's placement about 2/3 of the way through the book made it really surprising, you expect big important shit to happen at the end, not 2/3 of the way through when the dude is just making a pit stop on his way to take back him homeland!
The book also made me think Arya died, which was just too fucking much.
The show had Tyrion laugh at someone's suggestion that they make peace with the Stark on account of "in case you didn't notice, he's winning". After the Red Wedding, Tyrion again comment that "he never lost a battle". But aside from the first battle when he used the Lannister scout they captured to feed Tywin a false report and then captured Jamie off-screen, we never really saw any battles he planned or fought. In fact, they made it look like the war was going poorly for him - he was winning Pyrrhic victories and even at 5 dead Lannisters to one Stark his longer supply lines and lack of reinforcements were dooming him, and his commanders were starting to go off-script to win minor easy skirmishes and ruining his grand strategy in the process.
Added to the fact that Robb was following his cock rather than his honour when he betrayed the Frey (I understand it was the other way around in the book) and then went back to Frey for reinforcements because he stupidly alienated like half his army and they walked out on him, and Robb's death is just one more in the "Starks make bad decisions" trope of the first seasons.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
edited June 2015
If I had to guess, the fate of the Freys probably involves (BOOK SPOILER)
The stomachs of Nymeria's wolf pack. Though I agree Walder will probably die of natural causes.
Come to think of it, most of the characters' reputations we're told of on the show but never shown. I've already talked about Robb's "great tactician who never lost a battle" reputation when we've never seen him in battle and all his planning was pretty weak. Jamie (prior to losing his hand) was supposed to be one of the best swordmen in Westeros, but I believe we ever only saw him duel Ned to a draw. Stannis is said to be the best general in Westeros, yet in the only two battles we saw him fight he just charged ahead blindly and got his ass handed to him. The Sand Snakes are dangerous killers who spent the entire season trying to kill one teenage girl, who for most of the season didn't even realize they were after her. The amazing Unsullied army gets taken out in one of one combat. Denarys is beloved by her people, yet those same people are forming an armed insurrection against her. The Ironborn are warriors who only live from plunder and were only stopped before by a war led by Ned, yet their last northern invasion was shrugged off by the Boltons off-camera.
Come to think of it, most of the characters' reputations we're told of on the show but never shown. I've already talked about Robb's "great tactician who never lost a battle" reputation when we've never seen him in battle and all his planning was pretty weak. Jamie (prior to losing his hand) was supposed to be one of the best swordmen in Westeros, but I believe we ever only saw him duel Ned to a draw. Stannis is said to be the best general in Westeros, yet in the only two battles we saw him fight he just charged ahead blindly and got his ass handed to him. The Sand Snakes are dangerous killers who spent the entire season trying to kill one teenage girl, who for most of the season didn't even realize they were after her. The amazing Unsullied army gets taken out in one of one combat. Denarys is beloved by her people, yet those same people are forming an armed insurrection against her. The Ironborn are warriors who only live from plunder and were only stopped before by a war led by Ned, yet their last northern invasion was shrugged off by the Boltons off-camera.
To be fair, if anything the show has pitched the "Stannis is such a great general!!!" harder than the books does.
I don't think Stannis is ever really held up as some sort of military genius in the books, it's more that he's a competent and professional-minded soldier. The guy who spends all day worrying about logistics, not epic cavalry charges like most of the other noble generals. He'll beat you down with competence and not making mistakes, not wow you with outside-the-box trickery like Robb did.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
In the books a lot of random characters talk about how scary Stannis is, I thought by DwD it was well established that he's the best general alive in Westeros. Even Roose Bolton was chastizing Ramsay for underestimating him.
Again, the show version bears almost no resemblance.
Butcher on
+3
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Yeah, even Tywin Lannister was scared of him in the books. (Tywin never said as much, but he said himself that he always considered Stannis the most dangerous "false" king. That's as close as someone like Tywin would ever come to showing fear.)
Yeah, even Tywin Lannister was scared of him in the books. (Tywin never said as much, but he said himself that he always considered Stannis the most dangerous "false" king. That's as close as someone like Tywin would ever come to showing fear.)
Yep. Stannis has been built up big time and has actually won more battles than he's lost in the books (plus however many victories he had before GoT), which is why I just can't picture Ramsay beating him unceremoniously. It has to be more thematically appropriate than that, like he's just abandoned because of what he did to win (which happened in the show but not in a way that felt even remotely earned, also his decision to just walk up to the castle was suicidal and/or stupid, neither of which he is) something more along those lines. His loss at Blackwater has set a precedent that he's not infallible, but that was still a pretty extraordinary situation and Winterfell is more of a straight up fight that he's been in before. Just doesn't make sense for him to get tactically outmaneuvered here.
Rewatch if through the series with my girlfriend whose never seen it before, just hit season 3 episode 9 the red wedding. Her actual words when the episode ended "What the fuck? What the actual fuck? Why am I watching this series? All the good people die!"
She swears she's not watching any more episodes. I hope she changes her mind on this...even if that last sentiment remains true.
I really feel like it's placement at the end of S3 and the shows greater emphasis on Robb really alters the context of that scene for more bleak.
I thought it was more shocking and disappointing in the books. The show probably did emphasize Robb more, but the books made it more clear what a bad ass tactical commander and leader he was. He was the only Stark that was actually succeeding, and making the Lannisters feel the hurt. Every battle he had was a major success pulled out from seemingly impossible situations. I don't know if the show made it clear that he was actually kind of succeeding on a micro level. Also, it's placement about 2/3 of the way through the book made it really surprising, you expect big important shit to happen at the end, not 2/3 of the way through when the dude is just making a pit stop on his way to take back him homeland!
The book also made me think Arya died, which was just too fucking much.
I read A Storm of Swords (in 2004 or 2005, I think). I always (erroneously) remember the Red Wedding as taking place near the very end of the book, rather than a bit more than half-way.
You see, I had spent a couple of weeks reading up to the Red Wedding, but I just spent a couple of days reading the rest of the book. Thus, in my mind, it must have been near the end, since I normally read at a fairly steady pace.
Rewatch if through the series with my girlfriend whose never seen it before, just hit season 3 episode 9 the red wedding. Her actual words when the episode ended "What the fuck? What the actual fuck? Why am I watching this series? All the good people die!"
She swears she's not watching any more episodes. I hope she changes her mind on this...even if that last sentiment remains true.
I really feel like it's placement at the end of S3 and the shows greater emphasis on Robb really alters the context of that scene for more bleak.
I thought it was more shocking and disappointing in the books. The show probably did emphasize Robb more, but the books made it more clear what a bad ass tactical commander and leader he was. He was the only Stark that was actually succeeding, and making the Lannisters feel the hurt. Every battle he had was a major success pulled out from seemingly impossible situations. I don't know if the show made it clear that he was actually kind of succeeding on a micro level. Also, it's placement about 2/3 of the way through the book made it really surprising, you expect big important shit to happen at the end, not 2/3 of the way through when the dude is just making a pit stop on his way to take back him homeland!
The book also made me think Arya died, which was just too fucking much.
I read A Storm of Swords (in 2004 or 2005, I think). I always (erroneously) remember the Red Wedding as taking place near the very end of the book, rather than a bit more than half-way.
You see, I had spent a couple of weeks reading up to the Red Wedding, but I just spent a couple of days reading the rest of the book. Thus, in my mind, it must have been near the end, since I normally read at a fairly steady pace.
It felt like that on first read to me too. I realized on second read that it's because after that happened I basically didn't set the book down until I was done with it.
So my theory for Walder Frey's karmic comeuppance: he's going to die peacefully, in his sleep, at five-and-ninety. And then his house is going to descend into a civil war, and some other house is going to waltz in, kick the shit out of them in their weakened state, steal the Twins, and House Frey will be consigned to the garbage can of history within like ten years.
I always thought that a more fitting end would be that Walder Frey outlives the rest of his House and is the last Frey to finally die. He gets to watch as all of his opportunistic cowardly acts come to a bloody end for his whole House.
Funnily enough, I always assumed that Tywin, had he not been murdered, would've eventually gone all Reynes of Castamere on the Freys. I mean, this was a House led by a man who betrayed his own king while he was a guest in his home. You can't trust him. The Lannisters get to play the role of the righteous punishers, earning good faith with the other Houses and the common folk, considering how sacred guest rite is supposed to be in Westeros. At least, that's what I'd do if I was Tywin.
Come to think of it, most of the characters' reputations we're told of on the show but never shown. I've already talked about Robb's "great tactician who never lost a battle" reputation when we've never seen him in battle and all his planning was pretty weak. Jamie (prior to losing his hand) was supposed to be one of the best swordmen in Westeros, but I believe we ever only saw him duel Ned to a draw. Stannis is said to be the best general in Westeros, yet in the only two battles we saw him fight he just charged ahead blindly and got his ass handed to him. The Sand Snakes are dangerous killers who spent the entire season trying to kill one teenage girl, who for most of the season didn't even realize they were after her. The amazing Unsullied army gets taken out in one of one combat. Denarys is beloved by her people, yet those same people are forming an armed insurrection against her. The Ironborn are warriors who only live from plunder and were only stopped before by a war led by Ned, yet their last northern invasion was shrugged off by the Boltons off-camera.
To be fair, if anything the show has pitched the "Stannis is such a great general!!!" harder than the books does.
I don't think Stannis is ever really held up as some sort of military genius in the books, it's more that he's a competent and professional-minded soldier. The guy who spends all day worrying about logistics, not epic cavalry charges like most of the other noble generals. He'll beat you down with competence and not making mistakes, not wow you with outside-the-box trickery like Robb did.
I believe the saying goes amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, so that puts Stannis in pretty good terms general wise.
Of course all he did on the show was be incompetent, make mistakes, and have godawful logistics sooooo...
So my theory for Walder Frey's karmic comeuppance: he's going to die peacefully, in his sleep, at five-and-ninety. And then his house is going to descend into a civil war, and some other house is going to waltz in, kick the shit out of them in their weakened state, steal the Twins, and House Frey will be consigned to the garbage can of history within like ten years.
I always thought that a more fitting end would be that Walder Frey outlives the rest of his House and is the last Frey to finally die. He gets to watch as all of his opportunistic cowardly acts come to a bloody end for his whole House.
Funnily enough, I always assumed that Tywin, had he not been murdered, would've eventually gone all Reynes of Castamere on the Freys. I mean, this was a House led by a man who betrayed his own king while he was a guest in his home. You can't trust him. The Lannisters get to play the role of the righteous punishers, earning good faith with the other Houses and the common folk, considering how sacred guest rite is supposed to be in Westeros. At least, that's what I'd do if I was Tywin.
When Tyrion takes over (conjecture) this may still happen.
I expect this has come up before concerning Shireen's story in the TV series, but I've just rewatched S4's "Mockingbird",
and after that episode's scene between Selyse and Melisandre, I doubly don't get the allegations of "They just killed off Shireen for the shock value!" That particular plotline couldn't have been much more blatantly foreshadowed. Obviously foreshadowing doesn't mean that something *must* happen, but if you have a scene that hints quite heavily at something happening and then it actually happens, how does this fit with the whole "They're just doing it to shock us!" accusation? Saying that it's imperfectly implemented, sure, or that series-Stannis' characterisation is off, perhaps. Those are all arguments that can be made. It strikes me as many things, but done for its shock value? Kinda makes the foreshadowing a bit odd. "I'm gonna go 'Boo!' in your face! ... Wait for it... Boo! Did I make ya jump?"
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Victarion reminds me of Stannis but without any morality whatsoever. And much like Stannis, I'm kind of repulsed when people speak of him in admiring tones.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Victarion reminds me of Stannis but without any morality whatsoever. And much like Stannis, I'm kind of repulsed when people speak of him in admiring tones.
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
Huh? It's narrative purpose is that this is what Victarion and the Iron Born in general are.
Victarion reminds me of Stannis but without any morality whatsoever. And much like Stannis, I'm kind of repulsed when people speak of him in admiring tones.
Oh dear, this again.
If the thread seems repetitive, maybe take a break from it instead of rolling your eyes when someone says mean things about your crush.
Victarion reminds me of Stannis but without any morality whatsoever. And much like Stannis, I'm kind of repulsed when people speak of him in admiring tones.
Oh dear, this again.
If the thread seems repetitive, maybe take a break from it instead of rolling your eyes when someone says mean things about your crush.
First, the goosey condescending tone is uncalled for. Second, I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion on a character, what I do mind though is when people say they're "repulsed" by an opinion opposite of theirs. There's no reason to make anything personal, and this isn't the first time it's happened.
Butcher on
+3
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Victarion reminds me of Stannis but without any morality whatsoever. And much like Stannis, I'm kind of repulsed when people speak of him in admiring tones.
Oh dear, this again.
If the thread seems repetitive, maybe take a break from it instead of rolling your eyes when someone says mean things about your crush.
First, the goosey condescending tone is uncalled for. Second, I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion on a character, what I do mind though is when people say they're "repulsed" by an opinion opposite of theirs. There's no reason to make anything personal, and this isn't the first time it's happened.
What do you call it when someone does something first and then gets called out on it and then turns around and accuses their accuser of doing it first? Is that irony? I feel like it's irony except I'm pretty sure it's not.
Victarion reminds me of Stannis but without any morality whatsoever. And much like Stannis, I'm kind of repulsed when people speak of him in admiring tones.
Oh dear, this again.
If the thread seems repetitive, maybe take a break from it instead of rolling your eyes when someone says mean things about your crush.
First, the goosey condescending tone is uncalled for. Second, I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion on a character, what I do mind though is when people say they're "repulsed" by an opinion opposite of theirs. There's no reason to make anything personal, and this isn't the first time it's happened.
What do you call it when someone does something first and then gets called out on it and then turns around and accuses their accuser of doing it first? Is that irony? I feel like it's irony except I'm pretty sure it's not.
I've never called people or their opinions in relation to GoT repulsive, if that's what you're implying. On the AsoiaF thread we had discussions. Even when the disagreements were strong it was always civil and both sides could sympathize with eachother's points.
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
Huh? It's narrative purpose is that this is what Victarion and the Iron Born in general are.
It seemed to me that this had been adequately established way back in Clash of Kings. I found these reminders both redundant and over-indulgent.
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
Huh? It's narrative purpose is that this is what Victarion and the Iron Born in general are.
It seemed to me that this had been adequately established way back in Clash of Kings. I found these reminders both redundant and over-indulgent.
Had it?
The only person we see it from is Theon and he's less then stellar at it and highly conflicted. He doesn't really live up to the Ironborn ideal at all.
Beyond that, it's Victarion's story. This is what he does. And it's not like the story has been shy about brutality at any point previously.
shryke on
+2
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
edited July 2015
Does anyone actually admire Victarion?
I mean, his chapters are basically about what a colossal moron he is. GRRM himself has said Vic is dumb as a rock. Hell, he wrote in a choir of monkeys who follow the guy around and fling poop at him. He's supposed to be the butt of every joke.
I love his chapters for the same reason I love Cersei's chapters: not because I think these are admirable people, but because it's entertaining to see how these idiots will fuck up next.
Fakefaux on
+4
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
Huh? It's narrative purpose is that this is what Victarion and the Iron Born in general are.
It seemed to me that this had been adequately established way back in Clash of Kings. I found these reminders both redundant and over-indulgent.
Had it?
The only person we see it from is Theon and he's less then stellar at it and highly conflicted. He doesn't really live up to the Ironborn ideal at all.
Beyond that, it's Victarion's story. This is what he does. And it's not like the story has been shy about brutality at any point previously.
My point exactly. I'm tired of it. I don't really care whose face is plastered on it or POV chapter it comes in, I'm tired of reading about it. I get it. Life is brutal. War is horrible. People are bad. It just keeps on beating the same old drum and it's wearing me out.
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
Huh? It's narrative purpose is that this is what Victarion and the Iron Born in general are.
It seemed to me that this had been adequately established way back in Clash of Kings. I found these reminders both redundant and over-indulgent.
Had it?
The only person we see it from is Theon and he's less then stellar at it and highly conflicted. He doesn't really live up to the Ironborn ideal at all.
Beyond that, it's Victarion's story. This is what he does. And it's not like the story has been shy about brutality at any point previously.
My point exactly. I'm tired of it. I don't really care whose face is plastered on it or POV chapter it comes in, I'm tired of reading about it. I get it. Life is brutal. War is horrible. People are bad. It just keeps on beating the same old drum and it's wearing me out.
Well ... ok? I mean, maybe this series isn't for you then?
It's not a problem with Victarion's story though. Victarion's story is in line with everything that's come before it. You can't be surprised by this.
You must have a very low opinion of the books, if you think that without the excessive brutality, there's nothing to keep a reader interested in them.
.... That's not at all what I said. Like, not even close.
I said if your problem is the brutality, then how did you make it this far? How are you suddenly surprised and shocked and complaining about it?
Saying "Victarion's story is too brutal" is like ... so what was every other story in the series?
shryke on
+1
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited July 2015
In fairness, that's the same thing a lot of viewers are saying about season 5, even after enjoying the first few seasons, which in some ways were bleaker and more brutal than the books. "Ugh, this shit is just so unremittingly bleak and it never. fucking. stops. and what's with all the rape?"
I'd personally argue that their reaction is because the first few seasons--and for that matter all the books as a whole--were better, and season 5 mostly sucked so the depressing things had less to counterbalance them, as opposed to a straw-broke-the-camel's-back thing, but that argument opens me up to "Well then might Victarion's story just be trash?"
In fairness, that's the same thing a lot of viewers are saying about season 5, even after enjoying the first few seasons, which in some ways were bleaker and more brutal than the books. "Ugh, this shit is just so unremittingly bleak and it never. fucking. stops. and what's with all the rape?"
I'd personally argue that their reaction is because the first few seasons--and for that matter all the books as a whole--were better, and season 5 mostly sucked so the depressing things had less to counterbalance them, as opposed to a straw-broke-the-camel's-back thing, but that argument opens me up to "Well then might Victarion's story just be trash?"
Nah, that's a totally different issue because it's a matter of the show continuing to do the same narrative trick. Brutality being depicted in the story is just the way the setting is depicted.
"Medieval war was awful for the peasantry" is not the same kind of thing as "the bad guys always win".
Season 5 suffered just because not a lot was going on. Apart from Tyrion making his way to Mereen and like...the last episode, I can't really remember much from the season at all, those first four episodes were boring as anything and I assume it's because they're straining to stretch the show out now.
But at the same time it suffers from losing most of it's larger characters like Joffrey and Tywin. Sure, Joffrey gets his comeuppance, but without him there isn't someone on the throne of Westeros with ultimate power who can constantly drive forward incidents. He had to go to make way for the expanding role of the White Walkers and such but still, we've just got the Boltons at the minute and by Boltons I mean Ramsay, and his faux-Joker thing got old quite a while ago.
Posts
Davos: Is it your claim that Robb Stark killed Wendel Manderly?
Jared: And many more. Mine own son Tytos was amongst them, and my daughter's husband. When Stark changed into a wolf, his northmen did the same. The mark of the beast was on them all. Wargs birth other wargs with a bite, it is well-known. It was all my brothers and I could do to put them down before they slew us all.
Davos: Ser, may I have your name?
Jared: Ser Jared, of House Frey.
Davos: Jared of House Frey, I name you liar.
.
I want to say that to someone before I die.
Steve: "Yeah I totally hooked up with Kate Upton before she was famous. I went to the same high school as her and..."
Me: "Steve, from Oregon.... I name you Liar!!!"
I thought it was more shocking and disappointing in the books. The show probably did emphasize Robb more, but the books made it more clear what a bad ass tactical commander and leader he was. He was the only Stark that was actually succeeding, and making the Lannisters feel the hurt. Every battle he had was a major success pulled out from seemingly impossible situations. I don't know if the show made it clear that he was actually kind of succeeding on a micro level. Also, it's placement about 2/3 of the way through the book made it really surprising, you expect big important shit to happen at the end, not 2/3 of the way through when the dude is just making a pit stop on his way to take back him homeland!
The book also made me think Arya died, which was just too fucking much.
Yeah this is part of what I'm talking about though, it happens and then shit keeps going. The people riding high at the end of the Red Wedding have fallen or are falling too by the end of the book.
Robb is just less important in the books.
The show had Tyrion laugh at someone's suggestion that they make peace with the Stark on account of "in case you didn't notice, he's winning". After the Red Wedding, Tyrion again comment that "he never lost a battle". But aside from the first battle when he used the Lannister scout they captured to feed Tywin a false report and then captured Jamie off-screen, we never really saw any battles he planned or fought. In fact, they made it look like the war was going poorly for him - he was winning Pyrrhic victories and even at 5 dead Lannisters to one Stark his longer supply lines and lack of reinforcements were dooming him, and his commanders were starting to go off-script to win minor easy skirmishes and ruining his grand strategy in the process.
Added to the fact that Robb was following his cock rather than his honour when he betrayed the Frey (I understand it was the other way around in the book) and then went back to Frey for reinforcements because he stupidly alienated like half his army and they walked out on him, and Robb's death is just one more in the "Starks make bad decisions" trope of the first seasons.
To be fair, if anything the show has pitched the "Stannis is such a great general!!!" harder than the books does.
I don't think Stannis is ever really held up as some sort of military genius in the books, it's more that he's a competent and professional-minded soldier. The guy who spends all day worrying about logistics, not epic cavalry charges like most of the other noble generals. He'll beat you down with competence and not making mistakes, not wow you with outside-the-box trickery like Robb did.
Again, the show version bears almost no resemblance.
Yep. Stannis has been built up big time and has actually won more battles than he's lost in the books (plus however many victories he had before GoT), which is why I just can't picture Ramsay beating him unceremoniously. It has to be more thematically appropriate than that, like he's just abandoned because of what he did to win (which happened in the show but not in a way that felt even remotely earned, also his decision to just walk up to the castle was suicidal and/or stupid, neither of which he is) something more along those lines. His loss at Blackwater has set a precedent that he's not infallible, but that was still a pretty extraordinary situation and Winterfell is more of a straight up fight that he's been in before. Just doesn't make sense for him to get tactically outmaneuvered here.
I read A Storm of Swords (in 2004 or 2005, I think). I always (erroneously) remember the Red Wedding as taking place near the very end of the book, rather than a bit more than half-way.
You see, I had spent a couple of weeks reading up to the Red Wedding, but I just spent a couple of days reading the rest of the book. Thus, in my mind, it must have been near the end, since I normally read at a fairly steady pace.
It felt like that on first read to me too. I realized on second read that it's because after that happened I basically didn't set the book down until I was done with it.
I always thought that a more fitting end would be that Walder Frey outlives the rest of his House and is the last Frey to finally die. He gets to watch as all of his opportunistic cowardly acts come to a bloody end for his whole House.
Funnily enough, I always assumed that Tywin, had he not been murdered, would've eventually gone all Reynes of Castamere on the Freys. I mean, this was a House led by a man who betrayed his own king while he was a guest in his home. You can't trust him. The Lannisters get to play the role of the righteous punishers, earning good faith with the other Houses and the common folk, considering how sacred guest rite is supposed to be in Westeros. At least, that's what I'd do if I was Tywin.
I believe the saying goes amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, so that puts Stannis in pretty good terms general wise.
Of course all he did on the show was be incompetent, make mistakes, and have godawful logistics sooooo...
When Tyrion takes over (conjecture) this may still happen.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I hate Victarion. These never ending descriptions of casual mass murder and torture is really getting on my nerves. I'm reminded of American Psycho of all things. But there at least the numbing repetition of brutality arguably had a narrative purpose.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Oh dear, this again.
Huh? It's narrative purpose is that this is what Victarion and the Iron Born in general are.
If the thread seems repetitive, maybe take a break from it instead of rolling your eyes when someone says mean things about your crush.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
First, the goosey condescending tone is uncalled for. Second, I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion on a character, what I do mind though is when people say they're "repulsed" by an opinion opposite of theirs. There's no reason to make anything personal, and this isn't the first time it's happened.
What do you call it when someone does something first and then gets called out on it and then turns around and accuses their accuser of doing it first? Is that irony? I feel like it's irony except I'm pretty sure it's not.
I've never called people or their opinions in relation to GoT repulsive, if that's what you're implying. On the AsoiaF thread we had discussions. Even when the disagreements were strong it was always civil and both sides could sympathize with eachother's points.
It seemed to me that this had been adequately established way back in Clash of Kings. I found these reminders both redundant and over-indulgent.
Had it?
The only person we see it from is Theon and he's less then stellar at it and highly conflicted. He doesn't really live up to the Ironborn ideal at all.
Beyond that, it's Victarion's story. This is what he does. And it's not like the story has been shy about brutality at any point previously.
I love his chapters for the same reason I love Cersei's chapters: not because I think these are admirable people, but because it's entertaining to see how these idiots will fuck up next.
My point exactly. I'm tired of it. I don't really care whose face is plastered on it or POV chapter it comes in, I'm tired of reading about it. I get it. Life is brutal. War is horrible. People are bad. It just keeps on beating the same old drum and it's wearing me out.
Well ... ok? I mean, maybe this series isn't for you then?
It's not a problem with Victarion's story though. Victarion's story is in line with everything that's come before it. You can't be surprised by this.
.... That's not at all what I said. Like, not even close.
I said if your problem is the brutality, then how did you make it this far? How are you suddenly surprised and shocked and complaining about it?
Saying "Victarion's story is too brutal" is like ... so what was every other story in the series?
I'd personally argue that their reaction is because the first few seasons--and for that matter all the books as a whole--were better, and season 5 mostly sucked so the depressing things had less to counterbalance them, as opposed to a straw-broke-the-camel's-back thing, but that argument opens me up to "Well then might Victarion's story just be trash?"
Nah, that's a totally different issue because it's a matter of the show continuing to do the same narrative trick. Brutality being depicted in the story is just the way the setting is depicted.
"Medieval war was awful for the peasantry" is not the same kind of thing as "the bad guys always win".
But at the same time it suffers from losing most of it's larger characters like Joffrey and Tywin. Sure, Joffrey gets his comeuppance, but without him there isn't someone on the throne of Westeros with ultimate power who can constantly drive forward incidents. He had to go to make way for the expanding role of the White Walkers and such but still, we've just got the Boltons at the minute and by Boltons I mean Ramsay, and his faux-Joker thing got old quite a while ago.