Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 15:35:31 GMT
I never understood why it is so difficult to understand that LSH is a complete deconstruction of the "good guy dies and comes back even better"- fantasy trope. She is the exact reverse of Gandalf The White and therefore so brilliant. People praise GRRM all the time for reversing and deconstructing fantasy-tropes, but somehow LSH is always criticised. This is just another instance of what makes GRRM's books so brilliant! I acknowledge that she is a deconstruction of that, but the trope reversal alone doesn't make her something that I enjoy. For me, personally, the Lady Stoneheart character was a major misstep, especially because she was one of the starters of the incredibly frustrating "not-really-dead" thing that GRRM had going on in AFFC and ADWD. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. While I think it's completely legitimate to enjoy different things (for example I don't care about the Cleganes one bit), I have a hard time understanding the arguments against LSH. I understand your frustration with fake deaths, but LSH is not a fake death IMO. Catelyn Stark died at the RW and is still dead, even in the books. Lady Stoneheart doesn't change that, IMO. She is a monster that resembles Catelyn Stark, but who isn't really Catelyn Stark anymore. This is what makes her character so compelling. As traumatising as the events of the RW were, one could at least say that Catelyn's suffering was over, except that it wasn't. This is actually really brutal. Not even death can give rest to her poor soul. She is barely a person anymore. To say that this is just a fake death is IMO a wrong assessment of what happened here. What happened with Bran and Rickon in season 2 can be constituted as fake deaths, but not LSH who is an aggravation of the events of the Red Wedding. One could almost say that Catelyn Stark is even "more" dead precisely because of Lady Stoneheart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 15:36:12 GMT
Plus I always laugh when people say that she won't be important to the story like Martin included her for no reason and all that set up to her making a huge impact in the Brienne/Jaime storyline was just pointless, righttttt.... Ikr? Plus, LSH was foreshadowed as far back as AGOT and was even likely a part of the original outline from 1993 (albeit, probably under very different circumstances given her location).
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 14, 2015 15:36:46 GMT
It's not a trope. Just because it happened in LotR and the Bible doesn't mean that it is a cliché. Almost every story that I can think of is exactly the opposite...person dies and comes back as a monster. Frankenstein, Pet Sematary, etc etc. Add GoT to that list. She's Gage Creed, but with more focused bloodlust. It is a trope. And GRRM has made it clear that he wanted to do something different. I don't have a quote for this, but iirc he has discussed what happens with Gandalf so I think it's safe to say that was his direct inspiration. The opposite may be a trope as well, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Lady Stoneheart is a pretty perfect deconstruction of the trope he set out to deconstruct. And yet the instances of "person coming back stronger than before" is dwarfed by the instances of "person being brought back worse" in storytelling. Martin followed the horror cliché of the person being brought back worse by attempting to 'subvert' the almost nonexistent cliché of the person coming back stronger.
|
|
|
Post by Basil on Jun 14, 2015 15:36:48 GMT
Nobody can change anybody's mind. If you don't like Stoneheart as a character (or the idea of resurrections in general), that's perfectly fine, it's a personal preference thing.
But to say that bringing Catelyn back was Martin's biggest mistake, that she's doesn't play a significant part in the story and that killing Freys is the only thing she's good for, that's a bold (and frankly a little bit ignorant) statement, considering that we still have no idea what Martin's plans for the character are. We have seen almost nothing of Stoneheart, she's only been in one book (technically two, but A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons run parallel to each other, so in the timeline, Brienne encountering Stoneheart happens towards the end of A Dance with Dragons).
Catelyn is a main character. Yes, she died in the third book, but her story didn't end at the Red Wedding, Martin brought her back, because he obviously still has plans for her. The fact that in the books, Catelyn's (one of our original major POV characters) story continues, justifies Stoneheart's inclusion in the show, in my opinion.
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 14, 2015 15:37:47 GMT
Plus I always laugh when people say that she won't be important to the story like Martin included her for no reason and all that set up to her making a huge impact in the Brienne/Jaime storyline was just pointless, righttttt.... Yes, because every single thing that Martin has written in his books has turned out to be important. And I never said that she WOULDN'T be important...I said that as of this point in the story, she's not important. And that's absolutely true.
|
|
|
Post by MarcusAntonius on Jun 14, 2015 15:38:29 GMT
To be fair D&D made Catelyn a minor character on the show which is probably one of the main reasons I think they cut out Stoneheart
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 14, 2015 15:41:19 GMT
Nobody can change anybody's mind. If you don't like Stoneheart as a character (or the idea of resurrections in general), that's perfectly fine, it's a personal preference thing. But to say that bringing Catelyn back was Martin's biggest mistake, that she's doesn't play a significant part in the story and that killing Freys is the only thing she's good for, that's a bold (and frankly a little bit ignorant) statement, considering that we still have no idea what Martin's plans for the character are. We have seen almost nothing of Stoneheart, she's only been in one book (technically two, but A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons run parallel to each other, so in the timeline, Brienne encountering Stoneheart happens towards the end of A Dance with Dragons). Catelyn is a main character. Yes, she died in the third book, but her story didn't end at the Red Wedding, Martin brought her back, because he obviously still has plans for her. The fact that in the books, Catelyn's (one of our original major POV characters) story continues, justifies Stoneheart's inclusion in the show, in my opinion. I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind. I get that some people like her. That's their prerogative. But I think it's absolutely fair to lay out my reasons for why I didn't like her addition to the story and why I would be absolutely fine if she never appears in the show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 15:47:53 GMT
It is a trope. And GRRM has made it clear that he wanted to do something different. I don't have a quote for this, but iirc he has discussed what happens with Gandalf so I think it's safe to say that was his direct inspiration. The opposite may be a trope as well, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Lady Stoneheart is a pretty perfect deconstruction of the trope he set out to deconstruct. And yet the instances of "person coming back stronger than before" is dwarfed by the instances of "person being brought back worse" in storytelling. Martin followed the horror cliché of the person being brought back worse by attempting to 'subvert' the almost nonexistent cliché of the person coming back stronger. Neither trope dwarfs the other and if you had actually bothered to read the page I had linked to you would not be considering it an almost nonexistent cliche. In any case, it doesn't matter if one is more prevalent than the other. I never even said the "come back wrong" wasn't a trope (it was in fact you that said "come back strong" wasn't a trope, when it clearly is). I just pointed out that Martin set out to subvert come back strong with LSH. He did that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 15:48:29 GMT
To be fair D&D made Catelyn a minor character on the show which is probably one of the main reasons I think they cut out Stoneheart Nah, I don't think so. There was too much LSH foreshadowing in the seasons 1-3. Their decision against her inclusion must have happened during the writing for season 4, which was also around the time they sat down together with George to discuss the ending of the story.
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 14, 2015 15:58:43 GMT
And yet the instances of "person coming back stronger than before" is dwarfed by the instances of "person being brought back worse" in storytelling. Martin followed the horror cliché of the person being brought back worse by attempting to 'subvert' the almost nonexistent cliché of the person coming back stronger. Neither trope dwarfs the other and if you had actually bothered to read the page I had linked to you would not be considering it an almost nonexistent cliche. In any case, it doesn't matter if one is more prevalent than the other. I never even said the "come back wrong" wasn't a trope (it was in fact you that said "come back strong" wasn't a trope, when it clearly is). I just pointed out that Martin set out to subvert come back strong with LSH. He did that. I skimmed through it. But as an avid reader of all genres and classics in particular, the trope I encounter over and over and over again is "Don't bring the dead back, because they will not be the same". It's all over the place in literature...much, much more than "The dead come back better than ever!", which is very little in comparison to the former. You will find many more examples of dead people coming back worse than you will find of dead people coming back better. Which is why I hate what Martin did. He may have been making a statement about how he hated what Tolkien did to Gandalf, but he stumbled upon a huge horror cliché in the process. And that site pretty much names everything as a trope...even when it's not a trope. I named several examples of what I was talking about...do you have several examples of what you are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Basil on Jun 14, 2015 15:59:09 GMT
Plus I always laugh when people say that she won't be important to the story like Martin included her for no reason and all that set up to her making a huge impact in the Brienne/Jaime storyline was just pointless, righttttt.... Yes, because every single thing that Martin has written in his books has turned out to be important. And I never said that she WOULDN'T be important...I said that as of this point in the story, she's not important. And that's absolutely true. It is not true, though. Because, what's the story? Seriously. On an individual level, Stoneheart is very much important to the stories of Jaime and Brienne, and we have no idea what she's going to do next, but I'm willing to bet that she will play a part in the resolution of the entire Riverlands arc. Or are we talking about the huge, overarching plot with the Others beyond the Wall and the Dragon Queen across the Narrow See? Because yeah, in that regard, Stoneheart is probably quite insignificant (or maybe not, who knows) - but so are other characters and storylines, who have made it into the show. The only possible way for them to cut Stoneheart from the story, was to drastically alter the storylines of Brienne and Jaime, which they did. But that doesn't mean that Stoneheart is irrelevant, on the contrary actually, it means that they had to change a lot of things to make her and the Broterhood unnecessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 16:01:47 GMT
Neither trope dwarfs the other and if you had actually bothered to read the page I had linked to you would not be considering it an almost nonexistent cliche. In any case, it doesn't matter if one is more prevalent than the other. I never even said the "come back wrong" wasn't a trope (it was in fact you that said "come back strong" wasn't a trope, when it clearly is). I just pointed out that Martin set out to subvert come back strong with LSH. He did that. I skimmed through it. But as an avid reader of all genres and classics in particular, the trope I encounter over and over and over again is "Don't bring the dead back, because they will not be the same". It's all over the place in literature...much, much more than "The dead come back better than ever!", which is very little in comparison to the former. You will find many more examples of dead people coming back worse than you will find of dead people coming back better. Which is why I hate what Martin did. He may have been making a statement about how he hated what Tolkien did to Gandalf, but he stumbled upon a huge horror cliché in the process. That is why I said fantasy-trope. It is a much more common trope in fantasy and scifi literature, movies and tv shows.
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 14, 2015 16:14:58 GMT
Yes, because every single thing that Martin has written in his books has turned out to be important. And I never said that she WOULDN'T be important...I said that as of this point in the story, she's not important. And that's absolutely true. It is not true, though. Because, what's the story? Seriously. On an individual level, Stoneheart is very much important to the stories of Jaime and Brienne, and we have no idea what she's going to do next, but I'm willing to bet that she will play a part in the resolution of the entire Riverlands arc. Or are we talking about the huge, overarching plot with the Others beyond the Wall and the Dragon Queen across the Narrow See? Because yeah, in that regard, Stoneheart is probably quite insignificant (or maybe not, who knows) - but so are other characters and storylines, who have made it into the show. The only possible way for them to cut Stoneheart from the story, was to drastically alter the storylines of Brienne and Jaime, which they did. But that doesn't mean that Stoneheart is irrelevant, on the contrary actually, it means that they had to change a lot of things to make her and the Broterhood unnecessary. On an 'individual level', EVERYTHING that happens is important. On a plot movement level, which is what I'm discussing, it's not very apparent. In any case, I'm done debating. As I said before, I never mentioned this to change peoples' minds. I mentioned it because people don't seem to understand why others don't like her. And as someone who never liked her at all, I figured it was only fair to give my own opinion on the subject. I have no wish to continue a fruitless debate that is completely subjective and based on opinion only. I hate unnecessary resurrection that essentially ruins a good character. I even hated it in Gandalf's case, because he was nowhere near as interesting or cool as he was before he was resurrected. I hate it in Catelyn's case because it has stripped her of everything that made her 'her', and has made her into nothing more than a shell of hatred and vengeance. All of that is true...it's just whether or not you like that kind of thing in your story. I don't. Obviously, some of the people around here do, and that's fine. But there's nothing 'wrong' with disliking what Martin did with her character, nor is there anything 'wrong' about not seeing the necessity of it at this point in time. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but at this point, I would have rather the living got vengeance for the Red Wedding...I mean, the entire North hates the Freys and the Boltons, so I don't see why we need zombies to take care of it.
|
|
|
Post by Paid Debt Lannister on Jun 14, 2015 16:23:58 GMT
It is not true, though. Because, what's the story? Seriously. On an individual level, Stoneheart is very much important to the stories of Jaime and Brienne, and we have no idea what she's going to do next, but I'm willing to bet that she will play a part in the resolution of the entire Riverlands arc. Or are we talking about the huge, overarching plot with the Others beyond the Wall and the Dragon Queen across the Narrow See? Because yeah, in that regard, Stoneheart is probably quite insignificant (or maybe not, who knows) - but so are other characters and storylines, who have made it into the show. The only possible way for them to cut Stoneheart from the story, was to drastically alter the storylines of Brienne and Jaime, which they did. But that doesn't mean that Stoneheart is irrelevant, on the contrary actually, it means that they had to change a lot of things to make her and the Broterhood unnecessary. On an 'individual level', EVERYTHING that happens is important. On a plot movement level, which is what I'm discussing, it's not very apparent. In any case, I'm done debating. As I said before, I never mentioned this to change peoples' minds. I mentioned it because people don't seem to understand why others don't like her. And as someone who never liked her at all, I figured it was only fair to give my own opinion on the subject. I have no wish to continue a fruitless debate that is completely subjective and based on opinion only. I hate unnecessary resurrection that essentially ruins a good character. I even hated it in Gandalf's case, because he was nowhere near as interesting or cool as he was before he was resurrected. I hate it in Catelyn's case because it has stripped her of everything that made her 'her', and has made her into nothing more than a shell of hatred and vengeance. All of that is true...it's just whether or not you like that kind of thing in your story. I don't. Obviously, some of the people around here do, and that's fine. But there's nothing 'wrong' with disliking what Martin did with her character, nor is there anything 'wrong' about not seeing the necessity of it at this point in time. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but at this point, I would have rather the living got vengeance for the Red Wedding...I mean, the entire North hates the Freys and the Boltons, so I don't see why we need zombies to take care of it. You should stop watching the show. We have unBeric, will have (SPOILERS) unMountain next ep and the main fight of everything is against a whole army of, as you say, "zombies". So much for a realistic story that shouldn't bring back Cat because that would be "fantasy" or "cliche"
|
|
|
Post by Paid Debt Lannister on Jun 14, 2015 16:26:37 GMT
Btw sorry to be the guy to say this but I think it is a bit disrespectful to come to a thread about one character and undermine her importance by calling her the author's biggest mistake or saying you're glad she was cut because she's not important or whatever. Feels a lot like the *forum who must not be named* vibe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 16:26:39 GMT
On an 'individual level', EVERYTHING that happens is important. On a plot movement level, which is what I'm discussing, it's not very apparent. In any case, I'm done debating. As I said before, I never mentioned this to change peoples' minds. I mentioned it because people don't seem to understand why others don't like her. And as someone who never liked her at all, I figured it was only fair to give my own opinion on the subject. I have no wish to continue a fruitless debate that is completely subjective and based on opinion only. I hate unnecessary resurrection that essentially ruins a good character. I even hated it in Gandalf's case, because he was nowhere near as interesting or cool as he was before he was resurrected. I hate it in Catelyn's case because it has stripped her of everything that made her 'her', and has made her into nothing more than a shell of hatred and vengeance. All of that is true...it's just whether or not you like that kind of thing in your story. I don't. Obviously, some of the people around here do, and that's fine. But there's nothing 'wrong' with disliking what Martin did with her character, nor is there anything 'wrong' about not seeing the necessity of it at this point in time. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but at this point, I would have rather the living got vengeance for the Red Wedding...I mean, the entire North hates the Freys and the Boltons, so I don't see why we need zombies to take care of it. You should stop watching the show. We have unBeric, will have (SPOILERS) unMountain next ep and the main fight of everything is against a whole army of, as you say, "zombies". So much for a realistic story that shouldn't bring back Cat because that would be "fantasy" or "cliche" Let's not forget the very real possibility of The Hero Jon Snow being resurrected by the very same magic that brought back Catelyn.
|
|
|
Post by Paid Debt Lannister on Jun 14, 2015 16:27:44 GMT
You should stop watching the show. We have unBeric, will have (SPOILERS) unMountain next ep and the main fight of everything is against a whole army of, as you say, "zombies". So much for a realistic story that shouldn't bring back Cat because that would be "fantasy" or "cliche" Let's not forget the very real possibility of The Hero Jon Snow being resurrected by the very same magic that brought back Catelyn. Oh yeah, and there is that. Btw an old dude who lives inside a tree accompanied by a child-leprechaun who cast fireballs? Omg that's real middle age
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 14, 2015 16:58:57 GMT
People calling LS a zombie or useless or whatever need to stay away from this thread. I am not interested why you don't like the character and I'm sure other fans of her aren't either.
Respect the fucking thread, please.
|
|
|
Post by Paid Debt Lannister on Jun 14, 2015 16:59:41 GMT
People calling LS a zombie or useless or whatever need to stay away from this thread. I am not interested why you don't like the character and I'm sure other fans of her aren't either. Respect the fucking thread, please. <3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 17:14:54 GMT
Btw sorry to be the guy to say this but I think it is a bit disrespectful to come to a thread about one character and undermine her importance by calling her the author's biggest mistake or saying you're glad she was cut because she's not important or whatever. Feels a lot like the *forum who must not be named* vibe. I'd actually argue that an echo chamber is far more in line with the forum that must not be named. And I think if people didn't want anyone bad mouthing Stoneheart, it should have been in the title or in the OP, but it isn't. But since the mods have clarified the intent of the thread, I will withdraw. Only 7 more hours anyway and I feel I've said my piece.
|
|