Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 10:10:42 GMT
This scene is still haunting me urgh
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 10, 2015 11:26:20 GMT
GRRM finally responded in some fashion about Shireen's death: mjy6478
Jun. 10th, 2015 04:35 am (UTC)
Game of Thrones (I'm sorry)
Hi George, before I get to my question let me just say that I am a big fan of both the books and the show. I have no problems with changes in the show, for I view the show and the books as the accounts of two different historians trying to relay the same history. Historians always contradicted and disagreed with each other, and it is our job to discern what really happened. Anyways, on to my question. There is a raging debate online about the Shireen burning. The show runners have stated that you told them that Shireen would burn in the books. However, there is a disagreement about whether Stannis himself will give the order to burn Shireen or consent in anyway to its occurrence. I just want to know if Stannis is himself responsible in anyway for Shireen's death in the books. If you do not wish to disclose this, I will understand. Thanks!
Link | Reply | Thread
grrm
Jun. 10th, 2015 05:08 am (UTC)
Re: Game of Thrones (I'm sorry)
If I start to comment on what might or might not happen in scenes that I have not written yet, I will be "spoiling" my own books.
I have no further comment at this time.He hasn't written Shireen's death scene yet. grrm.livejournal.com/428790.html#commentsNot sure how that confirms he hasn't written the scene yet? This is par for the course with Mr. Martin - he NEVER confirms or denies anything and has maintained that same stance for years. I honestly don't know how he manages to not just go off on people after so much disrespect and immature bs the fans throw at him (not that particular post, it was well stated) - just sayin'  I don't think he owes any explanation at all. If people are going to keep doing this every time something happens that they don't like in the show, then it's going to get old fast. It's like some people can't make a decision on liking something or disliking something without first knowing if it's in the books or what Martin thinks of it. That's problematic, now that the show is moving past the books and people can't easily judge what is Martin's work and what is not. But truthfully, the fact that they need to know what Martin thinks in the first place is immature. They want to know so they can adjust their opinion accordingly, or they project their own opinions on Martin and believe that if they are mad with the show, he must be furious because they would be if they were him. It's what so many people have done with LotR, except they have the son's vitriol to back them up. So yeah...I find it very immature that people are spamming him in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Enid on Jun 10, 2015 11:51:47 GMT
I don't think he owes any explanation at all. If people are going to keep doing this every time something happens that they don't like in the show, then it's going to get old fast. It's like some people can't make a decision on liking something or disliking something without first knowing if it's in the books or what Martin thinks of it. That's problematic, now that the show is moving past the books and people can't easily judge what is Martin's work and what is not. But truthfully, the fact that they need to know what Martin thinks in the first place is immature. They want to know so they can adjust their opinion accordingly, or they project their own opinions on Martin and believe that if they are mad with the show, he must be furious because they would be if they were him. It's what so many people have done with LotR, except they have the son's vitriol to back them up. So yeah...I find it very immature that people are spamming him in the first place. This post is so true, it hurts. A lot of people base their dislike of the things the show does purely on the fact that "it was not in the books" or, now that the published material is running low, on "this won't happen in the books and if it does, the context will be different". If GRRM came out and said that he agrees with every change D&D had done to the story, 95% of the people who hate the show would change their tune. I wonder what this people are going to do in the future, because if GRRM can't finish TWOW before season 6 they no longer will know what is from the books and what isn't, and GRRM is not going to give any them any clues. I wonder how many people will keep hating the show because "it changes things" when they no longer know for sure if what they are watching was GRRM's idea or the writers. DISCLAIMER: This doesn't mean that there are no reasons to dislike the show or criticize it, of course there are, the show has problems, is not perfect, and is perfectly normal to feel upset when the show changes or cuts plots or characters you wanted to watch. I'm just talking about the people whose main argument against the show is "the books are different" and claim to know what GRRM thinks of the show as if that validates their opinions. |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 10, 2015 11:58:59 GMT
I don't think he owes any explanation at all. If people are going to keep doing this every time something happens that they don't like in the show, then it's going to get old fast. It's like some people can't make a decision on liking something or disliking something without first knowing if it's in the books or what Martin thinks of it. That's problematic, now that the show is moving past the books and people can't easily judge what is Martin's work and what is not. But truthfully, the fact that they need to know what Martin thinks in the first place is immature. They want to know so they can adjust their opinion accordingly, or they project their own opinions on Martin and believe that if they are mad with the show, he must be furious because they would be if they were him. It's what so many people have done with LotR, except they have the son's vitriol to back them up. So yeah...I find it very immature that people are spamming him in the first place. This post is so true, it hurts. A lot of people base their dislike of the things the show does purely on the fact that "it was not in the books" or, now that the published material is running low, on "this won't happen in the books and if it does, the context will be different". If GRRM came out and said that he agrees with every change D&D had done to the story, 95% of the people who hate the show would change their tune. I wonder what this people are going to do in the future, because if GRRM can't finish TWOW before season 6 they no longer will know what is from the books and what isn't, and GRRM is not going to give any them any clues. I wonder how many people will keep hating the show because "it changes things" when they no longer know for sure if what they are watching was GRRM's idea or the writers. DISCLAIMER: This doesn't mean that there are no reasons to dislike the show or criticize it, of course there are, the show has problems, is not perfect, and is perfectly normal to feel upset when the show changes or cuts plots or characters you wanted to watch. I'm just talking about the people whose main argument against the show is "the books are different" and claim to know what GRRM thinks of the show as if that validates their opinions. I agree with the disclaimer. If you want to dislike something in the show, that's fine. Because at least with that, you are forming your own opinion. I didn't like 80% of the stuff in Dorne. I don't need Martin's opinion or to know what happened in the books to dislike it...I just found it badly done up until the last two scenes. I think some people are honestly afraid of watching the show and having to judge it based on its own merits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 12:25:03 GMT
Some have compared the Red God religion to more fanatical christianity... and how Abraham was tested to sacrifice his son. Well wtf, no - if I recall my biblical lessons as a kid (pretty fuzzy here), Abraham didn't actually have to go through with that, right? This isn't quite the same crap. Still crap regardless. God stopped Abraham after Abraham was ready to do it and he was like "dude, okay, just kill a ram for me instead." It was a test of obedience and deus ex machima. There's also the aspect of God the Father giving up his son to die to save everyone from their sins, but even that is a pretty big cop out. Jesus' "Game Over" isn't really a death, it's more like a cheat code that lets him go straight to the final boss battle (after he dies on the cross he descends into hell and defeats Satan or something. God wanted to leave things open in case he got a sequel deal.) then comes back to earth with cloak, invincibility, no-clip mode and gets to run around the Sandbox for awhile (he never spawned a tank though) before heading off to the bonus round of getting to sit at the right hand of his father in heavenly paradise. Anyway... Murdering a child in any religion is pretty tough sell. There is actually a big thing about child sacrifice being unacceptable in the Biblical Old Testament because a different local religion to Israel practiced it. It's obviously not a thing in any major modern world religion. It's not a coup out at all. As someone who grew up in a very conservative Christian home, it was the first thing I thought about watching the scene -- Abraham and Isaac. A test of faith. As many of my Christian friends say constantly -- "God first and family second". I've always questioned that in the sense that... what if this is what God asked you to do? How far would you go for your faith? Stannis said it to Shireen, that he didn't like what he had to do. He didn't like that he had to fulfill his destiny, but he must. If that isn't discussing the end game rather than just "becoming King".... This was the faith test. He had doubted Melisandre over and over. This was him giving in to the faith that was warring inside him. The side that was Stannis Baratheon, born in the light of the Seven, who was a military man and a man of logic, and the side of him who saw into the flames, who saw kings die after Melisandre's leeches. O another note, this scene is akin to sullied viewers as to what the Red Wedding was to Unsullied viewers. They STABBED an unborn baby in it's mother womb. Unsullied viewers were so shocked and appalled, while unsullied viewers smirked at their reactions. I know many of us red that scene years ago, but don't you remember throwing the book across the room and having to go take a walk because of it? We are all reacting so hard to it because it is new for us. |
|
|
|
Post by mattpeto on Jun 10, 2015 14:33:33 GMT
GRRM finally responded in some fashion about Shireen's death: mjy6478
Jun. 10th, 2015 04:35 am (UTC)
Game of Thrones (I'm sorry)
Hi George, before I get to my question let me just say that I am a big fan of both the books and the show. I have no problems with changes in the show, for I view the show and the books as the accounts of two different historians trying to relay the same history. Historians always contradicted and disagreed with each other, and it is our job to discern what really happened. Anyways, on to my question. There is a raging debate online about the Shireen burning. The show runners have stated that you told them that Shireen would burn in the books. However, there is a disagreement about whether Stannis himself will give the order to burn Shireen or consent in anyway to its occurrence. I just want to know if Stannis is himself responsible in anyway for Shireen's death in the books. If you do not wish to disclose this, I will understand. Thanks!
Link | Reply | Thread
grrm
Jun. 10th, 2015 05:08 am (UTC)
Re: Game of Thrones (I'm sorry)
If I start to comment on what might or might not happen in scenes that I have not written yet, I will be "spoiling" my own books.
I have no further comment at this time.He hasn't written Shireen's death scene yet. grrm.livejournal.com/428790.html#commentsNot sure how that confirms he hasn't written the scene yet? This is par for the course with Mr. Martin - he NEVER confirms or denies anything and has maintained that same stance for years. I honestly don't know how he manages to not just go off on people after so much disrespect and immature bs the fans throw at him (not that particular post, it was well stated) - just sayin' I read GRRM's response kind of different here. It sounds like he didn't write the scene yet. He basically confirming that "might or might not happen in scenes I have not written yet". Everybody assumed this was a TWOW spoiler, but people forget that GRRM is an executive producer on the show and he has an important role with reviewing the D&D outlines for every episode. It's possible that the burning of Shireen was George's idea, but it's an only a show move. For all we know, Stannis is dead after BoI anyway. Either way in my little brain, I am convinced that the book Stannis = show Stannis. |
|
|
|
Post by janicia on Jun 10, 2015 19:43:59 GMT
I doubt they had any leeches in the camp, and Stannis army was about to break. They couldn't march to WF, they couldn't go back to the Wall, and they had no food left so they couldn't wait until the storm passed either. Stannis felt that he had to do something, Mel told him that her god demanded a sacrifice with royal blood, and in the show Stannis does seem to believe in R'hllor. The only ones with royal blood were Shireen and himself.As I said, I'm sad they killed Shireen. Maybe I'm not as upset as I would have been if I hadn't known it was going to happen beforehand, but I don't think it was sudden (they had been setting this up since season 4) and I don't think is so OOC for Stannis. At least they could have shown Mel and Stannis having another heated argument about the things you are saying. Just to show that Stannis is really struggling with this. That would have been better than: Woah, some tents are burning... LET'S BURN MY DAUGHTER. I wish they had made it more plausible throughout the season. It felt like there were at least three scenes missing to explain Stannis going from "you are Shireen of House Baratheon and you are my daughter" to "let's burn her!" I'm not criticising that it happened. I'm criticising HOW it happened. There was a lot of dialogue and a lot of struggling that should have been shown before that. I usually like the show's writing, but this particular storyline was really not well written. I'm sorry. If they'd shown Stannis making his final decision, the moment of Shireen walking through the soldiers, seeing the stake and realizing what is going on would have been superfluous. The audience had to be somewhat in the dark for that scene to work, we had to be thinking "he's not really going to do it". I think it was a trade-off between reason and emotion. They skipped some of the reasoning behind the decision to make sure they hit the emotion of the sacrifice. And they skipped some of Stannis' thoughts to spend some more time with Shireen's. It is always a trade-off. I agree with the argument that the show didn't really spend enough time establishing how much trouble Stannis' army was in. I am also mildly interested in who Stannis thinks is his heir now. It won't matter - Stannis won't win the throne. But does he have any cousins? I guess he could try to find Gendry again, but surely that wouldn't go over well. (Stannis is under-heired in the books as well. An underaged disfigured girl is a weak heir. Shouldn't Stannis have engaged her to somebody and maybe even taken his future son-in-law on as a ward?) |
|
|
|
Post by janicia on Jun 10, 2015 19:53:11 GMT
God stopped Abraham after Abraham was ready to do it and he was like "dude, okay, just kill a ram for me instead." It was a test of obedience and deus ex machima. There's also the aspect of God the Father giving up his son to die to save everyone from their sins, but even that is a pretty big cop out. Jesus' "Game Over" isn't really a death, it's more like a cheat code that lets him go straight to the final boss battle (after he dies on the cross he descends into hell and defeats Satan or something. God wanted to leave things open in case he got a sequel deal.) then comes back to earth with cloak, invincibility, no-clip mode and gets to run around the Sandbox for awhile (he never spawned a tank though) before heading off to the bonus round of getting to sit at the right hand of his father in heavenly paradise. Anyway... Murdering a child in any religion is pretty tough sell. There is actually a big thing about child sacrifice being unacceptable in the Biblical Old Testament because a different local religion to Israel practiced it. It's obviously not a thing in any major modern world religion. It's not a coup out at all. As someone who grew up in a very conservative Christian home, it was the first thing I thought about watching the scene -- Abraham and Isaac. A test of faith. As many of my Christian friends say constantly -- "God first and family second". I've always questioned that in the sense that... what if this is what God asked you to do? How far would you go for your faith? Stannis said it to Shireen, that he didn't like what he had to do. He didn't like that he had to fulfill his destiny, but he must. If that isn't discussing the end game rather than just "becoming King".... This was the faith test. He had doubted Melisandre over and over. This was him giving in to the faith that was warring inside him. The side that was Stannis Baratheon, born in the light of the Seven, who was a military man and a man of logic, and the side of him who saw into the flames, who saw kings die after Melisandre's leeches. And Westeros even has the myth of the guy tempering the sword with his wife's blood that Stannis would be surely thinking about in this moment, though I don't think that myth has been explained in the show yet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 21:57:51 GMT
Not sure how that confirms he hasn't written the scene yet? This is par for the course with Mr. Martin - he NEVER confirms or denies anything and has maintained that same stance for years. I honestly don't know how he manages to not just go off on people after so much disrespect and immature bs the fans throw at him (not that particular post, it was well stated) - just sayin' I read GRRM's response kind of different here. It sounds like he didn't write the scene yet. He basically confirming that "might or might not happen in scenes I have not written yet". Everybody assumed this was a TWOW spoiler, but people forget that GRRM is an executive producer on the show and he has an important role with reviewing the D&D outlines for every episode. It's possible that the burning of Shireen was George's idea, but it's an only a show move. For all we know, Stannis is dead after BoI anyway. Either way in my little brain, I am convinced that the book Stannis = show Stannis. I will scream with laughter if Shireen doesn't even die in the books and the whole burning thing was GRRM's idea for the show only  |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 10, 2015 22:02:13 GMT
I read GRRM's response kind of different here. It sounds like he didn't write the scene yet. He basically confirming that "might or might not happen in scenes I have not written yet". Everybody assumed this was a TWOW spoiler, but people forget that GRRM is an executive producer on the show and he has an important role with reviewing the D&D outlines for every episode. It's possible that the burning of Shireen was George's idea, but it's an only a show move. For all we know, Stannis is dead after BoI anyway. Either way in my little brain, I am convinced that the book Stannis = show Stannis. I will scream with laughter if Shireen doesn't even die in the books and the whole burning thing was GRRM's idea for the show only I will scream with laughter if we ever get the last two books in the first place. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 22:17:15 GMT
But, no he probably hasn't written it yet because, like the RW, he's put off writing it until he's nearly done TWOW because of the emotional toll writing such a scene would have on him.
Legally though he can't lie about a scene being in and then not have it in the books. Plus it's immensely foreshadowed from the ACOK prologue onwards. So its definitely in TWOW. |
|
|
|
Post by Paid Debt Lannister on Jun 11, 2015 0:30:55 GMT
This scene is still haunting me urgh Same here |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 11, 2015 4:08:03 GMT
But, no he probably hasn't written it yet because, like the RW, he's put off writing it until he's nearly done TWOW because of the emotional toll writing such a scene would have on him.
Legally though he can't lie about a scene being in and then not have it in the books. Plus it's immensely foreshadowed from the ACOK prologue onwards. So its definitely in TWOW. What do you mean? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 4:12:55 GMT
But, no he probably hasn't written it yet because, like the RW, he's put off writing it until he's nearly done TWOW because of the emotional toll writing such a scene would have on him.
Legally though he can't lie about a scene being in and then not have it in the books. Plus it's immensely foreshadowed from the ACOK prologue onwards. So its definitely in TWOW. What do you mean? Contractually. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 4:20:15 GMT
It's not a coup out at all. As someone who grew up in a very conservative Christian home, it was the first thing I thought about watching the scene -- Abraham and Isaac. A test of faith. As many of my Christian friends say constantly -- "God first and family second". I've always questioned that in the sense that... what if this is what God asked you to do? How far would you go for your faith? Stannis said it to Shireen, that he didn't like what he had to do. He didn't like that he had to fulfill his destiny, but he must. If that isn't discussing the end game rather than just "becoming King".... This was the faith test. He had doubted Melisandre over and over. This was him giving in to the faith that was warring inside him. The side that was Stannis Baratheon, born in the light of the Seven, who was a military man and a man of logic, and the side of him who saw into the flames, who saw kings die after Melisandre's leeches. And Westeros even has the myth of the guy tempering the sword with his wife's blood that Stannis would be surely thinking about in this moment, though I don't think that myth has been explained in the show yet. I don't think Azor Ahai has ever been mentioned on the show IIRC. |
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jun 11, 2015 4:54:41 GMT
But, no he probably hasn't written it yet because, like the RW, he's put off writing it until he's nearly done TWOW because of the emotional toll writing such a scene would have on him.
Legally though he can't lie about a scene being in and then not have it in the books. Plus it's immensely foreshadowed from the ACOK prologue onwards. So its definitely in TWOW. When I was reading AFFC I started to fear that Stannis could become a villain in ADWD. Aemon's speech about Lightbringer being a fake and "false light can only bring us further into darkness" stuck with me for a while, but then I read ADWD, loved Stannis in it and forgot about Aemon's concern. Now I'm worried again that the Mannis could got to the dark side :-S And Westeros even has the myth of the guy tempering the sword with his wife's blood that Stannis would be surely thinking about in this moment, though I don't think that myth has been explained in the show yet. I don't think Azor Ahai has ever been mentioned on the show IIRC. In the show Azor Ahai = Warrior of Light, just like R'hllor = Lord of Light. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 11, 2015 5:59:55 GMT
Yeah I get that but I don't think that this is what's actually in his contract. I mean he hasn't written a scene yet. He gave the interview but what, he cannot change his mind now? That's messed up, considering he is a writer. He shouldn't have his freedom of choice what to do with HIS character limited because these...people chose to show something he hasn't written about yet. I don't think you can actually, legally put a clause like that in the contract |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 6:10:08 GMT
Yeah I get that but I don't think that this is what's actually in his contract. I mean he hasn't written a scene yet. He gave the interview but what, he cannot change his mind now? That's messed up, considering he is a writer. He shouldn't have his freedom of choice what to do with HIS character limited because these...people chose to show something he hasn't written about yet. I don't think you can actually, legally put a clause like that in the contract It's not so much that has to write everything exactly like he told D and D, it's just that he's obligated to tell them the story beats as he's planned them. In theory he could go back on something he related to them previously in earnest and alter it for whatever reason but GrrM's actually said that the show airing events before they're published will not inspire him to alter them in print. While he makes up a lot of details and aspects of the story as he goes (IIRC he compares his writing style to tending to a garden rather than building from a blueprint), there are certain story points that he's built towards for more than twenty years that he's said he'll keep in tact, even if we learn of them first through TV. Given that Shireen's burning is hinted at as early as ACOK's prologue, I'm sure that's one of them. Also since he referred to it as a scene he has yet to write instead of saying something vaguer on the subject, I'd say he's conceding that it's his plot point, however different the lead-up to it in TWOW might be. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 11, 2015 6:22:00 GMT
Yeah I get that but I don't think that this is what's actually in his contract. I mean he hasn't written a scene yet. He gave the interview but what, he cannot change his mind now? That's messed up, considering he is a writer. He shouldn't have his freedom of choice what to do with HIS character limited because these...people chose to show something he hasn't written about yet. I don't think you can actually, legally put a clause like that in the contract It's not so much that has to write everything exactly like he told D and D, it's just that he's obligated to tell them the story beats as he's planned them. In theory he could go back on something he related to them previously in earnest and alter it for whatever reason but GrrM's actually said that the show airing events before they're published will not inspire him to alter them in print. While he makes up a lot of details and aspects of the story as he goes (IIRC he compares his writing style to tending to a garden rather than building from a blueprint), there are certain story points that he's built towards for more than twenty years that he's said he'll keep in tact, even if we learn of them first through TV. Given that Shireen's burning is hinted at as early as ACOK's prologue, I'm sure that's one of them. Also since he referred to it as a scene he has yet to write instead of saying something vaguer on the subject, I'd say he's conceding that it's his plot point, however different the lead-up to it in TWOW might be. But the show is already influencing what he does - he said he recently came up with the twist he hadn't thought before that has to do with the arc cut from the show. Plus he is distancing himself from the show very clearly - he even said he is not responsible for what D&D say and do, he is only responsible for what HE writes |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 6:33:46 GMT
But the show is already influencing what he does - he said he recently came up with the twist he hadn't thought before that has to do with the arc cut from the show. Plus he is distancing himself from the show very clearly - he even said he is not responsible for what D&D say and do, he is only responsible for what HE writes He's always maintained that the two have separate canons and he's always been coy in his statements about this sort of thing. Other than not writing episodes for them anymore (because that takes him SIX WEEKS!!!!!!! of TWOW time), I don't see him being much more distant from D and D and Cogman than previously. He still meets with them when they're mapping out the season and gives his input, he still goes to the premieres and goes to show events and schmoozes with the cast and HBO execs and airs episodes in his theatre... So I wouldn't say this is getting anywhere near to being comparable to Alan Moore's reaction to his adaptations or Stephen King's to the Shining. GrrM understands the medium and isn't prickly about it.
EDIT: Also I think GrrM actually might've been referring to Linda's shitfit rather than D and D in the Inside the Episode when he said he can't control what other people say.
|
|
