Game of Thrones - Prince of Winterfell...
May. 21st, 2012 11:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatRather enjoying Game of Thrones this year, actually like it even better this year than last, and like it better than the books...which were incredibly grim and long-winded.
That said? I am wondering how the writers plan on resolving the two murder mysteries, considering they kicked out half the information on both that Jamie provides in his long wandering conversation with Catelynne. There's no way someone who hasn't read the books can begin to figure these out...not that it matters.
Anywho for those that are curious?
The key bit there is Robert Barreathon had the dagger in his possession but was always drunk. And people believed it to be Tyrion's.
My favorite bit is this...
In some respects I like how last week's episode handled that speech better...with "So many vows...Respect the King. Obey your father. But what if your father despises the king and your King wants to kill your father? Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. What if the king is mad and wants to burn the innocent..."
This week's episode moved things forward. It was interesting though.
* Rob is playing with fire. He's fallen in love and to the heck with the Frey's and the promise to win a bridge in order to save a doomed father.
* I loved the scene between Arrya and Theon...where she attempts to convince him to come back with her. And before when she tells him his actions in killing the two boys was beyond foolish. Maester Lluwlynn (I can't spell it) realizes Theon killed the farmer's boys because he could not find Bran and Rickon. In some respects that is even worse - the taking of innocent lives to protect his reputation....and not look a fool.
Arrya: You are of my blood Theon. We loved the same mother and endured our father.
Come back with me.
* And Brienne has her hands full with Jamie. They've cast Brienne brilliantly - she is much larger than Jamie and more manly in some respects. The female casting in this show is amazing. So many great female roles. Martin does write great female characters, in some respects the female characters are more interesting than the male.
* I know I shouldn't say this...but my favorite characters continue to be the Lannister's specifically Tyrion, Tywin and Jamie...also I rather like Lena Hedley's Cersei. My other favorites are Ayra, Ayrra, Dany, Jorah, Igritte, and Tailassa (Rob's love interest - I like her a great deal, him not so much).
* I like how this show uses stories to propel the action...Stannis' story about how Davos got his name the Onion King and why Stannis trusts Davos with his life - the crabber who slipped through the barricades and brought food to Stannis' starving army during the first war. It also explains Stannis' relationship with his brothers and resentment. Both left him to perish, along with his family, then afterwards, his brother, Robert, gave the area he, Stannis, almost died to defend to Renly. Meanwhile Tailassa's tale win's Rob's heart,
and explains her dislike of lords/ladies, and kingdoms. Stories that propel the plot and reveal character. Stories within stories.
*The tv series cuts a lot of the extraneous detail from the books, which is a good thing since Martin over-writes. Also adds bits that Martin jumps over - romance isn't really Martin's thing apparently - since he jumps clean over the Robb/Tailassa romance, which annoyed me in the books. Hard to be invested in something that you never see. In addition, I don't remember the brother/sister bonding scene between Theon and Arrya in the book - although it might have been there.
Apparently the War on King's Landing is going to be the last two episodes of the series - it was the last chapter of the book so this works. I didn't find the war all that interesting. If I had to choose between reading a gruesome battle scene and an erotic sex scene? I'd pick the latter. Reading about people killing one another and/or watching it really doesn't do much for me - for some reason. Apparently I'm in the minority on this score? Granted sex scenes can be equally boring and offensive...but at least I get to be turned on or off as the case may be. Making death vs. affirming life. Hmm.
Okay now hidden at the bottom of this post is a bit about religion and politics.
While I definitely and vehementally disagree with the Catholic Church on all of this - I will state that the fight against contraception and abortion is consistent with the Church's somewhat black and white or childish stance on life above all things with no shades of grey. Say what you will about them, they are rather consistent on this: against the death penalty, contraception, abortion, euthansia (will except for extreme measures).
Then again...they do bend the rules a bit - while the church is against war, they do support the right to defend ourselves and soliders to kill in the line of duty (which is nice of them, considering hello, the Crusades - granted a VERY long time ago, but still).
But other than that? Points for consistency. From their point of view it's not a war on women, it's a war for life or the making of life. They see as sex as equaling procreation.
We see it a bit broader. Matter of perspective.
That said? I don't think the government should be forced to fund religious charitable organizations or educational organizations that violate legitimate health care issues. After all we force Christian Scientist organizations to provide immunizations and health care for their sick. (Christian Scientists - not all, but most, believe prayer cures all ills or something to that effect - it's complicated.). Contraceptives are used for other things besides birth control after all ( I know, I used them for other things). The church is being silly and needs to grow up and join the 21st Century. The Middle Ages ended over 2000 years ago, hello. And if memory serves they weren't that pleasant, plus kids died early, and we had a very small population - so the whole lets not use contraceptives bit made sense back then (not that we had invented contraceptives back then). Now, we have a huge population that is steadily growing, with poverty, high unemployment, etc...not to mention teen pregnancies (they did back then too, but keep in mind most people didn't live past the age of 30). This whole bit about contraceptives being against our religion bit makes the Catholic Church look like idiots and the American Government look even more idiotic. The World (well most of it at any rate) is mocking us.
That said? I am wondering how the writers plan on resolving the two murder mysteries, considering they kicked out half the information on both that Jamie provides in his long wandering conversation with Catelynne. There's no way someone who hasn't read the books can begin to figure these out...not that it matters.
Anywho for those that are curious?
Catelynn: The man who came to slit Bran's throat gave me these scares. You swear you had no part in sending him?
Jamie: On my honor as a Lannister.
Catelynn: Your honor as a Lannister is worth less than this." She kicked over the waste pail. Foul-smelling brown ooze crept across the floor of the cell, soaking into the straw.
Jaime Lannister back away from the spill as far as his chains would allow. "I may indeed have shit for honor, I won't deny it, but I have never yet hired to do my killing. Believe what you will, Lady Stark, but if I had wanted your Bran dead I would have slain him myself."
God's be merciful, he's telling the truth "If you did not send the killer, your sister did.."
"If so, I'd know. Cersei keeps no secrets from me."
"Then it was the Imp."
"Tyrion is as innocent as your Bran. He wasn't climbing around outside of anyone's window, spying."
"Then why did the assassin have his dagger?"
"What dagger was this?"
"It was so long," she said, holding her hands apart, "plain, but finely made, with a blade of Valyerian steel and a dragonbone hilt. Your brother won it from Lord Baelish at the tourney on Prince Joffrey's name day."
.......
"Won it, you say? How?"
"Wagering on you when you tilted against the Knight of Flowers." Yet when she heard her own words Catelynn knew she had gotten it wrong. "No...was it the other way?"
"Tyrion always backed me in the lists," Jaime said, "but that day Ser Loras unhorsed me. A mischance, I took the boy too lightly, but no matter. Whatever my brother wagered, he lost...but that dagger did not change hands, I recall it now. Robert showed it to me the night at the feast. His Grace loved to salt my wounds, especially when drunk. And when was he not drunk?"
....
The key bit there is Robert Barreathon had the dagger in his possession but was always drunk. And people believed it to be Tyrion's.
My favorite bit is this...
Catelynn: How can you still count yourself a knight, when you have forsaken every vow you ever swore?
Jamie: So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other."
In some respects I like how last week's episode handled that speech better...with "So many vows...Respect the King. Obey your father. But what if your father despises the king and your King wants to kill your father? Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. What if the king is mad and wants to burn the innocent..."
This week's episode moved things forward. It was interesting though.
* Rob is playing with fire. He's fallen in love and to the heck with the Frey's and the promise to win a bridge in order to save a doomed father.
* I loved the scene between Arrya and Theon...where she attempts to convince him to come back with her. And before when she tells him his actions in killing the two boys was beyond foolish. Maester Lluwlynn (I can't spell it) realizes Theon killed the farmer's boys because he could not find Bran and Rickon. In some respects that is even worse - the taking of innocent lives to protect his reputation....and not look a fool.
Arrya: You are of my blood Theon. We loved the same mother and endured our father.
Come back with me.
* And Brienne has her hands full with Jamie. They've cast Brienne brilliantly - she is much larger than Jamie and more manly in some respects. The female casting in this show is amazing. So many great female roles. Martin does write great female characters, in some respects the female characters are more interesting than the male.
* I know I shouldn't say this...but my favorite characters continue to be the Lannister's specifically Tyrion, Tywin and Jamie...also I rather like Lena Hedley's Cersei. My other favorites are Ayra, Ayrra, Dany, Jorah, Igritte, and Tailassa (Rob's love interest - I like her a great deal, him not so much).
* I like how this show uses stories to propel the action...Stannis' story about how Davos got his name the Onion King and why Stannis trusts Davos with his life - the crabber who slipped through the barricades and brought food to Stannis' starving army during the first war. It also explains Stannis' relationship with his brothers and resentment. Both left him to perish, along with his family, then afterwards, his brother, Robert, gave the area he, Stannis, almost died to defend to Renly. Meanwhile Tailassa's tale win's Rob's heart,
and explains her dislike of lords/ladies, and kingdoms. Stories that propel the plot and reveal character. Stories within stories.
*The tv series cuts a lot of the extraneous detail from the books, which is a good thing since Martin over-writes. Also adds bits that Martin jumps over - romance isn't really Martin's thing apparently - since he jumps clean over the Robb/Tailassa romance, which annoyed me in the books. Hard to be invested in something that you never see. In addition, I don't remember the brother/sister bonding scene between Theon and Arrya in the book - although it might have been there.
Apparently the War on King's Landing is going to be the last two episodes of the series - it was the last chapter of the book so this works. I didn't find the war all that interesting. If I had to choose between reading a gruesome battle scene and an erotic sex scene? I'd pick the latter. Reading about people killing one another and/or watching it really doesn't do much for me - for some reason. Apparently I'm in the minority on this score? Granted sex scenes can be equally boring and offensive...but at least I get to be turned on or off as the case may be. Making death vs. affirming life. Hmm.
Okay now hidden at the bottom of this post is a bit about religion and politics.
While I definitely and vehementally disagree with the Catholic Church on all of this - I will state that the fight against contraception and abortion is consistent with the Church's somewhat black and white or childish stance on life above all things with no shades of grey. Say what you will about them, they are rather consistent on this: against the death penalty, contraception, abortion, euthansia (will except for extreme measures).
Then again...they do bend the rules a bit - while the church is against war, they do support the right to defend ourselves and soliders to kill in the line of duty (which is nice of them, considering hello, the Crusades - granted a VERY long time ago, but still).
But other than that? Points for consistency. From their point of view it's not a war on women, it's a war for life or the making of life. They see as sex as equaling procreation.
We see it a bit broader. Matter of perspective.
That said? I don't think the government should be forced to fund religious charitable organizations or educational organizations that violate legitimate health care issues. After all we force Christian Scientist organizations to provide immunizations and health care for their sick. (Christian Scientists - not all, but most, believe prayer cures all ills or something to that effect - it's complicated.). Contraceptives are used for other things besides birth control after all ( I know, I used them for other things). The church is being silly and needs to grow up and join the 21st Century. The Middle Ages ended over 2000 years ago, hello. And if memory serves they weren't that pleasant, plus kids died early, and we had a very small population - so the whole lets not use contraceptives bit made sense back then (not that we had invented contraceptives back then). Now, we have a huge population that is steadily growing, with poverty, high unemployment, etc...not to mention teen pregnancies (they did back then too, but keep in mind most people didn't live past the age of 30). This whole bit about contraceptives being against our religion bit makes the Catholic Church look like idiots and the American Government look even more idiotic. The World (well most of it at any rate) is mocking us.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 08:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 09:13 pm (UTC)In the books - it mattered but in an odd way. The Bran attempted murder is resolved in Storm of Swords - in a pivotal conversation between two characters regarding an unrelated and well-deserving death that one of the two has been accused of. The reveal of "who" attempted to kill Bran to this character, who knows first hand the horrible chain of events that attempted murder pushed into motion - in some ways is the final straw for this pivotal character and is why he does what he does in later books. So it is important from that perspective. He does feel responsible for the murder, but not because he did it, but because of "who" did it. If that makes sense?
The reveal is also important from a thematic perspective. And a story arc perspective - in that the person who tried to kill Bran - pays for it more or less in kind. Actually Martin's world is very much "the punishment fits the crime". People tend to reap what they sow in these books in weird ways.
But I don't know if the tv series will go the same route. They've already changed a few things. Alton for example is not killed by Jamie in the books - he escapes with Jamie and Brienne and dies on the road.
That change is odd.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 10:13 am (UTC)That change is odd.
That change is odd. I do wonder at the reasoning for it, beyond not wanting the character cluttering up the Jaime/Brienne scenes.
Thanks for trying to warn me about the spoilers below. Unfortunately, though, I read that comment before yours. Oh well.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 09:14 pm (UTC)I'm behind on the show so I can't comment more about what they're doing. I am interested that they're bringing it in this early, since I know Jaime and Catelyn's conversation didn't happen until 'Storm of Swords' in the books.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 09:29 pm (UTC)Actually you're wrong on that point. I just copied the conversation word for word out of Clash of Kings - and it does happen exactly where it did in Clash.
What doesn't happen until SoS is Brienne and Jamie on the run. They brought that in a lot earlier. Clash of Kings - ends with Catelynne freeing Jamie or asking Brienne for her sword, we aren't told that she freed him until SoS. But their entire conversation is at the end of Clash. He doesn't talk to Catelynne ever again after that.
which was one of the two massive mistakes I count as starting the war for the throne.
You forgot Jon Arryan's murder - which Ned was so intent on solving, and the whole reason Ned investigated Robert's bastards. Except Jon wasn't killed by the Lannister's nor murdered for that reason, but a completely unrelated one. Ned and Catelynne made the HUGE mistake of trusting her sister Lyssa and her old friend Littlefinger - who basically set up the Lannister's to take the fall.
They played into Littlefinger's hands.
As far as I remember, in the book it was Joffrey who stole the dagger out of Robert's cart and then hired an assassin to go after Bran... I think mostly just to be a dick about it? I can't recall his actual reason or if he even had one. The assassination attempt was important in the first book because Catelyn became convinced the dagger was Tyrion's and that's why she captured him,
Towards the end of SoS - Jaime and Tyrion discuss it and it is revealed to Jaime that Joffrey did it and Jamie figures out why. He did it because Robert drunkenly stated at one point...that Bran would be better off dead than a cripple. And Joffrey did it to impress his father - everything Joffrey did was to get Robert's approval and attention. Robert created Joffrey through neglect. Jaime is struck by his own responsibility - his own neglect. And horrified. It is important because Tyrion throws it in Jamie's face and it changes Jamie's attitude towards his own family and his children. Very important to Jaimie's arc. Also important to Tyrion's.
What is ironic about it - is if the Stark's figured it out, they wouldn't have been able to do anything unless they proved Joffrey wasn't Robert's. And we'd end up in the same place. Also Robert did warn Ned about Joffrey -but Ned didn't listen. Stating that Joffrey scared him...and maybe he had done wrong by the boy. Joffrey is ironic - because Ned/Jamie and Robert fought to dethrone the mad and sadistic Tarragyn King, only to inadvertently bring into the world Joffrey who is no different and just as mad and sadistic. Violence = violence.
Very definite theme in the books.
So no, not irrelevant at all. But I'm not sure how it will play out in the tv series. They've already changed a few things - such as Jamie doesn't kill Alton in the books.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 10:30 pm (UTC)I am really curious to see what Littlefinger's eventual fate will be. The series does tend to punish people for their actions eventually, and Littlefinger has certainly orchestrated a lot of terrible things for the kingdom. I'll be interested to see if this eventually backfires on him (possibly through Sansa) or if he gets away in the end.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 10:51 pm (UTC)The details tend to be lost on me too. It's why I'm not involved in GoT fandom. Hee.
Agree on Littlefinger - curious to see what happens to him, but not quite curious enough to trudge through all the books...
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 10:28 pm (UTC)Then again it's highly suspect to me that they are squealing bloody murder about providing orthotricyclene to a woman who may have actual medical use for it such as endometriosis, but they WILL pay for little blue male boner pills.
Somehow that just seems WRONG.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 10:48 pm (UTC)Then again it's highly suspect to me that they are squealing bloody murder about providing orthotricyclene to a woman who may have actual medical use for it such as endometriosis, but they WILL pay for little blue male boner pills.
Exactly. I took ortho for acne and painful periods for years.
I fail to see what use viagra has outside of giving a guy a boner. Although, I guess you could argue that it is a fertility drug?
Complicating the Catholic thing still, is that THEY aren't required to provide this. Insurance companies are. And it's not an additional cost to the the religious institution.
This is what keeps confusing me. Why are they so hot and bothered about something they aren't required to pay for? I'm guessing it depends on the insurance plan? I remember working for an insurance company - and in some plans, the employer did have to pay a higher co-payment or deductible for plans that included electives such as birth control and viagra. But isn't that a health insurance company problem? (Health insurance companies are evil. I know, I worked for the biggest one in the country for a bit - Empire Blue Cross/Anthem/Wellchoice.)