Buffy, Writing, and Feast of Crows (methinks I'm in danger of becoming a GRR Martin Fan)

[shadowkat]

1. So, I went to the "writer's meetup" group in my area. Like 90% of these things, ten people RSVP'd with two on the waiting list, with only three people plus the organizer showing up. The organizer doesn't really count for two reasons - 1) we were at his house, so he sort of had to show up, and 2) he's the organizer - you'd hope he'd show up to his own event (although they don't always...bizarre I know, but there it is.)

It was interesting, but...sigh...I don't know if this is going to work out. Granted it's only the second meeting. Eh, best to show you -

Organizer: There hasn't been anything interesting done with vampires...outside of maybe Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire and True Blood - with vampires coming out of the closet.
Me (pondering for a minute then taking the plunge): True...although, the other innovative vampire tale was Buffy...the vampire slayer.
(Organizer and two other people at the table look at me..very oddly for the space of two minutes)
Me: That was admittedly 10 years ago.
Organizer: Actually 20 years ago...with the movie -
Me: well, I don't count the movie that was crap - it's the tv series,
Organizer: which was hardly innovative or brilliant - the idea existed in comic books, or was taken from them and it had been in comics for a very long time...
(Well, okay, don't ever mention that you are in the Buffy fandom or are a fan to this group of people...which may be hard to do, since it's sort of referenced in my novel. Although it's doubtful they'll notice it. I considered arguing, but why bother? The problem with Buffy, is basically the problem with most tv series - it's uneven. There are great episodes and horrible episodes. Even Breaking Bad and The Wire have this problem. It takes a while for the viewer to get hooked. I have to admit, I didn't get obsessed with Buffy right off the bat. I watched it intermittently in S1 and S2, it really wasn't until Spike and Dru popped up that I got somewhat intrigued, and when Angelus showed up that I got obsessed for a bit, then lost interest, then gained it again somewhere around S5. It was a weird series. And yes, it had comic booky/campy elements to it - which were bound to turn off people.)

Moving on to Shakespeare.

Me: Rafe Fiennes film Corianolous looks quite good.
Organizer: Shakespeare makes really bad movies, it's best for plays. Unless you have really good actors. (He went on to explain but lost me. Said something about how when Henry the V states the fields of France, this works in a play, but not on screen - because you just show the audience the fields of France - and film is a visual medium solely. I don't know...I've watched films that were mainly dialogue based and had little action or visuals...granted they tend to put me to sleep, but still. Also, I can think of a lot of great films made of Shakespearean plays. Actually I like the films better than some of the performances I've seen on stage. But generally, he's right. I didn't bother to argue.)

or...

H: Lost in Translation was the best film ever.
Me: Didn't like it. It's very atmospheric
Organizer: It's ...feminine. Not masculain, nothing happens.
H: Why didn't you like it - I can guess -
Me: I kept falling asleep during it -
Organizer: Like I said nothing happens...
Me: Well, stuff does happen, it just..it's a princess story and I don't tend to like princess stories.
Organizer: You wouldn't like Soffia Coppola then, she wrote it as autobiographical.
Me: No, most likely not. Don't like her films.Although it may be a mood thing...
Organizer: You along with most theatergoers..
(Well that's actually good to know.)

Although, must admit it was fun to gossip about film and theater. Learned all sorts of gossipy tid-bits. And insider stuff. The culture geek inside me was in heaven.
There's nothing I enjoy more than talking about books, tv shows, films and theater.
Organizer is a television writer/screenwriter/playwrite who used to intern for Francis Ford Coppola, and went to NYU, before moving to LA, buying a theater, and directing a slew of plays. He also worked for the New York Public Theater.

And it could be a useful group for my book. They might be able to help me figure out what to remove and what to keep - which is currently my problem. That and an inability to write creatively because I don't trust my muse right now. The internet has put distance between us. The Organizer tells me I need to stay away from discussion forums, he's probably right.

Social marketing killed the writer.

2. Enjoying Feast of Crows - it's a bit like reading an analogy of interconnected short stories. You get slices of these people's lives, and how they interconnect with each other. Also lots of stories within stories. Some horrific, and some touching. In some respects it reminds me of Stephen King's The Stand, except far better written and less grating in places. King's The Stand - had a sexist overtone to it, which admittedly was so 1980s.

I've changed my mind about Cersei.

Whose actions are beginning to make a lot more sense to me now. Maybe because I'm more detached? Or Lena Headley's performance in the tv series has somehow seeped into the novels? I don't know. But I can see that everything she's done has been for her children and to fight this inertia or feeling of powerlessness over her own life. The man she loved, her other half, her soul-mate, she can't have and is told repeatedly to want him or have him is a sin against nature. So she's doomed from the beginning. Add to this - a father who is treating her like little more than a brood mare or chess piece, which admittedly is how he treats all his children and how he in turn was treated. Within the context of the story - Cersei's action make sense. It's tempting to impose our own morality on these characters...but I often wonder if that isn't just a tad self-righteous?

I've always wondered this. I wondered it when I was working as a defense attorney...what right do I have to judge someone else's decisions and actions? I do not know what I would have done in their place. People claim they do, but they aren't thinking it through...they are thinking what they'd do if well they had their upbringing, their DNA, their parents, their privileges...etc and just well had those same things happen to them but as themselves. (Ghod, I hope that sentence made sense. Assuming anyone read it. Hard to tell, unless someone responds.) But what would you do if you were really that person? Had that person's parents? Had their body? Had their options and challenges?

The wonderful thing about stories like Feast of Crows is it puts us inside another's head. We are given the opportunity to see the world through another pair of eyes, that is assuming of course we can divorce ourselves and our own ego long enough to do it - to actually see what they see. I don't mean become them, just..observe..without judgement. Which I think is REALLY hard to do. Some people can't do it at all. I couldn't last November, in 2011. Which is why I stopped reading the book for a bit and read other books instead. Now, a year later, I'm in the right head-space to do it. At any rate, I find myself less emotionally attached to certain threads, more impartial, and as a result less judgmental and more able to appreciate all the individual threads and see how they tie together and what the author is doing.

Seeing a story through an emotional lense is rewarding, true, but it can also be crippling. You lose half the story. Equally true, that you lose half if you only see it through a logical detached lense. The trick is both. I think I have both now. I feel for Cersei, Sam, Cat of Nine Tales, Jamie, Victorian...and I see the irony of their actions, because I know more than they do. I see the tapestery that they are mere threads in.
I see where their actions lead. I know for example that Cersei does care for Jamie and what she wants from him and why she's so frustrated with him and why she's done certain things - things that make no sense to Jamie, who has lost all faith in her and believes she never loved him at all and only used him for her own needs. And I know how devoted Jamie was to Cersei and why he has abandoned her. But they don't know these things.
Same with Cat of Nine Tales....I know what lies behind her dreams.

I also can see where George RR Martin is heading now...where each character is going.
The connections. And how each action results in a reaction...or chain of actions. It's actually fairly well plotted all things considered. Far better in some respects than some others I've read, again King's novels come to mind, more so than Tolkien's. I see more similarities with Stephen King than Tolkien, stylistically speaking. And a few parallel's with Frank Herbet, who was equally mystical, although Martin's mysticism is a bit more grounded and far more satirical.

No, these books are meant to be savored, I think. Not sped through. Like a fine meal. Eat too fast...and you miss things, but they are also books you need to read in the right frame of mind. Or at least I do. Everyone is different after all. We don't live in a "one size fits all" world.

At any rate, I'm loving how each chapter ends with an epithany or reveal - which the reader realizes, but the character does not, because the character is too close to it, to see it.

Brienne...tells the Elder that she can't go home. The only thing she can give her family, herself, the only thing she has left is...her vows to Jamie and Catelynn...and her duty to follow through on them, no matter how impossible they may seem or futile. Even if she dies in the attempt.

Jamie...finds out from his Aunt that it's his brother, Tyrion, who was ironically Tywin's true son. She'd made the mistake of telling Tywin this and he didn't speak to her, too tied up in his ego, too foolish...to see what she saw - that power is not always physical.
The wit, the brain, the sharp clarity, and the ruthlessness...are all in Tyrion. And she fears him...because if he is like Tywin, they are doomed. And Tywin's twisted rotting smile has an eerie and ironic meaning. And I realized reading that passage what Martin was doing...Jamie and Tyrion are going in opposite directions in an odd way, Jamie towards redemption and Tyrion towards doom. Or perhaps not. It's a chilling and haunting statement she makes...

Jamie: He had a son. (in regards to Tywin)
Genna: Yes, I know, that's what scares me. (and then she tells Jamie - that she loves him, he reminds her of the best in all her other brothers, Tyg's fighting, Gerion's smile, and
Kevan's loyalty, but Tyrion is Tywin's son.)

She's right. If you think on it. And it makes sense Tyrion killed Tywin. To become him.
He may well be headed to be Dany's Hand, as Tywin was once upon a time Aegon's.

George RR Martin has managed to charm me with his blog, his interviews, and his writing.
Oh dear, am I in danger of becoming fannish? I hope not, he writes very slow. And has the annoying habit of doing other things that are unrelated to Game of Thrones. His fans often want to tie him to a chair and make him finish his Song of Ice and Fire, before he commits to anything else. It's hard thing to be a fan of a story that has yet to be finished and is only half-way through in the telling. Much easier to be one of a story that has been completed and already committed to paper and long published.

Comments

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Somewhat tangential to your post, but I thought you'd be interested that a certain nameless Buffy reviewer yesterday made exactly the same point you made last week or so about the focus in the show on the rapist rather than the victim.

I consider myself reasonably well-read when it comes to BtVS, but you were the first person I ever saw make that point. It's remarkable (that's a euphemism) that a notoriously un-analytical reviewer just happened to say the same thing shortly after you did.

I didn't like FofC on my first read. Got bored. It holds up better the second time through, but I still think he needs an editor. Lots of good stuff in there, but it's buried somewhat.

Eh...you are giving us far too much credit

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I consider myself reasonably well-read when it comes to BtVS, but you were the first person I ever saw make that point.

Thank you. But...I think you are giving me way too much credit.

And you have missed a lot of kerfuffles and heated debates on the AR scene apparently. Lucky you. ;-)

It's remarkable (that's a euphemism) that a notoriously un-analytical reviewer just happened to say the same thing shortly after you did.

Not really. You are giving us both far too much credit. ;-) (Besides, I don't believe for a minute the reviewer in question came up with it on his own...)

I've since come to the realization that this specific reading, while interesting on its face, is an emotional and somewhat myopic reading - the viewer is reacting in righteous outrage to something they saw on screen. And as a result isn't able to look deeper.

If you look deeper..you'll notice a few things, but this requires analytical reasoning skills and the ability to divorce emotion. To think logically and with your head not your gut.

First, Spike didn't rape her, nor did he even intend to do it. (Remember we had this discussion at the time on the ATPO Board?) He lost control. If he'd intended to rape her - he'd have done it. There was no weapon in the room and no way she could have stopped him, if that was his intent. She was able to stop him because he wasn't aware that's what he was doing - that he was hurting her, she made him aware and he stopped. If you react emotionally to that scene, you don't see that. You don't see the terror on his face, how broken he is when he leaves. The fact that he doesn't attack her again. And you don't remember that it's really no different than all the other times he attacked her - in an attempt to bite her. In some respects Hyena!Xander's attempt was worse - because if she had not knocked Hyena!Xander out with a desk - he'd have kept trying until he did rape her. Just like - if her Mom hadn't cold-cocked Spike in School Hard - he'd have metaphorically speaking raped her. (But people don't see that - because of how they filmed each of these scenes. The filming of the AR scene is more graphic and less campy than the other scenes. Flip the filming, say AR was filmed in the more campy manner similar to Hyena!Xander or SchoolHard!Spike and you'd most likely react differently to what aired. It's a more adult take on the concept, and more painful.)

TBC...because I'm too wordy

Re: Eh...you are giving us far too much credit

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The AR scene is about breakage of trust. In that scene, Buffy explains to Spike that she can't love him because she can't trust him. Note, he doesn't try to convince her that she can trust him, he knows why she can't and doesn't disagree, what he tries to do is convince her that trust isn't important - it's what they feel that counts. Which is a reflection of Buffy and Angel - who did not work, because she could never trust him. And he clearly did not trust her. Same deal with Buffy and Riley, who did not work due to trust issues. Buffy? Gets it. But Spike, the love sick arrested adolescent does not. His actions prove it, she is able to use his attack as an example of why she can't trust him. It's ironic, because his intent was to show her that the physical chemistry between them, the rough sex, the sex itself takes precedence,if he could just make her understand, but she demonstrates that can't work like that, he can't make her be with him or understand.

A lot of reviewers don't see that. What they see is how they filmed it. They get caught up in the emotion.
The art direction, acting and filming fools these viewers. A critical and analytical viewer can see the rest. They can also see how it relates to Buffy and her journey. They can see the parallels between Spike getting a soul and Buffy crawling out of her grave. But someone who is reacting to the text emotionally or myopically - doesn't see those things, and as a result misses 90% of the story. And while they can be interesting to read from an emotional perspective, they really aren't providing anything new to the discussion.

My difficulty with pure emotional reviews, my own and others, is you lose the meaning of the text. And what the writer is attempting to communicate. It also becomes impossible to discuss the story - because you spend all your time tip-toeing around the emotional minefield the reviewer has set up. Only people who agree with the reviewer's emotional mind-set can discuss it. Everyone else...will get attacked and booted. Meanwhile the reviewer, in his or her self-righteous indignation looks like the wronged and righteous party.
But only their pov is seen.

For a really good and fairly innovative as well as recent analysis of S7 by someone who appreciated the Season, go here:


http://beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com/186180.html

You're probably giving yourself too little credit

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I'm sure somebody made the point about the focus on Spike in and after SR. What you pointed out to me, and what I hadn't noticed before, was that this was true in the other cases as well (The Pack and Consequences). Maybe you've seen it before, but I haven't. I just thought it odd that Mr. Unanalytical made that exact point shortly after you did.

Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think he may have made it before or at the same time. Not certain.
Doesn't matter.

KDS made the point long before either of us. And I know from reading a past post from MW that someone else on his blog made that point, and made it more than once - so neither of us got there on our own. I picked up on it from KDS, actually. He also made it about Dollhouse and Firefly and the comics. MW picked up on it from his fanboys and girls. We both had to be hammered over the head with it though...it's not something one necessarily wants to see. Because makes it hard to like the writer afterwards.

That said? After reading beer-good-foamy's essay, I've changed my mind regarding it. I think I understand what Whedon was doing now. Whedon was doing a sort of meta-fiction (much like he does in Cabin in the Woods) about the female protagonist caught inside the male narrative structure and how she works to subvert it. The male narrator will focus on the rapist's redemption story...he wants to redeem himself or punish himself - get staked. But Buffy, Echo, and River all question it and work to subvert that. So on its face - it looks like that's what the story is, but dig deeper, look at the structure, and you can see the writer critiquing and subverting it through the actions of his characters. Buffy is caught inside the male horror dream of what vampires and vampire slayers are and fighting her way out.

Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Well, ok, I take back all the credit I gave you. :)

Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. Yes, KDS deserved it.

As long as you take back the credit you gave MW, we're square. ;D.

Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Can there be negative credit?

Re: You're probably giving yourself too little credit

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes. ;-)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I don't know that Tyrion is doomed. He went to a very dark place, but I think his taking charge of a couple of broken things is helping him work through some of it. Of those thoughts fall under spoilers.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm admittedly only in book 4, so will have to see what happens...Book 4 is all doom and gloom. But yet, compelling.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Tyrion has Hand written all over him.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. He's make a brilliant Hand and Sam would make a brilliant Maester.
I miss Tyrion, can't wait for book 4. Starting to miss Dany, Tyrion and Jon Snow (which surprises me, but I'd begun to like him quite a bit in Book 3).

[reginaspina.livejournal.com]

Soooo many things to say ...

First of all, Kate Atkinson, who's a really great writer, is a huge "Buffy" fan and references it frequently in her novels. So your writers' workshop people are just being snobs!

Secondly, "Coriolanus" was brilliant (have you seen it?) I don't always like "modernized" Shakespeare (I saw a "Macbeth" with Patrick Stewart in which they pushed the Stalin=Macbeth angle waaaay to hard and I totally disagree with that interpretation of the play) but it really WORKED in this context and filming it in Serbia was a brilliant idea.

Thirdly, I love Aunt Genna and also Jaime's cousin Daven (whom you have met at this point.) I enjoyed meeting more Lannisters than just the "core four" whom we'd known up to this point, and realizing that, like all the other families they have their good eggs and their really, really rotten eggs. (And finally, regarding Tywin's smile, there's some thought that he had been poisoned prior to Tyrion shooting him, but ... I think that might just be a way to let Tyrion off the hook for kinslaying. See also: bizarre theories that Tyrion is Aerys Targaryen's son so he didn't really kill his father. And there are also very literalist readers who think Genna was telling Jaime that he wasn't PHYSICALLY Tywin's son and that *he* and Cersei are Aerys's children. Don't join this fandom, or you will be inundated with crackpot theories :D)

I do think Lena Headey's performance as Cersei, as well as the fact that they are bringing stuff into the tv show from the later books because of not having the POV structure of the books, is contributing to my increasing liking of Cersei as a character. There are a lot of ways in which I feel sorry for her (Joffrey was a little shit, but he was her baby, and watching him die must have been horrific!!) but then I remember things like how she ordered Robert's bastards to be murdered (which they changed on the TV show so the order came from Joffrey!) and I don't like her as a person so much!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So your writers' workshop people are just being snobs!

Which could be a problem. NY Literary snobs...sigh. So tired of them. ;-)

"Coriolanus" was brilliant (have you seen it?)

Not yet. On my to rent list. Want to. Has a cast to die for, plus Fiennes directing.

I don't always like "modernized" Shakespeare

I don't either - although I did like Ian McKellan's version of Richard the III as a fascist dictator. And Richard Burton's stage/radio play version (I heard it on tape in English class way back in the 80s) of MacBeth as a Gangster.

I've decided Vince Gilligan's Breaking Bad is a modern day retelling of MacBeth as a drug dealer...has some serious parallels. Especially with Skylar/Walt (LAdy MacBeth/MacBeth). But my memory of the play is admittedly vague in places...been too long.

TBC

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I love Aunt Genna and also Jaime's cousin Daven

So do I. Wonderful characters. Daven reminds me a little of Bronn, actually. He's hilarious. Actually the Genna scene made me realize the TV series has confused me on what actually happened to Cleos. Jamie lies about how he died, but I know Jamie didn't kill him in the book - he just couldn't save him. How are they going to do this scene in the tv series? Assuming they do it at all (damn it - I want to see it). I suppose they could play it the same way, he lies to them in either case.

And finally, regarding Tywin's smile, there's some thought that he had been poisoned prior to Tyrion shooting him, but ... I think that might just be a way to let Tyrion off the hook for kinslaying.

Huh? Where's that in the text? I don't remember seeing that at all. IT's not in Feast. Also who would do it? And even if they did - it doesn't get Tyrion off the hook - because Tyrion intended to kill Tywin, he didn't know about it. (We saw it through Tyrion's point of view.) I guess you could argue that Shae would do it - but that just makes Tyrion's killing of Shae (which was far more horrifying in my opinion) even more painful.

So he killed Tywin? It's not like Tywin didn't have it coming...People do horrible things in these books. (Remind me to avoid the fandom?)

bizarre theories that Tyrion is Aerys Targaryen's son so he didn't really kill his father. And there are also very literalist readers who think Genna was telling Jaime that he wasn't PHYSICALLY Tywin's son and that *he* and Cersei are Aerys's children.

Oh dear. Some people really did not learn good reading comprehension skills in school, did they?

I thought Genna's meaning was fairly obvious from the context. But just in case it's not? Martin goes out of his way to set it up with a back-story, where Tywin, a young defenseless boy, at the age of ten, stands up to an entire room filled with adults and tells them off - defending his sister's honor, and leaves them quaking in their boots and ashamed. That's soo..Tyrion.

Genna: You're nice Jamie, I love you, you have Gerion's smile, Tyg's fighting prowess, and some of Kevan in you. But Tyrion was Tywin's son.

Similar to "He's his father's son" or "You are your mother's daughter."

It's who you are the most like in temperament. Why can't people figure that out? Although to be fair, I'm not sure Tywin quite understood her meaning either - since he took it as an insult. He was fooled by packaging and did not look beneath the surface.

Don't join this fandom, or you will be inundated with crackpot theories :D)

You aren't kidding. As if the plot wasn't complicated and convoluted enough as it is.

Apparently a portion of the fandom has decided to tell their own story and ignore the parts of Martin's they don't like or don't find interesting? They are going to be disappointed. I see this happen a great deal with tv shows, not so often with books. TV shows are admittedly easier to do it with.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

here are a lot of ways in which I feel sorry for her (Joffrey was a little shit, but he was her baby, and watching him die must have been horrific!!) but then I remember things like how she ordered Robert's bastards to be murdered (which they changed on the TV show so the order came from Joffrey!) and I don't like her as a person so much!

I admittedly could no longer remember if Cersei ordered it or Joffrey.
The tv series gives Joffrey a lot more power than the books did, which is interesting. Not quite sure why they made that decision. Maybe to make Cersei more likable? While they are doing the opposite with Jamie and having him almost be more brutal than he was in the books - breaking Cleos neck? Seriously? Interesting choices.

I wouldn't exactly say I like Cersei nor do I see her as necessarily redeemable. But at least she's beginning to make sense now or rather I understand her actions. So much of it is due to how her father raised her, the repeated abuses of her husband who treated her like an undesirable object or brood mare, and her desire for things she can't have. Here's a woman who had power stripped from her at an early age and has spent her life trying to take it back. While it certainly doesn't justify her actions, after all other characters had far worse scenarios and have not resorted to what she did, it does however explain them and makes her interesting as a result.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

I don't find Cersei the most sympathetic of characters, but I do understand where she's coming from: her whole life is based on the idea that if only she'd been born a man, she could have the political power and control she so desperately wants. Instead, she's treated as property and as a brood mare, as you say. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Cersei *thinks* she's a lot better at politics than she actually is, which Feast finally shows us now that Joffrey is out of the way.

It's really Tyrion's situation in reverse. Tyrion was making solid political decisions that genuinely saved King's Landing, not just from Stannis, but from devolving into open rebellion or worse from hunger and fear. But because Tyrion is Tyrion, they saw him as plotting and scheming for his own gain and didn't realize how helpful he was. Cersei is convinced that she is making brilliant political maneuvers and ruling better than any of the men, but an outside eye can see that this is not really the case. A few people even try to gently point this out to her... but Cersei just brushes them off as being intimidated by a strong woman or not appreciating her intellect.

Now that I think of it, there's a similar parallel to Jon Snow and his leadership, but that doesn't come up until DWD, which I don't remember all that well myself, so I won't go into any detail.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Would agree...there's a definite parallel between Cersei and Tyrion. And you're right her biggest failing is her considerable ego and arrogance. She's convinced she knows what she is doing. Genna sort of points that out in her conversation with Jamie, stating unlike Cersei, she knows how to stay out of things she isn't knowledgable in - such as fighting a war. She acknowledges that Jamie knows more about fighting a war than she does.

Tyrion had issues with ego too, but he had great deal more humility. He is also, as Jamie remembers, more educated. Tyrion read. Tyrion knew and remembered his history. Martin makes a point about how forgetting or misinterpreting history dooms one to repeat histories mistakes. Cersei repeats the mistake of allowing the religious sect to arm themselves and fight - thinking, understandably so, that they will go after the religious sect that they don't agree with. And leave her alone. She's convinced that all she's doing is sending a missal in Stannis' direction. What she doesn't see is that this missal could turn around and bite her in the butt. Because, a) she's forgotten or most likely never learned her history, and b) she can't see the forest for the trees - she's so focused on maintaining her own power and her own vengeance, that she doesn't see the big picture. Tyrion did - but Tyrion also listened to people around him. Cersei doesn't listen, she believes people are either fools or against her.

I think she's losing her mind, slowly bit by bit. In some respects she reminds me a little of Joffrey and Aerys in her insanity. She's megalomanic, egotistical, and vindicative, as well as paranoid.

[reginaspina.livejournal.com]

Not quite sure why they made that decision. Maybe to make Cersei more likable? While they are doing the opposite with Jamie and having him almost be more brutal than he was in the books - breaking Cleos neck? Seriously? Interesting choices.

Yes, it's definitely Cersei's orders in the books - Joffrey doesn't know anything about the bastards, actually. (And there's mention of her "dealing" with some of Robert's bastards at Casterly Rock while Robert was still alive, so she has a history of doing that stuff!) I do think that the show makes Tywin and Cersei more likable and Jaime and Joffrey even less likable than they are in the books at this stage. I think the TV show also has made Tyrion less dark than he is in the books to date.

I agree that Cersei's actions are definitely more understandable; I find her an absolutely fascinating character, and I think she's warped by the society she lives in (there are a lot of parallels between her and Sansa Stark, actually, that I find explain some of her attitudes towards Sansa which waver between hatred of Sansa's naivete and a sort of pitying desire to educate her.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree on all of the above. I'm wondering about the writers of the tv series..very odd decisions. Possibly they like certain characters more than others? Or maybe they want Jamie's arc to be more drastic? I like Martin's writing of it better - it's more realistic and gradual. I was thrown out of the story when Jamie broke Cleos neck - it came out of nowhere - and he's bright enough to know he wouldn't have been able to escape. The writing for the tv series has admittedly been uneven, it's nowhere near as good as either The Wire or Breaking Bad - you were absolutely right about that. (I have not seen Rome or Deadwood...so can't comment on those.)

Agree about Cersei. As I was telling flameraven...I think she's losing her mind by degrees in the book. And she does remind me a lot of Sansa Stark.
Those two characters are paralleled a great deal (as are Ayra and Asha (Arrya (sp?) - the Ironborn Princess). People have mentioned that she's stupid, but I think more misguided or misinformed or out of her depth. She's never really had any training, Robert and her father treated her like little more than a brood mare. Which is why it makes sense that she would want to kill Robert's bastards, she doesn't want any of Robert's children or issue to live and challenge her children's right to the throne. Note she sees her kids as hers solely. She is a mother lioness. Any threat to her children's power or her own, she takes out without any thought whatsoever. Her father sort of beat that ruthlessness into her. As did Robert (who I'm really starting to despise along with poor clueless Ned Stark who enabled him.).

My current theory is that Ned Stark's sister was in love with Prince Rheagar but promised to Robert, who she did not love or want. And ran off with Rhegar. Robert was an ass all around. This works, because Cersei was initially promised to Rheagar...(sorry can't remember the spellings to save my life). So Robert and Cersei weren't wanted by their intendeds. Rheagar and Stark's Sister were a love match and we don't have love matches in this world - people are bartered like property. Matches are made for power not love. And because of that - we end up with war and hell.

It's certainly a pattern that is emerging in the books. Jamie wants only Cersei but both are promised to people they don't want. Genna is in a loveless marriage. Lysa loves Little Finger but is forced to marry John Arryan who she despises. Little Finger was in love with Catelyn. Ned Stark in love with another woman (who he allegedly had Jon Snow by, although I think you may be right and Jon is the sister and Rhaegar's kid).

[sophist.livejournal.com]

QOT gave you some fan theories for things which haven't happened yet, I think, from your perspective. I'll explain them if you want; otherwise bring it up again when you get there and she or I can fill you in.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, no, spoilers please.

This is the problem with discussing GoT online or ASoIAF - there are various degrees of spoilage. You have the experts - who have read the entire series and watched the tv series a hundred times, you have the novices who only watched the tv series, you have the people who know nothing, you have the people who only read the books, you got people who read the first book and nothing past...etc.

I'm one of the people who read the first two books in 2005. The third book in 2010. Watched the series. And am now reading the fourth book, 70% of the way through. I've forgotten a good portion of the first three books. You do. Unless you re-read them. I haven't really, I've read sections more than once...but that's about it.

[reginaspina.livejournal.com]

Don't worry - I haven't read past Feast and I haven't read any theories from people past that point either :D None of the crackpot theories I posited are from people who read more than what you and I have done! I have read the books multiple times (1-3 that is, I've only read Feast twice!) and just finished a reread of the first three books about a month ago, so the details are VERY fresh in mind.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So, I'm not wrong in thinking these theories are insane troll logic (no offense to people who are mentally ill) and have no grounding in logic?
Was a little worried for a bit there.

Thank you!

[reginaspina.livejournal.com]

QOT gave you some fan theories for things which haven't happened yet, I think, from your perspective.

No, I haven't done that! I haven't read past Feast so I don't know any fan theories past the point where shadowkat67 has read - all the theories were ones that I read after Storm of Swords.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh, so we are more or less on the same page? Cool!

And they came up with those theories after Storm of Swords??? LOL!

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Ok, good. My bad for suggesting otherwise.

[reginaspina.livejournal.com]

Jamie lies about how he died, but I know Jamie didn't kill him in the book - he just couldn't save him. How are they going to do this scene in the tv series? Assuming they do it at all (damn it - I want to see it). I suppose they could play it the same way, he lies to them in either case.


No, they're not going to do it the same way. Cleos is with Jaime and Brienne when they find the bodies of the "Lay with Lions" women and he dies later on before Jaime and Brienne are captured by the Brave Companions. He conks his head on a rock, basically, after falling off his horse. So it's not the brave death that Jaime provides him for Genna's sake!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So do you think they will do the Genna/Jamie scene (assuming the series lasts that long) or do you think they'll skip it entirely and just bring some of the info forward in another way?

And if they do it - will they just have Jamie lie again to provide Cleos with a brave death? Or have him tell the truth?

Okay, now, I have serious issues with how the writers are presenting Jamie's arc on the series. They've made the character darker than he is. Book!Jamie would not have killed Cleos to escape - book!Jamie had more honor than that - family was important to him. I think these writers may be interpreting Book!Jamie very differently than we are - which could be problematic in regards to S3. If they skimp on my three favorite Jamie bits or worse skip them entirely, I will be very annoyed. (The bear scene with Brienne, Jamie losing his hand, and the tub sequence where he explains his sins to Brienne.)