Game of Thrones (spoiler-free zone)

[keg in kc]

A few have suggested it, might as well test the waters. The idea is to give people who haven't read the books a safe place to talk about the show.

A few quick ground rules:

• No Spoilers!!!!! for upcoming episodes.
• Larger Song of Ice and Fire discussion should be limited to the other thread although I think a tiny bit of book delving to fill in holes should be okay (example of this would be talking about Catelyn and her treatment of the wolves in the novel, which was alluded to on TV but never really made clear...)
• Everything that happened that week is fair game once an episode airs. So if you don't watch on Sunday night, I'd stay outta here until you do...

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I seriously am worried for the next two seasons and fear that this is going to come to a horribly unsatisfying conclusion.

And if they really killed off Jon Snow, fan and book backlash will grow especially if the next book GRR resurrects him.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by NewChief

Yes. The source material is THE problem, imo. I feel like a broken record, but GRRM is, ultimately, an author who writes "books with imaginary maps." Fantasy authors are so freaking obsessed with world/culture creation and all the cool stuff they think up that they forget to write a story. They'd rather spin off some excuse of a side plot that will allows them to get some crap like the Sand Snakes (and if you've read the book, it's even worse with the number of stupid, meaningless spinoffs he creates) because they're "cool."

When the story was character driven, it was interesting. It's become culture/world driven now, imo. It's just about him fleshing out the world in tedious detail. Robert Jordan did the same crap with the Wheel of Time.

I actually think the show writers have done an excellent job of winnowing down some of the freaking plotlines and condensing/combining others so that it makes a tighter, more coherent story.

rep

[RustShack]

The fire God lady resurrects Jon in the fire and we find out his mother was a Targaryen.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by NewChief

The Watch and their actions, while illogical, are a microcosm of what's going on in all of Westeros. People are concerned with their political bullshit when the real threat that could wipe them all out is marching on their asses.

I mean, all of Westeros is acting illogically and idiotically (and the books do a much better job of showing this) in that they are aware of reports from beyond the Wall that "Winter is Coming," but they aren't concerned with that. They're just worried about their own myopic political gains.

I feel like you didn't really understand what you read?

In the books:

A) The only person that has ever seen a White Walker is Sam. Even the wildlings admit to never having seen one. It's similar to your crazy cousin claiming to have killed Bigfoot.

B) Jon not only admits their sworn enemy to protect against Bigfoot, he then decides to abandon the wall to march the Night's Watch against Winterfell.

A mutiny was far from an illogical action.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Sandy Cheeks

I really couldn't say. As a non-book reader of GoT, I can see Alliser wanting to be top dog. I can understand the kid seeking only revenge on the Wildlings for his village being butchered by Wildings.. all the while not seeing the big picture of humans vs WW/undead.

That's about all I can appreciate about killing Jon.. from a non-book reader POV.

It's sad, because the best explanation for what they did in the show is "they're kind of dumb and didn't really think it through."

In the books, Jon's death is completely his own fault. He continually puts himself in worse and worse positions for the benefit of everyone else. All of his actions are set up to benefit everyone in the long run, at the expense of his own current position. He sends away Sam, Gilly, and Aemon to Oldtown. He sends Tormund and his other wildling supporters away to Hardhome. He decides to risk marching against a foe who threatens to destroy the Watch rather than "take no part".

In the end, it all got him killed.

[frankotank]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

The characters in the books actually have a reasonable motivation for killing Jon.

yes I've seen this comment in the the spoiler thread.
so basically from what I've read in these threads.....
they ****ed this all up. the books made it much more palatable in that they gave the reader good reason/reasons why this came to pass.

but the TV show ****ed it up.

so....I really want to know WHAT they ****ed up. would you please use a spoiler if need be and tell us why jons death/assasination makes so much more sense in the book than it does in the TV version?

EDIT - welp....looks like you already covered this in the post just before this one! hahaha. anything else?

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by frankotank

yes I've seen this comment in the the spoiler thread.
so basically from what I've read in these threads.....
they ****ed this all up. the books made it much more palatable in that they gave the reader good reason/reasons why this came to pass.

but the TV show ****ed it up.

so....I really want to know WHAT they ****ed up. would you please use a spoiler if need be and tell us why jons death/assasination makes so much more sense in the book than it does in the TV version?

EDIT - welp....looks like you already covered this in the post just before this one! hahaha. anything else?

Sorry, maybe it should have been a spoiler, but I figured none of that information will ever be in the show, since they decided to do it differently.

GRRM made Ned, Robb, and Jon all great leaders in some aspects, but their downfalls were all self-made through their individual weaknesses:

-Ned was blinded by his honor, refused to play the game.
-Robb was a great military tactician, but was hopeless in political scheming.
-Jon was completely focused on the long term enemy to the detriment of his immediate personal situation.

In the books, Jon's killers were pretty well justified. As far as they know, they were preventing the desertion of the wall, which was their protection from the wildlings.

In the show, they were just kind of stupid jerks who were mad at Jon. (Really, why did they let the wildlings through the wall if they were going to kill Jon for it the next day?)

[KevB]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Rational decision making isn't necessarily these mother****ers strong suit.

Exactly. More decisions are made on this show out of anger, passion and irrationality than the opposite. Let's not forget that many/most of the men on the wall got there as penance for being awful people to begin with. Add to that the men have likely all lost "brothers" and other family during their battles with the Wildlings, so there's a deep hate for them. Jon getting in bed with the Wildlings (literally and figuratively) appears to them to be an act of treason. They weren't there to see the White Walker army, so they don't necessarily understand the dire threat that army poses to The Wall and Westeros.

I hate that he was killed, because I thought they'd really set up his story to be interesting over the next couple of seasons. That setup seems to all have been for naught.

[allen_kcCard]

Originally Posted by RustShack

The fire God lady resurrects Jon in the fire and we find out his mother was a Targaryen.

Mother was a Stark you mean. Daddy was Targ...speculatively.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by allen_kcCard

Mother was a Stark you mean. Daddy was Targ...speculatively.

Stark kind of has to be the dad.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Stark kind of has to be the dad.

So... this brings up an interesting question about spoilers. There are a lot of theories out there that depend on evidence in the books, but they have not been explicitly spelled out in either the books or the show. However, a show watcher would not have any idea about such a theory, because the hints weren't present in the show at all.

Given that it affects future things in the story (both show and books), should those theories be discussed here?

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

So... this brings up an interesting question about spoilers. There are a lot of theories out there that depend on evidence in the books, but they have not been explicitly spelled out in either the books or the show. However, a show watcher would not have any idea about such a theory, because the hints weren't present in the show at all.

Given that it affects future things in the story (both show and books), should those theories be discussed here?

I'm for it if you throw it in a spoiler. I'd like to read it, but I'd probably drop it in a spoiler to be sure.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I'm for it if you throw it in a spoiler. I'd like to read it, but I'd probably drop it in a spoiler to be sure.

Ok:

Spoiler!

The theory is that Jon is not Ned's son. Jon is the son of Lyanna Stark (Ned's sister) and Rheagar Targaryen (Daenery's brother). Ned adopted him to protect him, because Robert was hellbent on killing off every Targaryen in the world.

Going off of what is in the books, it's about 99.99% likely to be true, and is basically universally accepted by book readers. There are actually a lot of things in the book that don't make sense if it's not true. I don't know that the show has really touched on it at all.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jon_Snow/Theories

[allen_kcCard]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I'm for it if you throw it in a spoiler. I'd like to read it, but I'd probably drop it in a spoiler to be sure.

Spoiler!

Sorry on my above post, I forgot we were in the spoiler-free thread. There is a large speculation on something hinted in the books...and in the show as far as I am concerned, that Ned is Jon's uncle, not father.

There are a lot of vague hints in the show, and it is pretty much the same in the book...but more detailed. Theory is that Ned's sister loved Rhaegar Targaryen and ran away with him and married, and Jon is their son. She died birthing Jon, and Ned was there and promised to take him as his own to protect her baby from King Robert. Rhaegar was already dead in the war at that time, and with her death, Robert would kill the baby because he would not accept that she didn't love him.

Some hints are how Rhaegar was described a good guy, not a kidnapping rapist. Ned mentioned making a promise I think...need to find details. All the vagueness about how Layana died, and how it didn't fit well that honorable Ned would cheat on Cat. And he was always quiet about who the mother would be.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Ok:

Spoiler!

The theory is that Jon is not Ned's son. Jon is the son of Lyanna Stark (Ned's sister) and Rheagar Targaryen (Daenery's brother). Ned adopted him to protect him, because Robert was hellbent on killing off every Targaryen in the world.

Going off of what is in the books, it's about 99.99% likely to be true, and is basically universally accepted by book readers. There are actually a lot of things in the book that don't make sense if it's not true. I don't know that the show has really touched on it at all.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jon_Snow/Theories

Spoiler!

Why doesn't he have Silver Hair?