Welcome to the Supreme Court of Westeros! Every week, three pressing
questions from the community will be answered by the esteemed judges
Stefan (from your very own Nerdstream Era) and Amin (from A Podcast of
Ice and Fire). The rules are simple: we take three questions, and one of
us writes a measured analysis. The other one writes a shorter opinion,
either concurring or dissenting. The catch is that every week a third
judge from the fandom will join us and also write a dissenting or
concurring opinion. So if you think you're up to the task - write us an
email to stefan_sasse@gmx.de, leave a comment in the post, ask in the APOIAF-forum or contact Amin at his tumblr.
Discussion is by no means limited to the court itself, though - feel
free to discuss our rulings in the commentary section and ask your own
questions through the channels above.
One word on spoilers: we assume that you read all the books, including
the Hedge Knight short stories, and watched the current TV episodes. We
don't include the spoiler chapters from various sources in the
discussion, with the notable exception of Theon I, which was supposed to
be in "A Dance with Dragons" anyway.
And now, up to ruling 22 of the Supreme Court of Westeros! Our guest judge this week is Katie, a member of the community.
George is apparently worried about certain characters, like Garlan and Willas, not appearing on the show, since they have roles to play. But wouldn't it be George's responsibility to tell D&D which characters to keep? George also trusts the readers to be patient in waiting for the next book, but doesn’t the trust have to be mutual, as in we’re trusting him to deliver within a reasonable amount of time?
Main Opinion: Amin
While George has told D&D a lot about the future of the major characters, he hasn’t discussed everything. Or he may not have discussed Garlan and Willas before that change was made. In any case, the writers are quite capable of writing around potential problems with minor characters, and this potential change could be satisfactorily written around, if necessary, by making them cousins or other relatives. While George has enormous input on the TV show, he will not and should not micromanage every character change or deviation. As for the suggested trust to deliver the books within a reasonable time: no, the trust is not mutual. George has no more of a requirement to get the books out within a certain time period than he does to accept fan input in deciding the fate of characters or the story arcs.
Concurring Opinion: Stefan
While Garlan and Willas may have a role to play, they can’t be important enough not to be able to be written around. Benioff and Weiss have proven to be very good at changing that stuff without changing the essence, and I have full trust in them. On the other question, George doesn’t “trust” us with anything. We simply have to wait until he finished. We have no entitlement to a book per two or three years. This is unfortunate, yes, and I also would like to read the damn thing already, but it can’t be helped.
Concurring Opinion: Katie
J.K. Rowling famously shared plot sensitive details about the end of Harry Potter with Alan Rickman, and successfully pushed for the inclusion of a character cut from the films. Authors do have some clout within adaptations of their work, but each production is different, and the inner workings of studios and networks are more complicated than what appears on a credit roll. George may have sway as a co-producer and creative consultant for Game of Thrones, but what gets translated from page to screen is on the heads of the show runners. Game of Thrones is an adaption first, and plot details will be cut to accommodate time and budget. There is no role too major that cannot (sometimes ham-handedly) be reassigned. As for George’s obligation to fans: there is no sacred trust between writers and readers. A book is not a service. We may feel devotion to A Song of Ice and Fire deserves repayment in the form of content, but such entitlement is an invention of the fandom and nothing more.
Final Verdict: Filmmaking works in mysterious ways, and not everything can always be discussed. There is also no obligation of Martin whatsoever about delivering the books.
Can you explain the logic of Jorah capturing Tyrion? It just doesn't make sense to me. What does Jorah think Dany will want with the dwarf youngest exiled son of a dead Tywin Lannister?
Main Opinion: Amin
Jorah may think that Dany would want to punish Tyrion for the crimes of his father. Just like Westeros doesn’t get the full updates on what’s going on in Dany’s area of the world, she may not get or trust the reports she hears from Westeros. She has little reason to trust whatever Tyrion says. At the least, he could be a useful hostage or pawn. Perhaps it would have been more useful for Jorah to take Tyrion to Cersei, if he simply wanted to return home safely. But he cannot get Dany out of his head and he will try and desperate gamble to get back to her.
Concurring Opinion: Stefan
Exactly. Jorah wants to get back into Dany’s favor, and he has to do something drastic to make up for selling her out to Varys. Delivering the heir to Casterly Rock is such a thing. What Dany will do with him is not that important, though Jorah probably expects her to kill Tyrion. Tyrion is simply a very precious price, and getting him to Dany means doing something for her cause.
Concurring Opinion: Katie
Finding Tyrion Lannister in a random brothel on the Rhoyne must have seemed an incredible stroke of luck! What are the odds?
In Jorah’s mind, Dany might be touched enough by the offer of Tyrion’s head (and whatever information he has on current Westerosi politics) to give Jorah a second chance. To admit Tyrion has no real value to Dany would endanger his fantasy of winning back his place at her side, and explains why he assaults Tyrion for exposing his flawed plan on The Perfumed Seneschal. After all, this isn’t the first time Jorah has made a hopeless bid for his queen’s affections.
Final Verdict: Jorah just desperately wants get back to Dany.
What if Theon was killed by Jaime Lannister instead of Daryn Hornwood?
Main Opinion: Amin
Things would have worked out much better for Robb and his cause. First, you remove Theon, who had an enormously negative impact on the North. The Ironborn would still have attacked, but Wintefell would not have fallen, Bran and Rickon wouldn’t be presumed dead, the Hornwoods would be better off, and the Northern forces would be in a far more organized, stronger position. Then you have the butterfly effects of Bran and Rickon surviving openly, like whether Catelyn wouldn’t have freed Jaime, whether Robb would have slept with Jeyne Westerling, and so forth. Suddenly things look quite different, if only Theon had truly crossed swords with Jaime rather than getting close to it, like he boasted about.
Concurring Opinion: Stefan
I totally agree with Amin. Theon’s death changes much for the better. Especially important is that Ramsay will simply be executed at some point; Roose doesn’t even know he’s still alive, after all. Since it was the fall of Winterfell that prompted Roose to finally switch sides, Jaime Lannister couldn’t have done the North a greater favor had he killed Theon. Alas, the heir to the Iron Islands wore plot armor in that battle, so...
Concurring Opinion: Katie
Robb would likely have followed Catelyn’s advice and sent one of his bannermen to treat with Balon Greyjoy: Jason Mallister, Tytos Blackwood, etc. The messenger would either have been killed, or taken hostage at Pike and ransomed. The ripple effect of losing a major lord to the ironborn is too hypothetical to guess, but it may have created discontent within the ranks similar to the loss of Karstark's sons. As for the Hornwoods, the succession crisis would never have occurred. Ramsay would have steered clear of Hornwood lands and preyed upon more vulnerable holdfasts, or stayed at home to torture smallfolk. Winterfell would remain safe, and Robb left undistracted by the loss of his castle. And the Greyjoys….Theon had been dead to them for years. No tears shed for the poor third son.
Final Verdict: Winterfell wouldn't have fallen for sure.
Comments
Post a Comment