Books A Song of Ice and Fire (Books) | TV show? What TV show?

Yeah she's definitely going to get her kit off. One of the best things about this show is that when you see a hot woman in it, you're like "damn, I want to see her baps", and eventually you do. Lovely.

Cersei is the only one I can think of who hasn't (over the age of 18), off the top of my head, but I suppose Lena Headley is pretty well known as an actress.

EDIT: Oh, and Ygritte, but that's coming, oh yes.
 
Not sure how they'll do Cersei's walk of shame without her getting her kit off.
 
They can easily just have her in rags or something like that. If the actor says "no", they're a lot of ways around it.
 
She's been naked in other stuff (I, erm... researched it). So I don't see why she'd be opposed to it. Then again the popularity of the show might not help. It's probably why Emilia Clarke got that clause in her contract.
 
:lol:

Wasn't she supposed to be all beaten and bald during the walk? Not sure it'll be a pretty sight anyway.
 
Solius said:
She's been naked in other stuff (I, erm... researched it). So I don't see why she'd be opposed to it. Then again the popularity of the show might not help. It's probably why Emilia Clarke got that clause in her contract.
Click to expand...

That was a sad, sad day for mankind.
 
Solius said:
Not sure how they'll do Cersei's walk of shame without her getting her kit off.
Click to expand...

She has fairly long hair, have them draped over the tits and only shoot from angles that aren't full frontal.

That said I think it adds to the dramatic impact of the scene, they might be able to talk her into it.
 
I've been reading up on things and I've only just realised stuff I missed while reading the books, like Abel being Mance Rayder. It didn't even dawn on me after Ramsay's letter.

Also didn't realise the Reek that was in Winterfell with Theon was Ramsay the whole time. I thought the original Reek had gone out and then died when Ramsay swapped armour with him but that must have happened before.

Saw a theory about Jaqen being the alchemist that killed Pate in the Citadel too. Seems pretty solid.
 
Solius said:
I've been reading up on things and I've only just realised stuff I missed while reading the books, like Abel being Mance Rayder. It didn't even dawn on me after Ramsay's letter.

Also didn't realise the Reek that was in Winterfell with Theon was Ramsay the whole time. I thought the original Reek had gone out and then died when Ramsay swapped armour with him but that must have happened before.

Saw a theory about Jaqen being the alchemist that killed Pate in the Citadel too. Seems pretty solid.
Click to expand...

I'm going to do a re-read soon. Probably during season 3 of the tv show. There's so much to digest that you inevitably forget little details that could prove important.
 
Solius said:
Also didn't realise the Reek that was in Winterfell with Theon was Ramsay the whole time. I thought the original Reek had gone out and then died when Ramsay swapped armour with him but that must have happened before.
Click to expand...

have you got some names mixed up here? otherwise i'm really confused. Reek is and always has been Theon hasn't he?
 
Red_Aaron said:
have you got some names mixed up here? otherwise i'm really confused. Reek is and always has been Theon hasn't he?
Click to expand...

Don't remember with certainty but Reek was the name of Ramsay's friend, and also was used as alias for Ramsey until he was rescued by Theon.
 
Red_Aaron said:
ffs, what else have i missed!

as much as i enjoyed them, a total re-read is not really on my to do list
Click to expand...

Head over to the forums, there's lots of discussions and theories which will help you catch up.
 
Revan said:
Don't remember with certainty but Reek was the name of Ramsay's friend, and also was used as alias for Ramsey until he was rescued by Theon.
Click to expand...

This is correct. The real Reek was an alibi for Ramsey, who 'swapped identities' after commiting numerous depraved crimes. This allowed Ramsey to get away unpunished as Reek and then trick his way into Winterfell, which he duly took from Theon. He then turned Theon into 'Reek'

Disclaimer: If I remember all that correctly!
 
I've spent most of the day reading the ASOIAF Wiki. Stuff like Robert's Rebellion and the history of the Targaryens.
 
Crustanoid said:
Its been a while since I read it but we haven't even had Jon actually dying yet anyway? He was stabbed in the throat, but Mellisandre is on hand and could prevent him actually dying in the first place. Usually there has to be reference to a corpse for someone to be thought of as dead and we haven't had that yet! (Like in TV, if someone doesn't die on screen then they cannot be considered dead).

Winds of Winter is apparently on the way and Martin has said he will not leave it as long to finish as the last two
Click to expand...

I was hoping the tv show would light a fire under his ass.
 
Bill.s.preston said:
I'm going to do a re-read soon. Probably during season 3 of the tv show. There's so much to digest that you inevitably forget little details that could prove important.
Click to expand...

I read them as they were published, including the first book in 1996. I suspected they were going to be huge straight away (mind you, they took a long time to take off).

Unless you reread you're bound to forget important details. Although I think a lot of the characters, happenings, hints and foreshadowings of the future, particularly in books 2 and 3, will prove irrelevant anyway. He won't be able to pull it all together in the way he originally planned.
 
Will Absolute said:
I read them as they were published, including the first book in 1996. I suspected they were going to be huge straight away (mind you, they took a long time to take off).

Unless you reread you're bound to forget important details. Although I think a lot of the characters, happenings, hints and foreshadowings of the future, particularly in books 2 and 3, will prove irrelevant anyway. He won't be able to pull it all together in the way he originally planned.
Click to expand...

The wait between books must have been a nightmare for you then! I wasn't aware of them until the tv series. I got about 3 episodes in and purchased all the books.
 
Crustanoid said:
This is correct. The real Reek was an alibi for Ramsey, who 'swapped identities' after commiting numerous depraved crimes. This allowed Ramsey to get away unpunished as Reek and then trick his way into Winterfell, which he duly took from Theon. He then turned Theon into 'Reek'

Disclaimer: If I remember all that correctly!
Click to expand...

yeah its all coming back to me now, I knew Theon wasn't the first Reek but i'd forgotton the history of the name before him

I've just been reading some of the westeros forum theories, i thought i loved the books but wow some people over there practically live this shit
 
Solius said:
I've been reading up on things and I've only just realised stuff I missed while reading the books, like Abel being Mance Rayder. It didn't even dawn on me after Ramsay's letter.

Also didn't realise the Reek that was in Winterfell with Theon was Ramsay the whole time. I thought the original Reek had gone out and then died when Ramsay swapped armour with him but that must have happened before.

Saw a theory about Jaqen being the alchemist that killed Pate in the Citadel too. Seems pretty solid.
Click to expand...

Who the heck was Abel again? I can't remember no Abel.

I always sort of worked out that Ramsay was the Reek with Theon in Winterfell, but it gave some insight into the bastard's character when Roose Bolton told Theon of the original Reek.

Edit: I just remembered who Abel was, and his washerwomen :wenger: Never in a million years did the thought that he was Mance cross my mind.
 
Bump. I hoped there might have been a thread on the books because after having watched the TV series I got the books and read them and hoped there might be a discussion just on the books with none of the TV influence.

I'm up the part 2 of Dance with Dragons (about 100 pages in), so pretty near the end, but not completely there.

It's good, the violence gets gratuitous at times - like Ramsay and Gregor Clegane, who are a bit ridiculous really - but I guess that's just meant to be about the realism of what medieval warfare could be like. It's slow-moving but I quite like that in fantasy actually - I like character development. He also writes women very well.

You can really tell he's drawn on English medieval history, there are so many parallels, which is interesting.
 
MG said:
Bump. I hoped there might have been a thread on the books because after having watched the TV series I got the books and read them and hoped there might be a discussion just on the books with none of the TV influence.

I'm up the part 2 of Dance with Dragons (about 100 pages in), so pretty near the end, but not completely there.

It's good, the violence gets gratuitous at times - like Ramsay and Gregor Clegane, who are a bit ridiculous really - but I guess that's just meant to be about the realism of what medieval warfare could be like. It's slow-moving but I quite like that in fantasy actually - I like character development. He also writes women very well.

You can really tell he's drawn on English medieval history, there are so many parallels, which is interesting.
Click to expand...

How does it compare to 50 shades?
 
MG said:
He also writes women very well.
Click to expand...

George Stroumboulopoulos: There’s one thing that’s interesting about your books. I noticed that you write women really well and really different. Where does that come from?
George R.R. Martin: You know, I’ve always considered women to be people.
 
MG said:
Bump. I hoped there might have been a thread on the books because after having watched the TV series I got the books and read them and hoped there might be a discussion just on the books with none of the TV influence.

I'm up the part 2 of Dance with Dragons (about 100 pages in), so pretty near the end, but not completely there.

It's good, the violence gets gratuitous at times - like Ramsay and Gregor Clegane, who are a bit ridiculous really - but I guess that's just meant to be about the realism of what medieval warfare could be like. It's slow-moving but I quite like that in fantasy actually - I like character development. He also writes women very well.

You can really tell he's drawn on English medieval history, there are so many parallels, which is interesting.
Click to expand...

He just likes gore. Years ago I read an early vampire novel, Fevre Dream, a highlight of which was one of its characters plucking out his own eye and offering it to his vampire lord as a token of submission.
 
Solius said:
George Stroumboulopoulos: There’s one thing that’s interesting about your books. I noticed that you write women really well and really different. Where does that come from?
George R.R. Martin: You know, I’ve always considered women to be people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that. It's interesting because epic fantasies usually neglect women or just have them as cliches and stereotypes (I'm looking at you, Tolkien), but Martin doesn't do that at all. Usually in fantasy the women are beautiful, passive, good and kind and nurturing.

Not all of Martin's female characters are beautiful and traditionally feminine - like Brienne, who completely reverts stereotypes about gender (Martin does it the other way around with Sam, who doesn't live up to traditional masculinity) and not all of them are good and kind - like Cersei (who's pretty evil, really), and some of them are power-hungry and ambitious - like Daenerys.

It's sometimes difficult to read but he also presents the realities of what sexual violence was like in medieval warfare. Again, sometimes I think he gets a bit gratuitous with this, but I suppose he just wants to represent reality.
 
Also, if he's taken his inspiration from Plantagenet/Tudor times, he's plenty of clever & 'strong' women to riff upon for his books.
 
If anything it's probably pretty tame in comparison to the reality of the time (although this is a fictional setting)
 
SteveJ said:
Also, if he's taken his inspiration from Plantagenet/Tudor times, he's plenty of clever & 'strong' women to riff upon for his books.
Click to expand...

There are literally so many parallels between SOIAF and English history. I think along the lines of: Children of the Forest - Celts, First Men - Romans, Andals - Saxons, Targaryens - Normans.

Then you could look at the War of Five Kings being like the Wars of the Roses with the Lannisters being like the House of Lancaster and the Starks being like the House of York.

And I suppose you could say Robert's Rebellion overthrowing the Targaryen dynasty is like Henry VII defeating Richard III and ending the Plantagenet dynasty to start the Tudors.

I find the Targaryens quite interesting actually. The incest bit is a bit weird though. Royal families in medieval times married first cousins to each other, but even they found the idea of marrying brothers and sisters too wrong.
 
Yes, royal families have progressed just a little in that respect since Ancient Egyptian times. :D
 
MG said:
Yeah, I read that. It's interesting because epic fantasies usually neglect women or just have them as cliches and stereotypes (I'm looking at you, Tolkien), but Martin doesn't do that at all. Usually in fantasy the women are beautiful, passive, good and kind and nurturing.

Not all of Martin's female characters are beautiful and traditionally feminine - like Brienne, who completely reverts stereotypes about gender (Martin does it the other way around with Sam, who doesn't live up to traditional masculinity) and not all of them are good and kind - like Cersei (who's pretty evil, really), and some of them are power-hungry and ambitious - like Daenerys.

It's sometimes difficult to read but he also presents the realities of what sexual violence was like in medieval warfare. Again, sometimes I think he gets a bit gratuitous with this, but I suppose he just wants to represent reality.
Click to expand...

Tolkien didn't do a bad job of portraying women. He wrote LOTR when women weren't equal to men firstly. In the book you've got Galadriel who's feared. They were on par with men in the hobbit, elven and dwarf community. And then he made one of the human females into a hero.

His strengths in the fantasy world were the creation of new languages. He wrote much more poetry than he did novels.
 
Snow said:
Tolkien didn't do a bad job of portraying women. He wrote LOTR when women weren't equal to men firstly. In the book you've got Galadriel who's feared. They were on par with men in the hobbit, elven and dwarf community. And then he made one of the human females into a hero.
Click to expand...

For a start, I really like LOTR and the Hobbit, so I'm not criticising Tolkien per se, but I do think he did a pretty bad job in portraying women, or simply just neglected them. Fantasy books are almost always written with a patriarchal society as their backdrop (usually because they're quite medieval in their outlook) - but there's still scope to present women well, which Tolkien doesn't do.

In the book of the Hobbit, there are actually no female characters, none at all. And in LOTR and especially the Silmarillion most of the women are quite stereotypical - they're all beautiful, all kind and loving and all passive (it's more noticable in the Silmarillion). You could say Galadriel maybe does command respect being a high elf, but when she starts losing it and getting ambitious in that one moment of LOTR that's seen as a bad thing, and when she's passive again she returns to being this idealistic woman. Eowyn has her moment when she kills the witch king in Return of the King (a sort of parallel with Brienne in SOIAF I suppose) - Tolkien's one 'YES!' moment for women in the whole story - but she marries Faragorn at the end and reverts to the passive woman and wife. Both Galadriel and Eowyn are also very beautiful in a traditional sense. So it all goes back neatly into women not upsetting the way things are.

You're right, essentially, Tolkien was writing in a pre-feminist world, and GRRM is writing after that revolution. GRRM isn't afraid to portray women as unattractive, ambitious, intelligent - and also evil and cunning, and ultimately as diverse, complicated and layered as men are. I suppose you could say the difference is most notable in Sansa and Arya. Sansa is a stereotypical feminine character from fantasy, Arya is the complete opposite.

GRRM said himself he has lots of female fans. I'm not surprised at all that women tend to find his story more interesting than LOTR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.