Given that we can't put them on synopsis anymore, people are putting it in recap (which is the supposed replacement) instead.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Yep I agree, several editors have remarked that they are obviously long-winded... in fact the last episode of this season lacks the synopsis and nobody really misses it, we are only here for godzi... er the tropes
Novelization is a great definition.
Seven years later, and yep, the Daznak's Pit scene description is way, way, WAY too overlong and verbose, describing every single movement every character in the scene makes in borderline Purple Prose. You could reduce its length to a quarter of what it currently is and it'd still be a heavy read.
Always expect the worst and you can only be pleasantly surprised.
What's the policy on spoilers from other works/media on recap pages? We're not supposed to mention anything from later episodes, and everything from this one and previous ones is Spoilers Off.
But what about, for instance, Media Adaptation Tropes where the information is relevant, but constitutes a spoiler for the source material (or the other way around, the adaptation)?
Ceterum censeo Morbillivirum esse eradicandum.
I'm restoring this example
- Off Screen Moment Of Awesome: Ramsay and his twenty merry men deliver a terrible blow to Stannis by burning the food stores and all the siege weapons. They go so unspotted that they are not even seen by the audience
Editor scabbadr removed it, reasoning "I don't think something so outlandishly improbable can count as a Moment of Awesome. "
I think it's poorly written and in fact I also added it as an example of narm because to me it's an example of Ramsay and his Villain-sue superpowers, but in any case, it doesn't matter, derailing an entire army in a single move, no casualties, like a ninja, with a bunch of guys, is a remarkable feat, even if you see it as a contrived plot gimmick to force Stannis hand
Edited by TrollBrutal Hide / Show Replies
Agreed. It's poorly written, but it's unambiguously impressive on Ramsay's part.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Ramsay's Rough Riders, "quieter than the night and gone with the wind".
Black-and-Black Morality or Black-and-Gray Morality?
Honestly, Stannis took a swan dive into a darker shade of gray, but even so he's still several leagues lighter than the Boltons. If Stannis killed Shireen for giggles then and only then would be be anywhere near Bolton level.
In my opinion, at least. Stannis is pretty shitty, but not actively evil like the Boltons.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them. Hide / Show Replies
The main thing is that some people can't see it in the context of the show. They see it as Stannis being a religious fanatic and burning Shireen for being an unbeliver. That's not it at all. Melisandre does have magical powers and we have seen it in action. Stannis has logical reasons to believe this sacrifice can work, the context itself is desperate since without food and stuff Shireen would die anyway in the cold. Stannis can't go back to Castle Black either. It's the ultimate Sadistic Choice but its Blue-and-Orange Morality so that's why people reject what he does.
Yeah. Let me put it this way: This is easily the worst thing Stannis has done, and it's a case of Shoot the Dog. The Boltons regularly do awful things but it's Kick the Dog.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I'd argue that Stannis is A Lighter Shade of Black rather than gray, since burning your innocent child alive to get the favor of some cruel god is capital E evil. He's nowhere Bolton levels evil but the Boltons are almost mustache twirling evil.
Edit: Also, this may be just because I've read the books but Mellisandre's powers ability's have always had some degree of {{Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane}} where some of it is real magic but some of it is also ambiguous on whether it was just coincidence (like the leeches bit). Stannis most certainly is relying on his faith in Rhollor to decide that this will be worth it.
Edited by bobwolf
It's not "favor of cruel God" because Rhillor magic is a real thing. Melisandre has actual powers that we have seen and witnessed. That's why I put the Cold Equation on the main page. Stannis doesn't do it out of blind religious devotion, he's literally turning to the only force that has consistently worked in his favor.
As for capital E evil, didn't Tywin Lannister do far worse to the Reynes, Tysha, Targaryen Princes, Riverlands (via Gregor Clegane) and the Red Wedding, and you can certainly argue that he did that to service the cruel god that he sees himself as? Whereas Stannis does something terrible and monstrous (which he obviously will never forgive himself for) because he literally has no other choice and he's serving the greater good, i.e. fighting the White Walkers (which we saw in Hardhome as being a tangible and immediate threat).
Edited by JulianLapostat
Tywin Lannister would be black on the white-gray- black morality scale though?
And Rhollor magic may indeed be real, but Rhollor is also certainly a cruel god if he demands the burning of little girls. Regardless of how "real" the magic is, Rhollor is evil, and the religious is evil.
Stannis isn't burning Shireen to stop the White Walkers, its so he can march and defeat the Boltons so he can be king. His primary objective has always been to be king, and if he cared about the White Walkers, he would have stayed at castle Black.
My point is you can't really compare it to the real world context, the situation is specific and particular to the fantasy universe.
And Stannis definitely wants to stop the White Walkers. Why else did he come to the defense of Castle Black when he did? Stannis can only help the Night's Watch guard the Realms of Men by becoming King, only then can he send more men to the Night's Watch, prepare Westeros and other areas for defense, because no other Lord and King bothers to respond to their cry for help and actually fight the Wildlings. The Boltons certainly won't allow it, the Lannisters won't either.
Staying at Castle Black and fighting as a Black Brother isn't where he can do the greatest good as the earlier episodes have shown (the castle has little provisions and Stannis can't stay there for the Winter because all his soldiers and army will die and he needs to use them while its still possible). He has no choice but to go forward.
Mild point of correction but I believe that before Ramsay magically burned all the supplies, it was possible for him to winter at Castle Black.
Regardless of the details on motivation or the ambiguous theology that we could debate, my argument boils down to is that regardless of good intentions or circumstances, burning your own adorable daughter at the stake is evil, and makes you an evil person.
I feel that part of the problem is that with the Boltons being motivated by For the Evulz, Stannis having good intentions makes him seem gray moral wise.
If he winters at castle black in any conditions the nights watch will starve. They are understaffed and undersupplied. He had no real options aside from sailing back to dragonstone altogether. If he did that the nights watch will have no one to turn to anyway
The show and books are Morality Kitchen Sink and the point is even the most unthinkable actions can be thinkable in the right circumstances and desperate context. Stannis only does that in this context whereas the lannisters and boltons act the same in any context
Edited by JulianLapostat
I'm not arguing that Stannis is morally worse than the Lannisters or the Boltons (although, he really comes across as a bit Tywin right now), I'm saying his act was so incredibly immoral that it makes him evil. Does he have a terrible context to force him to? Possibly . Does he have mostly good intentions? Sure. Is he the only king who cares about the night watch? Yes. Did he burn his only daughter whose sole crime was being full of that precious Kings blood? Yes. And that makes him a bad man.
I'd agree with the Morality Kitchen sink bit, but since the recap page currently does have the trope entry of Black and Gray morality, I'm arguing that Evil vs evil is more correct.
Evil Versus Evil does not work at all, given the context where he clearly does not have any alternative choice. To do something evil, you have to do something out of cruelty or sadism and that is not there at all. Stannis has a Thousand-Yard Stare and he takes no pleasure at all. He's also not blinded by religious faith because Melisandre is a witch with actual magical powers, as real as Dany's dragons and the White Walkers. He is also clearly putting The Needs of the Many soldiers in a Cold Equation (and Shireen would die in the cold, either at the camps or at Castle Black). So Black And Gray Morality has the right context.
Edited by JulianLapostat
I guess we just have different beliefs on evil.
Perhaps we should get some more voices on the matter?
What matters is the Trope description. In Black-and-Gray Morality we have:
Obviously, the heroes of such settings tend to be antiheroes. In such a world, any characters who appear to be good in any way will eventually be revealed as a Knight Templar in disguise, a Dark Messiah inches from the edge, or a deeply flawed Anti-Hero. And if there are any genuinely good characters on the show, they'll either 'come around' to The Dark Side, die horribly, remain a figure of perpetual mockery or, if very lucky, grow a protective shell of cynicism.
A good litmus test for this trope is as follows:
Do the protagonists regularly get away with ruthless or amoral actions?
Are they still unquestionably painted as being "on the right side?" By virtue of the other side being worse? Whether the author is successful or not does not matter.''
Edited by JulianLapostat
Does the show still portray Stannis on the "right side"? I mean considering that the last scene we see is the burning, this argument may be premature.
He is marching against the Boltons isn't he? Boltons haven't done a single good thing whereas Stannis raised Davos up from smuggler to Knight, held Storm's End for Robert, saved the Night's Watch and gave them relief. And ironic and Too Soon, but he did save Shireen from grayscale as a small child.
Edited by JulianLapostat
The show definitely portrays the Boltons as evil. And the show did portray a softer side of Stannis before this. I'm saying we haven't seen the show actually portray him after it. This could be his Jumping Off the Slippery Slope in show. We just don't know yet.
Edited by bobwolf
Well based on the knowledge we have now, relative to this episode we must conclude Black-and-Gray Morality no? This is a recap page, not Stannis' main page or the show page. What matters is this episode and what comes before. not after.
Edited by JulianLapostat
Given he's shown seemingly hating himself for what he had to do, I'd say as of this episode he's still "on the right side."
Now, if his behavior were like Melisandre's then I could buy it as Jumping Off the Slippery Slope. But he sees it as a necessary awful act.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
"But he sees it as a necessary awful act. " was probably said of quite a few evil people. You do not have to enjoy doing evil things to be considered evil.
Stannis is definitely on the "wrong side" here but trope wise it is Black-and-Gray Morality due to him being an anti-hero slipping toward evil. Let's not forget that the problem he needed to solve was completely of his own making.
Black-and-Gray Morality is, in essence, "Evil vs. Morally Ambiguous".
There being disagreement on whether Stannis is morally ambiguous is in and of itself fairly strong evidence that he is. Or maybe that's just Circular Reasoning.
Ceterum censeo Morbillivirum esse eradicandum.
While I still disagree with Stannis being morally ambiguous, ( the episode definitely is unfavorable to his actions by having Selyse have the realization), I'll concede the argument since I'm outvoted here.
How is the problem of Stannis' own making? — He had to march to Winterfell otherwise if he remained at Castle Black they all starve and die when winter comes, the Night's Watch die out anyway and the White Walkers funnel through with nothing to stop them. — He had to march to Winterfell to be of any use to the Night's Watch, since only as a King and High Lord can be trump up the importance of the White Walkers and get them more men and relief. He has no political clout and no real allies at Castle Black to do anything.
The only way this problem can be of Stannis' own making is if he created the Winter (and if Stannis could do that, he would have been King long before now) and secretly let Ramsay Bolton sabotage his camp under his nose.
The length of these recaps seems to be getting out of hand. We're supposed to be writing a recap here, not a novelization. I'd feel bad just cutting out a bunch of another person's work, but how long do we need these to be?
Hide / Show Replies