yeah thats what I did...watched series 1 then tried to start on book 2. So lost! Sold the hardbooks on eBay and just re-bought book 1 on kindle (for cheaper too )
yeah thats what I did...watched series 1 then tried to start on book 2. So lost! Sold the hardbooks on eBay and just re-bought book 1 on kindle (for cheaper too )
Yeah, I wish I'd bought them on Kindle. I was so desperate to read book 5 recently I bought the hardback edition. It was so heavy I could hardly hold it up to read the thing!
a) Do you honestly think Renly would be arsed to rule the north? Too much hassle. He'd be happy with the lucrative south provided he could reach an agreement with Robb - which given Robb doesn't want the south is an ideal resolution. But as we know neither Mr Martin nor our own history are fans of ideal resolutions.
Why would any absolute monarch tolerate any form of check on his rule? Robb has already proven he is capable of armed rebellion, so why would any future King trust him at all? This is why Robb should be trying to win for himself, otherwise he is a dead man, whoever else wins in the end.
b) As said Robb does not want to "take it all". It's way and above personal vengeance. He wants to reinstate the old kingdoms and secede from the power base at Kings Landing. One king over all Westeros and based in Kings Landing is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Stark family used to be Kings in the North and Robb is merely seeking to reinstate that post Rob Baratheon/Ned Stark. Call it a call to medieval devolution if you like.
Again, why would any King indulge Robb's ambition for the North?
c) Robb and the other northern lords saw the attack on his father as an attack on all of them. If Joffrey is off the page enough to kill Ned Stark who was a formidably powerful lord he's mad enough to kill the girls (as we saw this week). In taking Jaime prisoner knowing he crippled Bran Robb is fulfilling the notion of honour as was drilled into him by his father - possibly naive but the thing about GOT is that there are no "goodies and baddies" (well maybe one or two ) - AND securing some guarantee of safety for his sisters. But in doing that of course he's thrown down the gauntlet. Don't forget at this stage Robb Stark is winning.
Completely disagree with all of this, especially that. Ned Stark may have been "formidably powerful" on paper, but what we saw was a hesitant, bumbling fool who failed to do what was necessary (kill Cersei and all her children). And failing to do what is necessary, is a death sentence in the Game of Thrones. Keeping Jaime as a prisoner is an act of weakness in my eyes. Another cardinal sin. Indeed, re-watch the scene with Jaime in the cage, the prisoner exudes power, while his jailer hides behind his wolf and blusters at him. Jaime's head (along with Tyrion's; another Stark failure ) should have been sent to Tywin long ago. Tyrion and Jaime dead in exchange for Ned, Sansa and Arya, what a fantastic bargain for the Starks in the grand scheme of things! Finally, there can never be any guarantee for the safety of any prisoner. Robb should proceed as if his sisters are dead. If he can free them at some point all well and good, but nothing and no one should deter a Player from doing what is necessary.
I wish you'd read the books. You're clearly thinking this through and a lot of what you say is well thought out based on what you've seen but whilst excellent the series cannot give you as much insight into the mindset (sorry ) of the characters.
I haven't read any of the books and appreciate I'm only interpreting what I see on the show. But if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick perhaps it reveals to book readers how far the TV show diverges from the books. Atleast this limited thread will be of some use to you in that way.
Claim (and a little charisma) is what got Renly 100,000 men. Robb could not expect any loyalty from any other house without claim.
I've not read the books so don't know the strength of Robert Baratheon's claim when he usurped the Mad King. It may just have been that the houses supported him because the King was so mad that they all feared for their lives and Robert was in the right place at the right time.
Much as thought Ned stupid for backing Stanis (the strongest claim) this would be the default view of most lords. Renly with a strong claim too has more charisma and has managed to take most of Stanis' support.
Robb with no claim would get no support outwith the North.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law....claim or no claim. If I was writing Robb's character (lol) he would stop wasting time on needless battles and take his army straight to King's Landing, massacre everyone there and then see who challenges his Rule.
I don't find Cersei attractive, not keen on her facial expressions for a start. Melisandre or Margaery for me
From reading the books Arianne Martell and Taena Merryweather seemed more my type. It will be interesting to see if the tv series uses these characters at some point.
I've not read the books so don't know the strength of Robert Baratheon's claim when he usurped the Mad King. It may just have been that the houses supported him because the King was so mad that they all feared for their lives and Robert was in the right place at the right time.
Officially, Robert's claim came from being a distant blood relation: His grandmother was Rhaelle Targaryen, daughter of Aegon V.
But primarily he was in the right place at the right time, with the support of other major houses, and a huge army. He took the Iron Throne because he had the power to do so.
The Theon stuff is so well done. I couldn't put my finger on why I disliked him so much in season 1 (I hadn't read any of the books then) but I just found him a horrible weasley character. And even reading the books I never felt much sympathy for him, so it's a testamant to Alfie Allen how bad I felt for Theon the last two episodes.
I thought the scene with him writing the letter to Robb was so sad and showed how torn he was and how unfair it was that he was put in this position. Brilliant acting and brilliant writing.
Coming a bit late to this episode but I totally agree. I hate Theon with a burning passion in the books but the way they've chosen to depict his story in the TV series and the portrayal by Alfie Allen had me really feeling for him when he made the choice to turn his back on Robb and stand by his family.
I'm starting to struggle with this now. Very little seems to happen and the new characters don't interest me half as much as those in the first series and yet those characters are getting very little screen time as a result of the time need to introduce the new ones. We're 4 episodes in and even the main star has probably had about 30 minutes of screen time in total, if that. It needs to seriously pick up over the next 2 episodes for me.
This is where you're going wrong, there is no MAIN star, this is very much an ensemble piece where there are at least 20 important characters and what happens to them and their storylines drives the narrative.
I'm starting to struggle with this now. Very little seems to happen and the new characters don't interest me half as much as those in the first series and yet those characters are getting very little screen time as a result of the time need to introduce the new ones. We're 4 episodes in and even the main star has probably had about 30 minutes of screen time in total, if that. It needs to seriously pick up over the next 2 episodes for me.
I agree, its lost the plot. A bunch of people meet, they glower at each other,then depart,sex scene, another bunch of people meet more glowering,then they part,sex scene ,another...........
We started off with a banquet and at the moment its looking like we will end up with the dogs dinner.
I agree, its lost the plot. A bunch of people meet, they glower at each other,then depart,sex scene, another bunch of people meet more glowering,then they part,sex scene ,another...........
We started off with a banquet and at the moment its looking like we will end up with the dogs dinner.
If you are watching the same programme as everyone else then I really do think you've really missed something along the way............................
I agree, its lost the plot. A bunch of people meet, they glower at each other,then depart,sex scene, another bunch of people meet more glowering,then they part,sex scene ,another...........
We started off with a banquet and at the moment its looking like we will end up with the dogs dinner.
I suggest, sir, that you stick with Coronation Street.
I agree, its lost the plot. A bunch of people meet, they glower at each other,then depart,sex scene, another bunch of people meet more glowering,then they part,sex scene ,another...........
We started off with a banquet and at the moment its looking like we will end up with the dogs dinner.
Oooh, you have unleashed the seven hells upon yourself.
I agree, its lost the plot. A bunch of people meet, they glower at each other,then depart,sex scene, another bunch of people meet more glowering,then they part,sex scene ,another...........
We started off with a banquet and at the moment its looking like we will end up with the dogs dinner.
Look to your sins, Bingbong. The night is dark and full of terrors.
yeah thats what I did...watched series 1 then tried to start on book 2. So lost! Sold the hardbooks on eBay and just re-bought book 1 on kindle (for cheaper too )
I managed to to listen to the audio books from book 2 and did ok. I don't think I could have done the books there far too meaty!
In my defence this was my favourite new cult show of last year, Joffrey & Arya are great characters and all their scenes are great, you could certainly watch the show just for them, part of me would make the show just about them!!!
Aside from this though, it has almost a rushed feel to it. A lot of the comments on this thread appear ( i dont look to carefully because of spoilers ) to be about the books and how well the show is mirroring the books, i havent read the books so i dont care about about how well that is being done.Certainly the first season improved a lot, became less confusing by the end so i am just hoping that the same happens. At the moment it just isnt delivering as a TV show.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law....claim or no claim. If I was writing Robb's character (lol) he would stop wasting time on needless battles and take his army straight to King's Landing, massacre everyone there and then see who challenges his Rule.
But you're not and, as others have said, because you haven't read the books you're missing an awful lot of nuances that simply cannot be included in the visual rather than the written narrative. The Game of Thrones is brutal, but it's not simple and, unfortunately, that's the one thing the books do better than the show. The TV adaptation simply cannot include all the massive amount of background knowledge which is in the books which gives the reader/viewer the background into why the Starks are the way they are, the Lannisters etc.
In my defence this was my favourite new cult show of last year, Joffrey & Arya are great characters and all their scenes are great, you could certainly watch the show just for them, part of me would make the show just about them!!!
Aside from this though, it has almost a rushed feel to it. A lot of the comments on this thread appear ( i dont look to carefully because of spoilers ) to be about the books and how well the show is mirroring the books, i havent read the books so i dont care about about how well that is being done.Certainly the first season improved a lot, became less confusing by the end so i am just hoping that the same happens. At the moment it just isnt delivering as a TV show.
Yeah, have to say I don't understand at all how you could come to that conclusion really. The first four episodes have had plenty of action and fairly easy to follow story lines whether you've read the books or not.
A lot of people (generic) seem to have got hung up on the fact they expected the same characters that were in Series One to automatically be as important in Series Two but that just isn't how A Song of Fire and Ice is written I'm afraid.
It's an incredibly complex Medieval England/Western Europe 100 Years War/War of the Roses inspired saga with dozens of main characters who are equally as important.
Completely disagree with all of this, especially that. Ned Stark may have been "formidably powerful" on paper, but what we saw was a hesitant, bumbling fool who failed to do what was necessary (kill Cersei and all her children). And failing to do what is necessary, is a death sentence in the Game of Thrones. Keeping Jaime as a prisoner is an act of weakness in my eyes. Another cardinal sin. Indeed, re-watch the scene with Jaime in the cage, the prisoner exudes power, while his jailer hides behind his wolf and blusters at him. Jaime's head (along with Tyrion's; another Stark failure ) should have been sent to Tywin long ago. Tyrion and Jaime dead in exchange for Ned, Sansa and Arya, what a fantastic bargain for the Starks in the grand scheme of things! Finally, there can never be any guarantee for the safety of any prisoner. Robb should proceed as if his sisters are dead. If he can free them at some point all well and good, but nothing and no one should deter a Player from doing what is necessary.
I haven't read any of the books and appreciate I'm only interpreting what I see on the show. But if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick perhaps it reveals to book readers how far the TV show diverges from the books. Atleast this limited thread will be of some use to you in that way.
.
Firstly, I will disagree with you about Ned being a "bumbling fool". An honorouble fool may be a slightly more realistic way to describe him. He was still pretty ruthless in his own way, our first scene of Ned Stark was him beheading the deserter from the Night's Watch in front of his children, not a great introduction.
But you're not and, as others have said, because you haven't read the books you're missing an awful lot of nuances that simply cannot be included in the visual rather than the written narrative. The Game of Thrones is brutal, but it's not simple and, unfortunately, that's the one thing the books do better than the show. The TV adaptation simply cannot include all the massive amount of background knowledge which is in the books which gives the reader/viewer the background into why the Starks are the way they are, the Lannisters etc.
Personally, I think mindset is interpreting things just fine as a non book reader, it just appears that rather than toe the line of Starks good/Lannister's bad that he/she's seeing things slighty more from the opposing point of view. Nowt wrong with that and actually I think the lines are more blurred anyway in the books than on the tv show because we're seeing different pov's.
Certainly my Doh! moments in the first series were Catelyn capturing Tyrion and just making things worse than they possibly could be and Ned telling Cersei what he'd discovered and telling her to leave Kings Landing. I can totally understand how someone can side with the Lannisters after those momentous acts of stupidity, regardless of how much we've grown to love the Starks.
i can understand people being somewhat dissapointed with s2e01 but 3 & especially 4 have GoT back in its stride and possibly better than ever,i dont know how people cannot be enjoying it
Personally, I think mindset is interpreting things just fine as a non book reader, it just appears that rather than toe the line of Starks good/Lannister's bad that he/she's seeing things slighty more from the opposing point of view.
You assume I subscribe to the Starks = Good, Lannisters = Bad argument. Or rather the Starks = heroes, Lannisters = villains point of view. I don't.
However, it remains a fact that Mindset doesn't have the background knowledge contained within the books which gives the reader the reasons for why Ned Stark acts as he does, why the Lannisters act as they do etc.
Nowt wrong with that and actually I think the lines are more blurred anyway in the books than on the tv show because we're seeing different pov's.
Yes, this is the point I am making. From the TV show it's quite easy to draw the conclusion that the Lannisters are all powerful stop at nothing bastards who would seize the Iron Throne without a second thought and it's easy to draw the conclusion that Ned Stark is a weak man whose own compassion and lack of driven ambition caused his fall.
It's not that simple though, which is the only point I was making and the Game of Thrones itself isn't that simple. It's not "just" a power struggle between armies for example.
i can understand people being somewhat dissapointed with s2e01 but 3 & especially 4 have GoT back in its stride and possibly better than ever,i dont know how people cannot be enjoying it
im glad im not one of them
I was puzzled at first by the scene where Stannis was introduced - it took me a little while to figure out who he was, But that aside, season two has been pretty bloody good in my opinion.
If your 9 year old brother had been crippled by someone how much would you rate their code of honour?
And in fairness the Starks are pretty much the strongest opposition to the Lannisters when this all kicks off. 20/20 hindsight is fan-bloody-tastic.
And Robb isn't fighting "in the south". At best he's in the midlands. And for a reason. He may be a Stark but he's also a Tully.
His initial motive in marching south to the Riverlands is to support House Tully in response to the invasion of the Lannisters (although with the ultimate goal of freeing his father). Riverrun is under siege by Jaime L with Tywin marching from the south. He ambushes JL taking him captive and ending the siege of Riverrun - forcing Tywin's army to retreat back to Harrenhal.
Do you really think a Stark/Tully hybrid would sit on his arse in Winterfell with all THAT going on?
Some fair points to examine here, especially as I am playing devil's advocate somewhat, and at heart I'm a bit of a Stark fan-boy:p
If your 9 year old brother had been crippled by someone how much would you rate their code of honour?
I didn't say Jaime wasn't a ruthless b'stard, and of course emotion is going to come into it, however it has been pretty much established that Jaime is curiously able to separate acts such as pushing children out of windows from "a code of honour" in battle - see the "Why is Ned Stark still alive?" scene with Tywin in season one for an example of this (although whether Robb would know of this and not just see "The Kingslayer" and the person who crippled Bran is a fair point, so I will concede this one:) )
The Starks are pretty much the strongest opposition to the Lannisters when this all kicks off.
I think you are overplaying the Stark's strength here. Although "the North" is almost as big as the other six kingdoms combined, the population density is very low...its somewhat akin to Sweden or Canada, huge area, hardly any people!
Probably the strongest opposition would be Highgarden, with large population and even more money! Dorne would probably figure in there as well, although they haven't tipped their hand yet.
Robb isn't fighting "in the south". At best he's in the midlands. And for a reason. He may be a Stark but he's also a Tully.
This is a churlish rebuttal at best, as I stated above, "the north" is the huge area above The Neck, and is supposed to be easy to defend from "the south" when holding Moat Cailin. KL is only "the midlands" if you look at the map marked "The South" in GRRM's books:cool:
His initial motive in marching south to the Riverlands is to support House Tully in response to the invasion of the Lannisters (although with the ultimate goal of freeing his father). Riverrun is under siege by Jaime L with Tywin marching from the south. He ambushes JL taking him captive and ending the siege of Riverrun - forcing Tywin's army to retreat back to Harrenhal
.
...This is by far your strongest point (although it could be argued he raised his banners when Ned was taken rather than the ravaging of the Riverlands - and that was in response to the crazy-assed decision of Cat to capture the Imp) and the part of your post that I enjoyed the most. The move to free the Riverlands and Take Jaime's army was ballsy and demonstrated his budding military genius.
However my initial question still remains...what is Robb's ultimate goal? A free north? Destroy the Lannisters? Secure his sisters' safety? he might achieve one or two, but all 3 will be damn hard to achieve. At the moment he is winning his battles, but will he ultimately be able to defeat all comers? After all Renly and Stannis hardly seem too keen on giving up what they see as half their realm. Also I don't think one can understate just how important logistics (such as supply lines and provisions for troops, food, armour etc.) are, and Robb' army is a long way from home.
.....because you haven't read the books you're missing an awful lot of nuances that simply cannot be included in the visual rather than the written narrative. The Game of Thrones is brutal, but it's not simple and, unfortunately, that's the one thing the books do better than the show. The TV adaptation simply cannot include all the massive amount of background knowledge which is in the books which gives the reader/viewer the background into why the Starks are the way they are, the Lannisters etc.
Such is the nature of any TV adaptation. Because viewers don't have the "benefit" of these nuances doesn't necessarily negate their opinion of what the producers have decided to include. We may not be aware of all the "whys", that's to say why these characters are the way they are, but we can still judge the "whats"; have a valid opinion about what these characters do and the efficacy of their actions.
The first four episodes have had plenty of action and fairly easy to follow story lines whether you've read the books or not.
Since these 4 episodes are "fairly easy" to follow, I guess any opinions derived from them should be fairly easy to comprehend then....?
Firstly, I will disagree with you about Ned being a "bumbling fool". An honorouble fool may be a slightly more realistic way to describe him. He was still pretty ruthless in his own way, our first scene of Ned Stark was him beheading the deserter from the Night's Watch in front of his children, not a great introduction.
All Ned did then was enforce the law. It didn't require him to think. Even then, if he had listened first he might have learned something of interest (about the White Walker). The Starks needed a General at the head of their family, but were lumbered with an NCO.
Certainly my Doh! moments in the first series were Catelyn capturing Tyrion and just making things worse than they possibly could be and Ned telling Cersei what he'd discovered and telling her to leave Kings Landing. I can totally understand how someone can side with the Lannisters after those momentous acts of stupidity, regardless of how much we've grown to love the Starks.
I couldn't bring myself to forgive these instances of stupidity either. And if Catelyn goes on to release Jaime, well, let's just say I will consider a rat in a hot bucket too good a way for her to die.
You assume I subscribe to the Starks = Good, Lannisters = Bad argument. Or rather the Starks = heroes, Lannisters = villains point of view. I don't.
May I ask what you do subscribe to? Perhaps it might benefit everyone in this thread if you took the time to challenge posts you regard as misinformed, but with information and opinions of your own, rather than simply dismissing others.
However, it remains a fact that Mindset doesn't have the background knowledge contained within the books which gives the reader the reasons for why Ned Stark acts as he does, why the Lannisters act as they do etc.
If you think my contempt for the Starks (other than Arya) might be tempered by this background knowledge, feel free to enlighten me.
Yes, this is the point I am making. From the TV show it's quite easy to draw the conclusion that the Lannisters are all powerful stop at nothing bastards who would seize the Iron Throne without a second thought and it's easy to draw the conclusion that Ned Stark is a weak man whose own compassion and lack of driven ambition caused his fall.
Once again, it's futile to rail against opinions derived from a TV adaptation that has not included enough detail to satisfy a fan of the books. You're comparing apples and oranges.
It's not that simple though, which is the only point I was making and the Game of Thrones itself isn't that simple. It's not "just" a power struggle between armies for example.
This, or any other TV show is as simple or as complicated as each viewer chooses, or is capable of receiving it.
Comments
Yeah, I wish I'd bought them on Kindle. I was so desperate to read book 5 recently I bought the hardback edition. It was so heavy I could hardly hold it up to read the thing!
Why would any absolute monarch tolerate any form of check on his rule? Robb has already proven he is capable of armed rebellion, so why would any future King trust him at all? This is why Robb should be trying to win for himself, otherwise he is a dead man, whoever else wins in the end.
Again, why would any King indulge Robb's ambition for the North?
Completely disagree with all of this, especially that. Ned Stark may have been "formidably powerful" on paper, but what we saw was a hesitant, bumbling fool who failed to do what was necessary (kill Cersei and all her children). And failing to do what is necessary, is a death sentence in the Game of Thrones. Keeping Jaime as a prisoner is an act of weakness in my eyes. Another cardinal sin. Indeed, re-watch the scene with Jaime in the cage, the prisoner exudes power, while his jailer hides behind his wolf and blusters at him. Jaime's head (along with Tyrion's; another Stark failure ) should have been sent to Tywin long ago. Tyrion and Jaime dead in exchange for Ned, Sansa and Arya, what a fantastic bargain for the Starks in the grand scheme of things! Finally, there can never be any guarantee for the safety of any prisoner. Robb should proceed as if his sisters are dead. If he can free them at some point all well and good, but nothing and no one should deter a Player from doing what is necessary.
I haven't read any of the books and appreciate I'm only interpreting what I see on the show. But if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick perhaps it reveals to book readers how far the TV show diverges from the books. Atleast this limited thread will be of some use to you in that way.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law....claim or no claim. If I was writing Robb's character (lol) he would stop wasting time on needless battles and take his army straight to King's Landing, massacre everyone there and then see who challenges his Rule.
From reading the books Arianne Martell and Taena Merryweather seemed more my type. It will be interesting to see if the tv series uses these characters at some point.
Officially, Robert's claim came from being a distant blood relation: His grandmother was Rhaelle Targaryen, daughter of Aegon V.
But primarily he was in the right place at the right time, with the support of other major houses, and a huge army. He took the Iron Throne because he had the power to do so.
Coming a bit late to this episode but I totally agree. I hate Theon with a burning passion in the books but the way they've chosen to depict his story in the TV series and the portrayal by Alfie Allen had me really feeling for him when he made the choice to turn his back on Robb and stand by his family.
This is where you're going wrong, there is no MAIN star, this is very much an ensemble piece where there are at least 20 important characters and what happens to them and their storylines drives the narrative.
I agree, its lost the plot. A bunch of people meet, they glower at each other,then depart,sex scene, another bunch of people meet more glowering,then they part,sex scene ,another...........
We started off with a banquet and at the moment its looking like we will end up with the dogs dinner.
If you are watching the same programme as everyone else then I really do think you've really missed something along the way............................
I suggest, sir, that you stick with Coronation Street.
Oooh, you have unleashed the seven hells upon yourself.
Look to your sins, Bingbong. The night is dark and full of terrors.
I managed to to listen to the audio books from book 2 and did ok. I don't think I could have done the books there far too meaty!
Aside from this though, it has almost a rushed feel to it. A lot of the comments on this thread appear ( i dont look to carefully because of spoilers ) to be about the books and how well the show is mirroring the books, i havent read the books so i dont care about about how well that is being done.Certainly the first season improved a lot, became less confusing by the end so i am just hoping that the same happens. At the moment it just isnt delivering as a TV show.
But you're not
Yeah, have to say I don't understand at all how you could come to that conclusion really. The first four episodes have had plenty of action and fairly easy to follow story lines whether you've read the books or not.
A lot of people (generic) seem to have got hung up on the fact they expected the same characters that were in Series One to automatically be as important in Series Two but that just isn't how A Song of Fire and Ice is written I'm afraid.
It's an incredibly complex Medieval England/Western Europe 100 Years War/War of the Roses inspired saga with dozens of main characters who are equally as important.
Firstly, I will disagree with you about Ned being a "bumbling fool". An honorouble fool may be a slightly more realistic way to describe him. He was still pretty ruthless in his own way, our first scene of Ned Stark was him beheading the deserter from the Night's Watch in front of his children, not a great introduction.
Personally, I think mindset is interpreting things just fine as a non book reader, it just appears that rather than toe the line of Starks good/Lannister's bad that he/she's seeing things slighty more from the opposing point of view. Nowt wrong with that and actually I think the lines are more blurred anyway in the books than on the tv show because we're seeing different pov's.
Certainly my Doh! moments in the first series were Catelyn capturing Tyrion and just making things worse than they possibly could be and Ned telling Cersei what he'd discovered and telling her to leave Kings Landing. I can totally understand how someone can side with the Lannisters after those momentous acts of stupidity, regardless of how much we've grown to love the Starks.
im glad im not one of them
You assume I subscribe to the Starks = Good, Lannisters = Bad argument. Or rather the Starks = heroes, Lannisters = villains point of view. I don't.
However, it remains a fact that Mindset doesn't have the background knowledge contained within the books which gives the reader the reasons for why Ned Stark acts as he does, why the Lannisters act as they do etc.
Yes, this is the point I am making. From the TV show it's quite easy to draw the conclusion that the Lannisters are all powerful stop at nothing bastards who would seize the Iron Throne without a second thought and it's easy to draw the conclusion that Ned Stark is a weak man whose own compassion and lack of driven ambition caused his fall.
It's not that simple though, which is the only point I was making and the Game of Thrones itself isn't that simple. It's not "just" a power struggle between armies for example.
I was puzzled at first by the scene where Stannis was introduced - it took me a little while to figure out who he was, But that aside, season two has been pretty bloody good in my opinion.
Teehee!
Some fair points to examine here, especially as I am playing devil's advocate somewhat, and at heart I'm a bit of a Stark fan-boy:p
I didn't say Jaime wasn't a ruthless b'stard, and of course emotion is going to come into it, however it has been pretty much established that Jaime is curiously able to separate acts such as pushing children out of windows from "a code of honour" in battle - see the "Why is Ned Stark still alive?" scene with Tywin in season one for an example of this (although whether Robb would know of this and not just see "The Kingslayer" and the person who crippled Bran is a fair point, so I will concede this one:) )
I think you are overplaying the Stark's strength here. Although "the North" is almost as big as the other six kingdoms combined, the population density is very low...its somewhat akin to Sweden or Canada, huge area, hardly any people!
Probably the strongest opposition would be Highgarden, with large population and even more money! Dorne would probably figure in there as well, although they haven't tipped their hand yet.
This is a churlish rebuttal at best, as I stated above, "the north" is the huge area above The Neck, and is supposed to be easy to defend from "the south" when holding Moat Cailin. KL is only "the midlands" if you look at the map marked "The South" in GRRM's books:cool:
.
...This is by far your strongest point (although it could be argued he raised his banners when Ned was taken rather than the ravaging of the Riverlands - and that was in response to the crazy-assed decision of Cat to capture the Imp) and the part of your post that I enjoyed the most. The move to free the Riverlands and Take Jaime's army was ballsy and demonstrated his budding military genius.
However my initial question still remains...what is Robb's ultimate goal? A free north? Destroy the Lannisters? Secure his sisters' safety? he might achieve one or two, but all 3 will be damn hard to achieve. At the moment he is winning his battles, but will he ultimately be able to defeat all comers? After all Renly and Stannis hardly seem too keen on giving up what they see as half their realm. Also I don't think one can understate just how important logistics (such as supply lines and provisions for troops, food, armour etc.) are, and Robb' army is a long way from home.
Love it.
Such is the nature of any TV adaptation. Because viewers don't have the "benefit" of these nuances doesn't necessarily negate their opinion of what the producers have decided to include. We may not be aware of all the "whys", that's to say why these characters are the way they are, but we can still judge the "whats"; have a valid opinion about what these characters do and the efficacy of their actions.
Since these 4 episodes are "fairly easy" to follow, I guess any opinions derived from them should be fairly easy to comprehend then....?
All Ned did then was enforce the law. It didn't require him to think. Even then, if he had listened first he might have learned something of interest (about the White Walker). The Starks needed a General at the head of their family, but were lumbered with an NCO.
I couldn't bring myself to forgive these instances of stupidity either. And if Catelyn goes on to release Jaime, well, let's just say I will consider a rat in a hot bucket too good a way for her to die.
May I ask what you do subscribe to? Perhaps it might benefit everyone in this thread if you took the time to challenge posts you regard as misinformed, but with information and opinions of your own, rather than simply dismissing others.
If you think my contempt for the Starks (other than Arya) might be tempered by this background knowledge, feel free to enlighten me.
Once again, it's futile to rail against opinions derived from a TV adaptation that has not included enough detail to satisfy a fan of the books. You're comparing apples and oranges.
This, or any other TV show is as simple or as complicated as each viewer chooses, or is capable of receiving it.