Game of Thrones

[Steely Glint]

Well, since you asked so nicely

Very simply, that a fantasy (in the sense of something desired) does not necessarily have to be something that person would actually want to happen in real life. Some aspect of it merely needs to fulfil a particular emotional need. In a fantasy, you can simply disregard the negative consequences of the scenario were it to actually happen and focus on the part that

For example, someone who trains in martial arts might have fantasy were they intervene in some violent situation and use their skills to save someone's life. Obviously, they wouldn't want that to actually happen in real life; they know in reality the situation would be dangerous and frightening, that their chances of coming out on top were well shy of 100% and that even if everything goes according to plan the person they saved would still have had an unpleasant and traumatic experience and that it would be better for all concerned if it had never happened in the first place. But in their fantasy, they can disregard all that stuff and skip straight to the part where they're being a hero.

Or you might have the victim of bullying who fantasizes about violently murdering their bullies - they don't want to actually kill them, they know that would be wrong and likely end up with them in prison. But it's an empowering fantasy that acts as a form of escapism from the dis-empowerment they feel from being victimized.

And so on.

So, just because people understand intellectually that Westeros would be a terrible place to live doesn't mean that visiting there in the form of a story doesn't fulfil some sort of emotional need on the part of the reader, and in that sense Game of Thrones like all fiction is fantasy in both senses of the word. We know that the lives of Tyrion, Sansa, Cercei et al are terrible and the fates GRRM meets out to his characters are frequently horrific. But their lives are colorful, interesting and they get to do things like take part in court intrigue, behead / poison / burn alive people who irritate them, lead armies, fight duels, have cool clothes and badass heraldry and say things like "I am a Stark of Winterfell" and have people take notice. They lives are about something, and while our lives are safe and comfortable they are in comparison mundane and trivial. They get to be part of a story.

Now that I think of it this was the same point another article from the same site made around the time of season 4:

Theon begins to sound not unlike HBO GO, HBO’s streaming service and hope for the technological future, which initially advertised itself with this tagline: “The story you could be watching is better than the one you’re in.” The ad campaign consists of people stuck inside banal, numb, modern situations — doctors’ waiting rooms, elevators with annoying people on cellphones, lunches with boring co-workers. These people are screaming inside, I am so not Robb Stark right now. This audience longs for the “authentic” experience that apparently only CGI, cable technology and graphic high-fantasy on demand can provide, and Theon too longs to be inside a better story. Theon is this audience’s proxy.

So, in summery: yeah, Westeros might be as you say 'an awful place with few redeeming qualities' but one of those redeeming qualities is that in Westeros you get to do cool shit like being the King in the North, and that's your fantasy ('daydream about something desired') right there.

In fact, rereading the article, the author makes *exactly* this point:

This is the other way that fantasies interact with reality: not historical realities, but psychological ones. Fantasies connect to identity, but in precarious and volatile ways. We can fantasize about things we don’t actually want (like, to take the terrible topic at hand, rape). And that makes fantasies scary. Fantasies can make us feel like we don’t know who we are.

You might make the valid point that this is just like any other story. But there's something a little different about Game of Thrones in that it repeatedly displays open contempt for fantasies (again, both senses of the word) by constantly suggesting that a common fantasy narrative trope is about to happen, then showing you what would 'really' happen instead (a trait most clearly exemplified in the character of Sansa Stark, incidentally - some of her stuff from Season 1/A Game of Thrones is *really* on the nose about this particular point), thus legitimising it's own fantasies (both senses) with a sense of realism and/or 'realism'.

The points that apparently caused you to stop reading were not in reference to Sansa's rape, but this tendency of the show to use brutality and violence to lend a sense of verisimilitude to it's fantasies (both series), and make them seem more real, more authentic and therefore more satisfying, the 'dark personal fantasy'.

What the article wants to know is, what is it about Sansa's scene that caused everyone to lose their shit where they haven't through the past four seasons? About which it concludes; because it makes us feel complicit in the whole thing, we enjoy the show because of it's 'gritty realism' makes our fantasies seem more real, then puts us in a place where the only character we can possibly empathize with is forced to find out just how gritty that realism can get. Then it leaves the open question of whether or not it is saying something useful by doing this.

I don't know that I agree, I just thought it was a more interesting take on the whole thing than the usual 'showing any kind of rape is wrong because it means the creators think rape is a good thing!11111'/'noo, it's super realistic because a woman couldn't leave the house without being raped at least five times on the way down to the well in the olden times!!!11' derp-fest.

[Wraith]

Okay then, if that's all you meant, then I may have attached context & implications that you didn't intend.

Moving on, wish fulfillment isn't the only thing that can attract interest in a work. It certainly can be a reason, but there are other avenues towards engagement (unless you take the trivial definition where any interest constitutes fantasy and desire). At least for me it never was in GoT. In the case of GoT I thought it was more emotional investment in the characters and their stories that drew people. But I can't read minds, so maybe everyone else just watches it to imagine wearing cool clothes and fighting duels and so on.

I think you're being overly kind in your interpretation of the article. It's hard for me to read a paragraph like this:

The dangerous trick here goes like this: someone fantasizes about a world in which rape frequently occurs and consistently goes unpunished; to explore this emotional fantasy, they set it in a premodern narrative fantasy world where they can displace their own desire onto “history.” The dark impulse or desire isn’t theirs, then; it’s the world’s. It’s history’s. And once a dark personal fantasy becomes “realism,” gazing upon this dark thought or idea isn’t a kind of humiliating or dangerous self-reflection, it’s laudable: it’s an honest engagement with truth.

and not believe they're talking about fantasizing (a dark impulse or desire) about a world where rape frequently occurs and consistently goes unpunished.

[Steely Glint]

She is, but she's not saying the shows creators or anyone else secretly want to rape people, because as we've just established fantasy != thing you want to happen. Or do. People do have fantasies about rape. Women do. It doesn't mean they actually want it to happen to them, it's a fantasy.

She is saying that projecting those fantasies onto "history" would perhaps mean the fantasizer doesn't give such thoughts the reflection they deserve.

"It's not the writers putting rape in every other episode, it's history"... yeah nah.

Because let's be clear about something here: in the ancient and medieval world (and despite what some writers of historical and fantasy fiction seem to believe), rape was in fact a serious crime. Punishable by death, castration (de facto death sentence) or one of the other inventive corporeal punishments they loved so much back then. Of course you have to add caveats to that. If the social status of the accused was higher than the accuser then they were shit out of luck. And in times of war, sexual violence was used as weapon with great frequency. But is that really so different from any other period of history, including this one?

In short, if you have a lot or rapes going on and the show chooses to focus on them almost fetishistically you can't just go "sorry, history. nothing I can do" - it's a deliberate choice by the writers in both the story they decided to tell and how they chose to present it, and it's a choice which deserves to be examined.

Whether or not the show is doing it for titillation, or simply because thinking up plots is hard or because it actually has Something Important To Say about power, gender and sexual violence is something I suspect pundits will be writing about long after the final episode has aired. I'll never stop being fascinated by the sheer amount of commentary this show has inspired.

[Wraith]

There are a lot of rhetorical contortions going on here.

[Steely Glint]

Nah.

[Loki]

Because let's be clear about something here: in the ancient and medieval world (and despite what some writers of historical and fantasy fiction seem to believe), rape was in fact a serious crime. Punishable by death, castration (de facto death sentence) or one of the other inventive corporeal punishments they loved so much back then. Of course you have to add caveats to that. If the social status of the accused was higher than the accuser then they were shit out of luck. And in times of war, sexual violence was used as weapon with great frequency. But is that really so different from any other period of history, including this one?

A) A husband, by definition, could not rape his wife in the medieval world. In fact, this was still true as of half a century ago in the Western world.
B) Someone from the upper class forcing themselves on someone from the lower class would almost never be deemed rape. In fact, such behavior was frequently legally justified. And even when it wasn't, the punishment would be minuscule.
C) During war, rape was used even more frequently without consequence.
D) Rape was punished severely if it was carried out by peasants or against someone from a higher station.

Considering that Game of Thrones is generally a story of Westerosi lords, accusations, let alone convictions, of rape against any of the major characters would be highly unlikely.

[Wraith]

The High Sparrow might convict. Although he's probably just as likely to throw the victim in a cell too.

[Steely Glint]

Given the horror stories about sexual abuse coming out of our own recent past (Jimmy Savile et al, the catholic church) I hardly think those caveats are unique to the medieval world. Yet we don't see many stories set in the grim darkness of the 1980s featuring frequent rapes. It is also not common for fiction set in World War 2.

It is an editorial choice to include them, and deserves to be examined as such.

[Loki]

And if they were excluded, some one would no doubt be whining about the producers downplaying how women are affected by a patriarchal society.

[Steely Glint]

I don't think that's true.

[EyeKhan]

Hasn't rape been a very successful reproductive strategy throughout most of human history? Conquering armies until very recently, like yesterday or something, not only killed or chased off many of the males in the conquered population but also liberally introduced their own genes into the local pool. I remember a paper some years ago suggesting that millions of Europeans are likely direct decedents of Genghis Khan. So throughout most of human history the aggressive, violent, ruthless males bred more than the peaceful and passive. And women who violently resisted rape to the point they didn't survive the conquering army's assaults, they didn't breed so well. Huh. What's that meant for human evolution? Does it offer any clues into why human culture has been so fucked up about gender roles and why rape is apparently so common? Has serial rape within a peacetime community been a successful breeding strategy, at least until recently?

Is this OT?

Well, this isn't:

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly this week, author George R.R. Martin addressed the recurring sexual violence against women in the HBO series Game of Thrones, based on his bestselling A Song of Ice and Fire novels. Though the books and show are set in a fantasy world, Martin said that they are historically based on medieval Europe. "The books reflect a patriarchal society based on the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages were not a time of sexual egalitarianism," Martin said. Game of Thrones has stirred up plenty of controversy over its five-season run, but most especially with the sixth episode this season in which a major female character is raped. Though the storyline departs greatly from the books, the same culture is consistent across both, presenting a violent, dangerous world for women -- which is also consistent with medieval times. "It's not a strong testament to the human race," Martin said. "But I don't think we should pretend it doesn't exist."

Sounds like what Loki said.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/gam...me_of_thrones/

[Flixy]

Given the horror stories about sexual abuse coming out of our own recent past (Jimmy Savile et al, the catholic church) I hardly think those caveats are unique to the medieval world. Yet we don't see many stories set in the grim darkness of the 1980s featuring frequent rapes. It is also not common for fiction set in World War 2.

It is an editorial choice to include them, and deserves to be examined as such.

Yes, obviously it's an editorial choice, but you could also easily argue that most films set in the 80s or WW2 choose to leave out that part of 'realism' and question that as a whitewashing. I mean, if a film is made about, say,a Dutch naval hero in the 17th century without mentioning slave trade it is controversial and criticised for it, yet when you make a war movie without bringing up rape it's normal. That said, I tried to Google and find some analysis of rape in cinema and mostly found fairly disturbing sites...

Anyway, in a medieval style world in a civil war it is not surprising rape is fairly common, as it would be in the real world probably as well. Note that in westeros rape is illegal as well (there are a bunch of people at the wall for it, and I'm sure either the books or series mentioned soldiers being punished for it). But during a civil war law and order goes out the window soon.* People get murdered all the time without consequences, is it surprising rape would be common as well? And being married off without the woman's consent has been accepted for most of history, and rape within marriage hasn't been considered rape until fairly recently I think. Considering she got married to a sadistic guy who tortures for fun and has no problems with killing innocent people, what did you expect would happen? Not too mention he needs a child with Stark blood for legitimacy, and that her previous marriage is set aside because it wasn't consummated (and remember that Sansa expected Tyrion to 'bed' her as well on the wedding night, so it's obviously somewhat expected in that world. Hell, a number of people in that world think the liege should have the right to sleep with any new bride - which is rape as well (and this includes Roose). To be honest it would be weirder if the writers suddenly had him behave nicely. Note: the jamie/ cersei rape is different I think, because that seemed to be more about shocking viewers than about what the characters would do. And that's how stories work - once a character is established he should act like he would act according to his fictional profile. Arguing Ramsay is a bit too purely evil, I can buy that (in a grey morality world he seems entirely black). But once you accept that, frankly this scene was unavoidable.

Oh, and considering there is gratuitous (often extreme) violence almost every episode, without many complaints, and often as entertainment, I guess it's something that unlike murder and torture rape is seen as bad enough that they made the scene shocking, painful to watch (though not nearly as bad as, say, Irréversible).

book spoiler:

And I might be wrong but wasn't fake Arya treated far worse? IIRC there's mention of severe abuse, bite marks, etc.

* Isn't that in the books also the reason the high sparrow rises so quickly out of nowhere? Commoners are suffering badly from the complete breakdown of law and order, and the nobility is more concerned with the war and politics, and the high septon is no different. So when a group rises that pledges to enforce the (religious) law again and stop these abuses, with no (or at least less) regard for the status of the perpetrator, it's naturally very popular. Which I think was skipped somewhat in the series. Which is misread by Cersei as a group/person to use as a pawn, while he night actually be honest and just (albeit zealous ).

I don't think that's true.

Me neither. Well, maybe a loon here or there, but no one who's taken seriously.

[Steely Glint]

I think the concept of realism is a red herring - the only thing whether or not a rape scene is realistic or not tells us is whether or not the writer was any good at his job. It's the writer who has ultimate control over events, and the writer who decides what direction the plot takes.

Let's take Sansa's attempted rape back in season 2:

Given the circumstances of the plot - a young noblewomen is isolated from her group during a riot against a backdrop of almost total social break down in a time of war - then yes, I think the chances are high that she'd be raped, and the scene was therefore 'realistic'.

However, it was GRRM who chose to have the riot occur at that particular place and time, it was GRRM who decided that the main characters should be out and about when the riot kicks off, it was GRRM who decided that in the ensuing chaos Sansa should become separated from her protection etc etc.

He could just as well have had Sansa not with the group when the riot kicked off, and instead she might have been safely behind the walls of the red keep and then in those circumstances it would have been entirely realistic for her *not* to have been raped.

Make no mistake, the entire sequence exists because the attempted rape of Sansa was part of the story GRRM wanted to tell. The fact that it was 'realistic' just tells us he's good at making his plots convincing and logically consistent (and indeed this is one of his major strengths as writer in my view).

It's just not tenable to take the position that the writers hands are tied by any sense of authenticity or realism and 'have' to include rape scenes. They control the setting and they control the events of the plot.

I mean, the entire "Sansa in Winterfell" sub-plot only exists because B&W wanted to do the Jayne Poole subplot from the books - they have said as much. I have a number of problems with that subplot from a plot point of view - the motives of Sansa and Baelish in the whole thing appears to make no sense. But they did sidestep one of the major objections to the rape scene when it was first aired - that Sansa was only raped as a plot device in Theon's redemption arc - when in fact that turned out not to be the case, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt with that sub-plot while we see where it goes.

That said, I tried to Google and find some analysis of rape in cinema and mostly found fairly disturbing sites...

Yeah, that was probably unwise

(there are a bunch of people at the wall for it, and I'm sure either the books or series mentioned soldiers being punished for it)

Yeah, and that fact really puts paid to this idea that by depicting rape Game of Thrones is showing us the 'harsh realities' blahblah, doesn't it? The wall is a glorified penal colony populated mainly be rapists, murders and other assorted criminals, but it also takes young men and boys... yeah, realistically speaking, that place is going to be a hotbed of male on male rape. And yet this particular piece of gritty realism somehow doesn't make it onto our screens.

I wonder why.

[Wraith]

And yet this particular piece of gritty realism somehow doesn't make it onto our screens.

I wonder why.

Because none of the rapists or boys are PoV characters? Because everyone at the wall (except that one girl who isn't really supposed to be there) is armed? Because they are pretty quick to put people to the sword there? Because they all depend on each other for their lives and safety, and violent revenge is easily achieved there? There's no sense in assuming the most damning possible explanation.

[Steely Glint]

I don't think those explanations are consistent with how the night's watch has been depicted so far. It is portrayed as crumbling organisation, barely able to maintain discipline and filled with people who seem to actively hate each other.

There's no sense in assuming the most damning possible explanation.

I'm not assuming the most damning possible explanation, but I'm not going to give them the benefit of the most generous one either

[Steely Glint]

On a lighter note

spoiler for s04xe08:

[Flixy]

I think the concept of realism is a red herring - the only thing whether or not a rape scene is realistic or not tells us is whether or not the writer was any good at his job. It's the writer who has ultimate control over events, and the writer who decides what direction the plot takes.

*snip*

It's just not tenable to take the position that the writers hands are tied by any sense of authenticity or realism and 'have' to include rape scenes. They control the setting and they control the events of the plot.

Fair point, though my post was meant more of an.. after the characters and situation have been established this was inevitable. But yes, the characters and situation to begin with were of course a choice. Hell, the entire series could have been set in a world where women were not oppressed. Given the comparison to medieval Britain that seems unlikely.. but it was one of the criticisms I encountered online. Yes, it's a crapsack world, but not unrealistic given human nature, so I don't think much of those arguments. But that given this crapsack world he chooses to put her in this position is indeed a choice, I agree with you. I meant to say that for episodes it's been building up to these circumstances to the point it pretty much had to happen. Criticising the road that lead to it is fair, yes.

I mean, the entire "Sansa in Winterfell" sub-plot only exists because B&W wanted to do the Jayne Poole subplot from the books - they have said as much. I have a number of problems with that subplot from a plot point of view - the motives of Sansa and Baelish in the whole thing appears to make no sense. But they did sidestep one of the major objections to the rape scene when it was first aired - that Sansa was only raped as a plot device in Theon's redemption arc - when in fact that turned out not to be the case, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt with that sub-plot while we see where it goes.

I wholeheartedly agree with your plot concerns about how they deviate from they plot here. However, given that the criticism is about the rape, the alternative is someone else we don't care about as much getting raped - so I see that more as complaining a fan favourite got raped as opposed to the depiction of rape to begin with. Which of you ask me is odd anyway - would it be better if it was someone else?

I do think that rape is too often used as an easy plot device, often for the men around it, sometimes as a plot device to either break or empower a female character, but I don't see it as such here. Even if it does serve as Theon's redemption arc (it does seem like a major factor - I guess his guilt makes him accept his own torture but he might want to redeem himself for the sake of what was basically his sister growing up) I do think it fits the story. But mostly I think that once she was to marry him, this had to happen. Plotwise I prefer the book version anyway, but the main difference is WHO got raped, not that a Stark gets raped while married in Winterfell. And of course that the plot works a lot better if it isn't actually her there, but that's besides this discussion.

I do think the Jamie/Cersei rape was.. unnecessary and weird, but this one is, if you ask me, something that had to happen given the way westeros is depicted.

Yeah, and that fact really puts paid to this idea that by depicting rape Game of Thrones is showing us the 'harsh realities' blahblah, doesn't it? The wall is a glorified penal colony populated mainly be rapists, murders and other assorted criminals, but it also takes young men and boys... yeah, realistically speaking, that place is going to be a hotbed of male on male rape. And yet this particular piece of gritty realism somehow doesn't make it onto our screens.

I wonder why.

Good point. Though until the big ranging, it seems like rules were enforced there. And given the situation, punishment would be death. Aside from reasons given above. Keep in mind that a relatively large number of the grunts were criminals, but most of the officers were not.

The crumbling of actual discipline (rather than fighting strength etc) seems to be mostly after Mormont died. Keep in mind even a bunch of the people who actively hate, say, Jon, wouldn't hesitate to bring justice to a rapist within the ranks, and desertion was also punished as is evident from the first episode of the series. Up until the great ranging, and up to a point even after, the crumbling of the NW is mostly in size and fighting quality, but most people seem to stand behind the vows. Even those actively opposed to Jon and hating him all along didn't seem to dare doing anything actually illegal to harm him.

But of course I don't know an actual historical analogy to it and how this would work in reality (or how 'realistic' it is they are relatively well behaved given the backgrounds of half their members).

[Steely Glint]

I wholeheartedly agree with your plot concerns about how they deviate from they plot here. However, given that the criticism is about the rape, the alternative is someone else we don't care about as much getting raped - so I see that more as complaining a fan favourite got raped as opposed to the depiction of rape to begin with. Which of you ask me is odd anyway - would it be better if it was someone else?

I will say that given that the decision to have a rape scene had been made, it was done about as well as it could be.

I do think that rape is too often used as an easy plot device, often for the men around it, sometimes as a plot device to either break or empower a female character, but I don't see it as such here. Even if it does serve as Theon's redemption arc (it does seem like a major factor - I guess his guilt makes him accept his own torture but he might want to redeem himself for the sake of what was basically his sister growing up) I do think it fits the story.

What they seem to be doing is having Theon's redemption arc triggered not by Sansa's rape, but by what Sansa herself is doing, she's trying to get him to remember who he is and push him into helping her - that's like a million times better.

I do think the Jamie/Cersei rape was.. unnecessary and weird, but this one is, if you ask me, something that had to happen given the way westeros is depicted.

It was a lot like how rapes usually go down in real life. The problem with it was that everyone involved in the scene said it wasn't rape. Which was a bit of a WTF. And then the next episode everyone acted like nothing had happened. Another WTF right there.

Good point. Though until the big ranging, it seems like rules were enforced there. And given the situation, punishment would be death. Aside from reasons given above. Keep in mind that a relatively large number of the grunts were criminals, but most of the officers were not.

Assuming that the officers actually know, or that they don't turn a blind eye to it to prevent them from losing half their manpower. They already turn a blind eye to watchmen taking off to moles town to use prostitutes.

But of course I don't know an actual historical analogy to it and how this would work in reality (or how 'realistic' it is they are relatively well behaved given the backgrounds of half their members).

The analogy I'm looking at here is basically "prison".

[Steely Glint]

Alright, why does Yohn Royce wear his breatsplate *all the time*?

[Flixy]

I will say that given that the decision to have a rape scene had been made, it was done about as well as it could be.



What they seem to be doing is having Theon's redemption arc triggered not by Sansa's rape, but by what Sansa herself is doing, she's trying to get him to remember who he is and push him into helping her - that's like a million times better.

Sounds better. IIRC in the books visiting the godswood also helps, doesn't it?

It was a lot like how rapes usually go down in real life. The problem with it was that everyone involved in the scene said it wasn't rape. Which was a bit of a WTF. And then the next episode everyone acted like nothing had happened. Another WTF right there.

That certainly surprised me because it obviously was. And whether or not it is how it goes down in real life, if it was out of character, served no purpose, and had no lasting effects (as you mention, an episode late rit's like it never happened at all) it really serves no purpose.

Assuming that the officers actually know, or that they don't turn a blind eye to it to prevent them from losing half their manpower. They already turn a blind eye to watchmen taking off to moles town to use prostitutes.



The analogy I'm looking at here is basically "prison".

Presumably the blind eye regarding prostitutes is to prevent rape Though technically the vow only forbids having a wife and kids, so prostitution might actually be okay.

Prison isn't really a good analogy though, I think, because there you don't have to go into a wilderness as an army and rely on each other to survive, among other differences. But yeah, with Job gone for a bit now, and a general breakdown in discipline, and Sam already got harassed, and Gilly almost raped. And come to think of it, there is a story of a girl dressed up as a boy to join the NW who got raped and murdered, so I guess it can be a problem indeed.

[Loki]

Alright, why does Yohn Royce wear his breatsplate *all the time*?

He watched the Red Wedding?

[Steely Glint]

actually a legit reason

[Steely Glint]

Spoiler:

So, thematically, this episode is about burning people alive. This can be accomplished by tying someone to a stake then setting them on fire, but you can also get it done with a dragon.

So there's that. I guess.

I got nothing.

[Loki]

Spoiler:

https://grantland.com/hollywood-pros...nce-of-dragons

More whining about pretty white girls being hurt on the show. Ignoring the fact that Martin apparently told the producers to include this scene (I'm guessing it's coming at the beginning of book 6).

[Ominous Gamer]

fuck you steely:

I think Martin wasn't happy with people siding with Stannis as a good and honorable guy. The dude had his brother killed with shadow demons, people needed reminded that he is very much is a religious psycho

[Loki]

Spoiler:

He's not religious. But he's willing to do everything it takes to get the throne, and the Red God has proven useful to him in the past. I'm guessing him being nice to Shireen this season was all a set-up to what happened this episode. There's a reason he wasn't overly nice in previous seasons (as a foreshadowing tool, not as a plot tool).

[Steely Glint]

Spoiler:

Well, I don't think he wanted to burn his daughter alive. That does go against the advice of every parenting manual ever written. And I think as such he's been actively resisting pressure from Melisandre and his wife to do so. But the position he found himself in, after Ramsay's (rather implausible) ninja raid his choice was either a) everyone in the army starves or freezes to death, including his daughter, his campaign fails and the White Walkers kill everyone or b) he sets his daughter on fire. From a purely pragmatic point of view, that's no choice at all.

I think the problem with it is the set up was just dumb - Ramsay's ultra-successful raid was contrived in the extreme, which in turns makes the need to sacrifice Shireen seem contrived and once again it looks like the writers of the show are happy to throw the common sense or logic in the plot out the window for the sake of shocking their viewers.

You can bet when GRRM gets around to writing this scene, it will happen after a chain of events that makes it feel like Stannis really has no other choice, i.e. not "northern Ninjas out of nowhere!".

Oh yeah, Melisandre said to Davos in season 3 she can protect against fire, yet when the camp went up in flames she just sat on her hands and looked mystical. I think she did that deliberately because that woman never met a burning at the stake she didn't like.

[Loki]

Spoiler:

In the books, Stannis had a bunch of northern tribes fighting for him, doesn't he? I imagine they know the land at least as well as the Boltons (who aren't actually from that part of the north).

I am wondering if Melisandre allowed the raid in the show just because she really wanted to burn Shireen.

[Steely Glint]

Spoiler:

I haven't read that far in the books yet, I'm slowly working my way through Clash of Kings. Dear George has many gifts as an author, but alas sparkling prose is not among them.

Re: Melisandre, yeah as I said, she likes to burn things. People.

It's actually a shame she hasn't had more characterisation, the only time we saw her drop the Red Priestess act and talk like a normal human being was with Genry on that boat one time. We have no real sense of what her motivations are

[Loki]

Spoiler:

I read books 4 and 5 in a combined 4-5 days. In terms of quality, book 2 is somewhere in the middle. Book 3 is by far the best. Major events are happening non-stop.

Note that all the other red priests (N=2) support Daenerys. So she must have some other motivation.