Game of Thrones Season 4 Discussion (TV Spoilers Only)

[Scrib]

. My point was that viewing Jaime at all in terms of "deerp he's evil" OR "deerpp now he's good" is simplistic and pointlessly reductionist.

And my point was addressing the discussion as framed by Block, you are talking about something else completely.. He has since clarified and I tend to agree -with some qualifiers- but the discussion was about Cersei -and of course the other Lannisters- being undeserving of sympathy for serving a bad cause or doing bad except Jaime, even though he served-and will still serve- those same ends.

The subtext is all irrelevant quite frankly, reading Jaime's life as a conflict between various oaths and desires and the cultural definition of honor is all well and good but that wasn't really what I was responding to. You can whine about me being reductionist and that would be a good criticism in general, if the discussion I was participating in had parameters wide enough to make such talk relevant. It didn't.

Funnily enough, what you're railing against-painting Jaime as evil or good depending on how he's pleased the viewer this week- is a problem in general. However, when the foundation for the discussion is set as follows:

The whole family deserves every last bit of it, because all of their manipulation and desire for power has killed plenty of mothers, fathers, daughters and sons. Hell, Tywin JUST had the same thing done to the Starks. Jamie at least has started to learn.... something

Then you can either argue that I'm wrong and that he is not complicit and evil (relatively simple, see: Block,Ralin) or you can not get too pissed when you find that your argument for Jaime's complexity and that we should avoid such black-and-white claims is not engaged to your satisfaction since it was never the point.

Like I said; not a good person, but there's definitely a good person buried in there somewhere. All of the Lannister children have their bad sides, but I don't see Cersei jumping into any bear pits or doing much of anything with what power she does have to help anyone other than herself and her children

Point on Jaime having more potential.

And let’s not kid ourselves. Jaime isn’t exactly doing any great harm to anyone by staying in the Kingsguard. The cripple who can’t wield a sword worth a damn anymore was not going to prolong Joffery’s reign in any event.

If the dwarf Tyrion can do some damage by supporting the family then so can the cripple I suppose. Of course, this all depends on how much value you place on complicity or how Jaime himself sees this and how much that matters. I dunno if consequences are the only thing that matter. If we're talking about impact then obviously. If we mean redemption (though I dislike this word tbh...rediscovery perhaps?) then again, obviously not. Though I do buy the criticism that, if we're talking about complicity, he's damned either way and he was realistically going to stay that way so we should adjust our expectations.

[JLTucker]

Well, after Jaime raped Cersei, dude lost all of my support.

[Elfdart]

I'm surprised he had any support to begin with.

[Vympel]

My interpretation was colored by the books, where it was unambiguously not rape, so I didn't see it that way when watching the scene either.

Elio Garcia on westeros.org:

For some, the simple question will be, “Did Jaime just rape Cersei?” For a few, it won’t even be a question, it will be obvious one way or another. But it seems clear that what the writers aimed for was ambiguity, an ambiguity that serves to remind viewers that however Jaime and Cersei interact, the romantic and sexual component of that relationship is perverse, and even dangerous.

One can notice how it’s Cersei, not Jaime, who first turns the scene towards the romantic, with her kiss… but that’s followed by her pulling away. It seems essential that she turns back to her son, body language suggesting withdrawal from Jaime, perhaps regret for doing such a thing in front of her dead son, or disgust at the reminder of the loss of Jaime’s hand. But is she also looking side-long at Jaime, trying to judge if the promise and than the withdrawal of sexual access might make him budge on Tyrion’s fate? Certainly, it seems to be the only way to read Jaime’s response after a long, fierce consideration: “You are a hateful woman.” It seems he feels manipulated or slighted, and decides to have none of it, and to take what he wants. When he grabs her and turns her to him, the camera frames the body lying there behind them, the focus changing from foreground to background to leave us in no doubt of the very real presence of the still corpse of Joffrey Baratheon. It makes what follows seem all the more grotesque, and it’d be simple to then read everything else that follows as a sordid rape.

But the camera chooses to frame—or not frame—other things as well, things that suggest that these lovers, lovers for more than two decades (nearer, one supposes, to three decades on the show), may be familiar enough with one another to read signs we as viewers can’t so readily see. Because while Cersei protests, for a moment we see her actively kissing back as they slide down to their knees, even as the treacherous camera slides further downward to obscure that instant of suggestive agency and instead shows us fumbling hands obscured by voluminous clothing, hands which tear at her clothes… and at his? Staring at it, trying to decipher the choreography, I’d offer a tentative yes: she’s participating actively, but her own desires are fighting with her sense of being overwhelmed physically and emotionally. The final shot of the scene, as Jaime moves on top of her, seems emphasize it: her plaintive cries that it’s not right are matched to the classic iconography of passionate abandon, a hand clenched around cloth (a funerary cloth, however, not bedclothes; a last reminder of where the scene takes place.)

EDIT: watching the scene again though, its really, really easy to see why its very indicative of rape. I'm conflicted about it, but on balance I think it was a rape now.

Well, after Jaime raped Cersei, dude lost all of my support.

He still had some support even though he attempted child murder and strangled his cousin to death? Both are worse than rape. Jaime has my "support" in that he's a very compelling character and his development is really fascinating. But he's not a nice person. He does have his moments though, and he's still somehow above all of it - likeable.

EDIT:

http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watchi ... cle-deadly

Alex Graves, the director, on the scene:

"Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle. Nobody really wanted to talk about what was going on between the two characters, so we had a rehearsal that was a blocking rehearsal. And it was very much about the earlier part with Charles (Dance) and the gentle verbal kidnapping of Cersei's last living son. Nikolaj came in and we just went through one physical progression and digression of what they went through, but also how to do it with only one hand, because it was Nikolaj. By the time you do that and you walk through it, the actors feel comfortable going home to think about it. The only other thing I did was that ordinarily, you rehearse the night before, and I wanted to rehearse that scene four days before, so that we could think about everything. And it worked out really well. That's one of my favorite scenes I've ever done."

If that was his intent, I think he fumbled it a bit.

[Vympel]

Episode 4 preview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2leyatpoRBU

In which Cersei continues to try and get Jaime to kill people. Gives us a nice look at the ripples on Jaime's new Valyrian steel sword.

[Scrib]

I was wondering when we'd see something that made it clear that the Valyrian steel was different- besides people making offhand comments.

As for Alex Graves...the scene itself + "consensual by the end" should start some drama. I'm gonna make like Melisandre and sit back and watch the flames.
EDIT:

watching the scene again though, its really, really easy to see why its very indicative of rape. I'm conflicted about it, but on balance I think it was a rape now.

Simply cutting out the fact that Cersei kept asking him to stop for the entire scene would have helped immensely, all on it's own. Sure, some might still think it's rape but at least then the "consensual by the end" line wouldn't force people to cringe.

[Vympel]

Simply cutting out the fact that Cersei kept asking him to stop for the entire scene would have helped immensely, all on it's own.

Its not just what you say, its what you do. Half way through Jaime's "attack" lets call it she's clearly kissing him consensually.

But don't get me wrong - by the time the scene is over she's back to refusing. Its a rape.

Nickolaj Causter-Waldau was asked about the scene, and specifically whether it was rape, and he answered "yes and no".

[LaCroix]

I was wondering when we'd see something that made it clear that the Valyrian steel was different- besides people making offhand comments.

Since it has ripples and can be poured - it must be Wootz steel.

[Elheru Aran]

If you melted down wootz like that though you'd lose the molecular structure that makes it distinctive. Once the initial ingot of wootz is made, you have to work it at a lower temperature than you would carbon steel. A hypothesis can be made that the Valyrians were able to pour sword-blade blanks of wootz steel that were then worked into their final form with the hammer and stone, due to their magi-tech.

Personally I subscribe to the notion that a.) it's pattern-welded, b.) it's actually only slightly better than current Westerosi swords and just gets blown up as better because it's super kewl and old, c.) the casting bit is total BS and they should've done their research. It was wrong when they did it in Conan (twice), it's still wrong now.

[TheHammer]

If you melted down wootz like that though you'd lose the molecular structure that makes it distinctive. Once the initial ingot of wootz is made, you have to work it at a lower temperature than you would carbon steel. A hypothesis can be made that the Valyrians were able to pour sword-blade blanks of wootz steel that were then worked into their final form with the hammer and stone, due to their magi-tech.

Personally I subscribe to the notion that a.) it's pattern-welded, b.) it's actually only slightly better than current Westerosi swords and just gets blown up as better because it's super kewl and old, c.) the casting bit is total BS and they should've done their research. It was wrong when they did it in Conan (twice), it's still wrong now.

What do you mean by that last part (C) exactly? What was wrong with the scene. Asking as a pure curiosity because I don't know a whole lot about the art of making swords lol.

[Elheru Aran]

c.) the casting bit is total BS and they should've done their research. It was wrong when they did it in Conan (twice), it's still wrong now.

What do you mean by that last part (C) exactly? What was wrong with the scene. Asking as a pure curiosity because I don't know a whole lot about the art of making swords lol.

Short answer: At that level of technology you simply aren't going to be casting steel. You have neither the equipment nor the knowledge. At a medieval tech level, steel is almost always worked by heating and hammering to basic shape and then filing or grinding to refine.

Now for the long version: I won't get into the physics of it because I'd probably be wrong, but the whole pouring molten metal into molds is done with *bronze*. It's much easier to melt and pour than iron. I say iron because that's what you're starting from; you have to add carbon to make it into steel.

Plus you have the whole lovely error of them pouring the molten metal into *open* molds. Those will only make *half* of a sword. To have two facing halves, you have to have a closed mold. Even after molding it, you still have to do considerable finishing and fitting with a bronze blade, including hammer-hardening the metal.

Anyway, let's focus on the specific case here and not give you a lengthy primer on making steel. You can google that for yourself. Once you've made steel, you then have to shape it. Easy enough. The tricky part, and why casting steel is highly unlikely to ever work with medieval technology, is that you have to harden the blade you just shaped. You do this by heating it up to a certain temperature, then dunking it rapidly in a quenching medium. This causes the steel's molecular structure to crystallize. After this then you have to temper the blade by keeping it at a low heat, to release some of the molecular bonds and allow the blade to flex.

I will note that while there's such a thing as "cast iron", it has a high proportion of carbon and is thus very brittle and almost unworkable with the hammer. It would be highly unsuitable for a weapon.

The whole image of pouring molten steel into a mold and having a usable sword after that point is slightly credible, but a.) you would have to be able to catch and pour the steel, b.) you would have to be able to melt the iron, introduce carbon, and pour it into the mold without introducing more or removing carbon, and c.) you would then be treating the blade just like a steel sword-- it would still need refining, hardening, and tempering. A.) and B.) are the tricky parts for medieval tech...

[LaCroix]

What do you mean by that last part (C) exactly? What was wrong with the scene. Asking as a pure curiosity because I don't know a whole lot about the art of making swords lol.

I've described various steps of the process already in the Medieval rubber thread

Iron and Bronze demand about the same technologies. The temperature requirements are about the same (I do both in my blacksmith shop)

The only thing that's different is how they are hardened. You see, for copper and bronze, after you melt and pour, (at about 1200° degrees), you use a hammer and anvil (stone and bronze were both used) on the cold piece to get it into the final shape (there are pieces in museums that still show the hammerwork). And both do harden under impact (work hardening), which is one reason why this was done - while you work the bronze blade cold, it gets harder and harder. Actually, it is becoming so hard that you have to perodically heat it to take out the stress and make it softer in order to continue working. Bronzesmiths refined the knowledge how to do this ever since the first copper piece was cast. The only thing they need to learn when to make bronze is excatly how much tin to add to make it better, but everything else stayed the same.

But iron doesn't do that. You can hammer a piece of steel until the dawn of time and achieve little hardening.

Also, until the late middle ages, iron ore wasn't actually melted, but welded. A bloomery (basically a huge chimney filled with ore and charcoal, and a bellow to stoke the fire) works by heating the iron ore to 1200-1250°C, at which point most impurites turn into molten slag. The remaining iron particles are white hot, and have the consistency of clay. When they touch other iron, they stick together, and also capture carbon from the surrounding atmosphere within that chimney. (This is very similar to the process of asteroids lumping together.)

At the end, the blomery is broken open, and after the slag has run off, you get a spongy lump of iron. This is kept hot and hammered into a bar, welding everything together. This bar is hammered flat, folded, reheated and welded together, again. This was usually done 10-20 times, a process called refining, done to even out the material and drive impurities out. (Yes, exactly like the japanese do. They just include the "making of iron stock material" in the "making of a blade", claiming it to be something special, while european countries had this done by someone else than the sword maker and always considered it an "of course this is done, it has to be done" thing. But this was done everywhere.)

Basically, you can only cast iron with a very high carbon content (about 3%). The problem is that iron with more than 1% carbon content (usually - there are trace materials that can change that) cannot withstand the hardening process. It simply becomes too hard, and too brittle, and will shatter on hardening. There are known blades that were made of cast iron, which was heated repeatedly to burn off excess carbon (like done during the traditional way of making a katana).

Different ores produce different carbon contents when refined - european ore and method produce something in the .3 to .7 range, while japanese iron sands and their furnace procuce something like 1.5% on average (too much for a good blade - thus the aforementioned refining process).

Wootz is something different as it is basically the only steel that can be cast, - it has about 2. % carbon, and due to some funny trace elements and the fact that most of the carbon burns off during the pour and leave a high carbon blade behind, which means a high quality blade (after some additional work).

[TheHammer]

I see thanks to both of you. I guess that I don't view the GoT world as purely medieval technology wise. Valyrian Steel is an unknown material (perhaps inspired by Wootz), which is possibly contains some magical properties, at least in its initial creation. Of course that's aside from the single side of the sword mold which wouldn't make sense as you noted. Although, it does make for a more interesting visual.

[Esquire]

Erm - if analysis suggests that Damascus/Wootz steel cannot possibly perform as Valyrian steel does, perhaps they aren't actually the same thing? I'm pretty sure there's a Martin quote floating around that says Valyrian steel really is magic, not just high technology.

[LaCroix]

Actually Wootz steel has many of the qualities that are attributed to Valyrian steel - hard to dent, extremely flexible, stays sharp like medical scalpel steels, etc. It's on par with the best quality steels you could produce in our modern times, which is, in medieval setting, magical.

But there is only one known place where you can mine it (in india), and that one is almost completely depleted. Wootz steel was legendary, and almost impossible to obtain.

[Elheru Aran]

I won't get terribly picky about the wootz bit as I have never researched that deeply into it. I find the casting part slightly questionable but I'll look into that.

Anyway, I think we've asserted fairly conclusively that unless Valyrian steel is wootz or some form of magic steel, the casting the swords part is bullshit. Don't know why they went with that as IMO the image of a smith taking the sword and beating it into shape is just as dramatic to me...

[TheHammer]

I won't get terribly picky about the wootz bit as I have never researched that deeply into it. I find the casting part slightly questionable but I'll look into that.

Anyway, I think we've asserted fairly conclusively that unless Valyrian steel is wootz or some form of magic steel, the casting the swords part is bullshit. Don't know why they went with that as IMO the image of a smith taking the sword and beating it into shape is just as dramatic to me...

This way lets them show the "two swords" which is the title of the episode. True, they could've had two smiths hammering away as well, but this showed them side by side.

[Darksider]

Wow. They were doing a decent job of showing Jaime becoming a better person, what with him being humbled by the loss of his hand and jumping into a bear pit to save Lady Gigantor, but yesterday they did a complete 180 to remind everyone how much of a dick he is.

It's just one of those scenes where Martin basically goes "Oh, you thought characters were improving? Let me remind you how fucked up my universe is."

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'm kind of disappointed nobody even dismissed my idea as being utterly ridiculous. Then again, it's probably the most bullshit "Who poisoned Joffrey" theory out there. Only way it could actually work, given Cersei's character, is if she intended the poison for Margaery and stuff got mixed up. Ah well, it was a fun theory to make up.


My take on the scene between Jamie and Cersei: At best, it was a complete derailment of Jamie's character development. He spent some time working toward not being such a piece of shit all the time, only for that to happen. Making Cersei more complex and sympathetic could have been achieved by simply having her tell Jamie to stop out of respect for the dead and they stop there. Instead, hey! Rape scene! It was totally necessary, right? (No, it was not)

Jamie did lots of horrible shit. Trying to murder Bran (though there was some logical reason to that) and strangling the dude, which also had some kind of logic behind it. I'm sure he's got plenty of other sins under his belt. But he had started to reconsider his actions, started to develop a better moral compass. Out the window that goes! Much like Bran did, except this time there wasn't even the excuse of getting caught nuts deep in his twin sister.

If the director really does think it was consensual by the end there, he's a fucking idiot if we're being charitable. I have to wonder about GRRM's reaction to this.

Darksider: In the book, it didn't go down like this. I can't attest to how much input Martin gives for every scene of every episode. In the book Cersei at first wanted to not fuck in front of her dead son (because she might get caught) but relented. Still kinda rape-y, but less than what happened in the show.

[Vympel]

GRRM has weighed in on it:

“I think the “butterfly effect” that I have spoken of so often was at work here. In the novels, Jaime is not present at Joffrey’s death, and indeed, Cersei has been fearful that he is dead himself, that she has lost both the son and the father/ lover/ brother. And then suddenly Jaime is there before her. Maimed and changed, but Jaime nonetheless. Though the time and place is wildly inappropriate and Cersei is fearful of discovery, she is as hungry for him as he is for her.

The whole dynamic is different in the show, where Jaime has been back for weeks at the least, maybe longer, and he and Cersei have been in each other’s company on numerous occasions, often quarreling. The setting is the same, but neither character is in the same place as in the books, which may be why Dan & David played the sept out differently. But that’s just my surmise; we never discussed this scene, to the best of my recollection.

Also, I was writing the scene from Jaime’s POV, so the reader is inside his head, hearing his thoughts. On the TV show, the camera is necessarily external. You don’t know what anyone is thinking or feeling, just what they are saying and doing.

If the show had retained some of Cersei’s dialogue from the books, it might have left a somewhat different impression — but that dialogue was very much shaped by the circumstances of the books, delivered by a woman who is seeing her lover again for the first time after a long while apart during which she feared he was dead. I am not sure it would have worked with the new timeline.

That’s really all I can say on this issue. The scene was always intended to be disturbing… but I do regret if it has disturbed people for the wrong reasons.”

[Elfdart]

Wow. They were doing a decent job of showing Jaime becoming a better person, what with him being humbled by the loss of his hand and jumping into a bear pit to save Lady Gigantor, but yesterday they did a complete 180 to remind everyone how much of a dick he is.

It's just one of those scenes where Martin basically goes "Oh, you thought characters were improving? Let me remind you how fucked up my universe is."

They did that last season with The Pimp. It had been almost a full season since he'd done anything heinous, then you see him gloating over letting Joffrey use Ros for crossbow practice. Sometimes they remind the viewers that a character is a major asshole. Jaime is a scumbag, pure and simple. The fact that he may have saved Kings Landing from being burned is an outlier, as is his relative kindness to Brienne.

[Elfdart]

I'm kind of disappointed nobody even dismissed my idea as being utterly ridiculous. Then again, it's probably the most bullshit "Who poisoned Joffrey" theory out there. Only way it could actually work, given Cersei's character, is if she intended the poison for Margaery and stuff got mixed up. Ah well, it was a fun theory to make up.

Given Cersei's weird obsession with having pure Lannister blood on the throne, as well as her willingness to poison her own son Tommen, I think she's a prime suspect. Killing off Joffrey before he knocks up Margery makes her Queen Regent again. I'm also convinced that if the story she told Mrs Stark is true, and she had a black-haired boy with Robert who died, then it wasn't a natural death. She killed her own son so his place could be taken in the future by a newer, "better" one. That's my theory.

[Scrib]

I'm kind of disappointed nobody even dismissed my idea as being utterly ridiculous. Then again, it's probably the most bullshit "Who poisoned Joffrey" theory out there. Only way it could actually work, given Cersei's character, is if she intended the poison for Margaery and stuff got mixed up. Ah well, it was a fun theory to make up.

Given Cersei's weird obsession with having pure Lannister blood on the throne, as well as her willingness to poison her own son Tommen, I think she's a prime suspect. Killing off Joffrey before he knocks up Margery makes her Queen Regent again. I'm also convinced that if the story she told Mrs Stark is true, and she had a black-haired boy with Robert who died, then it wasn't a natural death. She killed her own son so his place could be taken in the future by a newer, "better" one. That's my theory.

You do realise that she was going to poison Tommen to prevent him from being taken by Stannis, paraded around...and then killed right? And that's if someone unscrupulous doesn't find them first and do to them what happened to the Targaryens (have their heads bashed in and their mother raped) It's not like she decided to do it on a whim.

Tyrion has a point about Cersei and her kids, she's not a nice person but outright killing them?

[TheHammer]

I'm kind of disappointed nobody even dismissed my idea as being utterly ridiculous. Then again, it's probably the most bullshit "Who poisoned Joffrey" theory out there. Only way it could actually work, given Cersei's character, is if she intended the poison for Margaery and stuff got mixed up. Ah well, it was a fun theory to make up.

Given Cersei's weird obsession with having pure Lannister blood on the throne, as well as her willingness to poison her own son Tommen, I think she's a prime suspect. Killing off Joffrey before he knocks up Margery makes her Queen Regent again. I'm also convinced that if the story she told Mrs Stark is true, and she had a black-haired boy with Robert who died, then it wasn't a natural death. She killed her own son so his place could be taken in the future by a newer, "better" one. That's my theory.

Yeah I think you're way off base with your theories there. Cersei's mantra during the entire series is that she'd go to any lengths to protect her children. I don't think she'd kill any of them, regardless of the father, unless it was under the guise of "protecting" them from something worse (as with Tommen when Stannis attacked). Further, even if she felt she had to kill Joffrey, I'd suspect she'd use a poison that was less torturous.

As far as prime suspect, Little Finger's involvement was obvious, so I presume now you're looking for the big name accomplice. And the Tyrells also stand to benefit. That seems to be the most logical theory going about. Lady Oleana's words following his death about their "circumstances being much improved", and the fact that she seemingly is the person who clipped one of the "poison jewels" from Sansa's necklace makes her the prime suspect as the actual "assassin".

Think about it, the Lannisters were in prime position to put their descendants as lords of four of the seven kingdoms. Five if you'd consider Joffrey would have a claim to the Stormlands. Even should Cersei and Loras fail to have a child, then Highgarden would likely end up in the hands of Joffrey/Margery's children. Thats a lot of concentration of power for one family, and one could see why the Tyrells and Little Finger would want to prevent that.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Littlefinger said outright he orchestrated it, and given the knowledge he displayed of how it all went down I'm inclined to believe that he definitely played a big part in it. How much of it was his planning and getting a stooge to do the dirty work is harder to say. He's an admitted pathological liar, and when he wants to actually be intimidating he'd be perfectly willing to overstate his role in something, as opposed to his usual schtick of being so obviously shifty that nobody thinks he'll actually pull one over on them. He's barely even a lord, and most people seem to be unaware of just how much money he moves about. In the minds of most of King's Landing, he's of zero threat. Varys has almost as much claimship to being a lord, and he's only called Lord Varys if people feel like buttering him up. Of which he is quite aware.

His stated motive for having The Blond Shit killed was because he was destabilizing the Seven Kingdoms and generally making a mess of things. I sort of suspect he also did it to get at Cersei for threatening his life just to show him she was powerful and he wasn't. If he ever tells her about it, he'd certainly be able to gloat about how knowledge and bribery can give you all kinds of power.

The thing to keep in mind about Cersei is that, even though she was quite honestly terrified of Joffrey (she as much as said it) she still loved him and wanted to protect him. She wouldn't poison her son just to get Margaery away from the throne. Try and poison Margaery? Maybe. But definitely not Joffrey. If Tywin hadn't returned and started bringing the little bastard in line, it's possible she would have come to the point where she decided the fucker just had to die. But Tywin was back, and Tywin was quite able to make Joffrey back down with a few words and a glare. Joffrey's thoughts when Tywin went force of personality on him were likely along the lines of "I don't *think* anyone has been killed by getting glared at, but I don't want to be first." Tywin could keep The Mad King relatively under control, and Joffrey wasn't that bad yet, nor was he half as smart.

Honestly, Tywin ranks as being a more likely suspect for killing the shit. He had to deal with it the last time a madman was on the Iron Throne, and would have plenty of cause to prevent another Aerys. Though poisoning really isn't his MO.

There were plenty of clues as to who actually slipped the poison into Joffrey's wine. Watch Olenna's expression throughout the Purple Wedding. That alone clues you in that she's at the very least aware of what's going down, even before The Blond Shit starts choking to death.