The latest installment of the second season of Game of Thrones seems to have many fans of A Song of Ice and Fire a little hot under the collar. “The Night Lands” had more than its fair share of deviations from the source material, which makes a great deal of sense when one imagines compressing a 1,009 page novel into ten less-than-hour-long episodes. Instead of getting our ire up at the myriad changes, we think it is much more worthwhile to attempt to game out what some of these changes might mean.
A reminder: Beyond the Wall is a column for folks who have previously read the novels that A Game of Thrones is based on – or those who have no qualms being completely spoiled for things to come, including some significant things for future seasons. So if you’re trying to watch the series unspoiled, we kindly point you in the direction of Carla’s review of “The Night Lands.”
Ivey:
Bob, you and I have both been predicting that the story would have to start taking some twists and turns not necessarily seen on the pages of A Clash of Kings. In the first season, and in the first episode of this season, there really haven’t been many major changes. However, in “The Night Lands” we’re starting to see some cracks in the wall. From Stannis and Melisandre getting global on the Painted Table to the death of one of Daenerys’ bloodriders, loyal readers of George R. R. Martin’s epic tale saw many things on screen this week that they did not expect. And the backlash has begun.
But knowing you as I do, I’m sure you’d rather look at what some of these changes might mean for the greater story overall. I think one of the changes that most irked fans is one that would be interesting to delve into. In “The Night Lands” Cersei revealed to Tyrion that she had no involvement with the systematic hunting down of Robert Baratheon’s bastard children, and that it was King Joffrey that was behind the plot. In the novels, the Queen was the proverbial man behind the curtain. So, smart guy, tell me: how might this change affect things in later seasons?
Bob:
Well, it didn’t strike me as terribly upsetting to begin with. I feel like season one (with some scenes that were not in the book) really did a good job in establishing the relationship between Cersei and Robert and the anger and spite that it bred. Would having Cersei kill a bunch of Robert’s bastards have done the same? Also, with Joffrey being significantly older on screen than in the books, it makes sense that he might have a little more teenage rebellion in him. The change also put a little bit of sympathy in Cersei’s corner, which is definitely new.
As for how this could play out down the road … I have a few thoughts. Assuming that the show follows the books for all the major plot points, I think that when Cersei becomes the real head of state after Joffrey’s death, it might have more meaning. If she continues to struggle with Joff, I think it will make even more dramatic her ascension to sole ruler. It will certainly put a little bit of a different feel on her rise and fall, and I think it could really pay off. Of course, this wasn’t THAT big of a change. Everything could still play out as in the books.
Ivey:
I think it is pretty clear that we are supposed to look at Joffrey as the primary antagonist of the second season. Shifting the initiative from Cersei to Joff aids in that – though there are things in upcoming episodes that accomplish the same goal so much more completely. I’m more curious about how this change affects the Queen Regent. I think this is less about power – let’s not forget her little tête-à-tête with Baelish last week. You’re on the right track, that it might plant the seeds of a chasm between she and her son.
But I am concerned about the idea that this might lead to any level of sympathy for Cersei. I don’t want people to like Cersei, as I think that could ripple into Jaime’s story. So far, I’ve only found it in my heart to forgive one person who was involved in tossing Bran out of a window.
Bob:
Oh, see, now I’ve always had a little bit of sympathy for Cersei. Not a lot, mind you, but she’s more complicated than just a two dimensional villain. She has motivations that, while somewhat sociopathic, are within the realm of reason. She’s trying to protect her family, much in the same way that Catelyn is doing, only with very different methods. Yes, her family is a cruel and ruthless one, but it’s the one she was born into. Yes, she makes a lot of bad choices, and a lot of selfish ones, but she’s a fascinating character to watch (especially when she is falling apart).
The show has always tried to make Cersei more sympathetic. Look at the scene between her and Robert, talking about their failed marriage. She was painted as a wronged woman, one who really did love Robert and was scorned. This certainly was not played up in the books. Don’t worry though, I’m sure she is not going to become the hero of the show. Fans are still going to hate her — and love to hate her.
Ivey:
And love to watch her take the walk of shame.
Clacked by Ivey West 
on Apr 11, 2012 @ 10:30 EST5EDT
They could have mentioned that king Joffrey wanted the bastards killed to show that Joffrey has actually made life threatening decisions including[/spoiler] that Joffrey was the Lannister that tried to get Bran killed after the fall.
I’ve been hoping for just this sort of blog, someone(s) analyzing the difference between the book and show world, so THANK YOU! Write much much more next time, won’t you please?
Some of really don’t “love” to watch Cersei’s walk of shame. I thought it was one of the most horrible, gratuitous, and misogynistic aspects of the books do date.
And sadly, firmly based in our world’s history of the day. I read an interview with GRRM talking about how he based it on some of the punishments that were carried out in Europe in the Middle Ages. Horrifying.
*POST AUTHOR*
The “like” was as tongue-in-cheek as much as anything else, but I will say she suffered a much better fate than Ned Stark, whose transgressions didn’t include tossing a child out a window or ordering the murders of her husband’s bastard children.
And yet she wasn’t paraded through the streets naked and jeered and sexually humiliated because her brother tossed a kid out a window, or because she ordered murders. She was punished for cheating on her spouse, which, funnily enough, a rather large number of male protagonists, including ostensibly sympathetic ones, do in the series as well.
I think it’s extremely interesting that people invariably pity Theon for what he goes through, despite the fact that he is a betrayer and child murderer (of a child that might have been his own, no less!), but a lot of fans take a sort of wicked enjoyment out of Cersei’s punishment. I don’t think GRRM put the scene in there for our enjoyment, and the implication that it’s okay to enjoy what happens to her as a karmic comeuppance is creepy, IMO.
Dare I say it? We are harder on women because we expect better behaviour from them? I think it’s true for me at least.