Fanfiction.net/gameofthrones

“A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies, said Jojen. The man who never reads lives only one.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Dance with Dragons.

In light of the disgusting deviations of Game of Thrones in respect of the books, I believe this quote sums up the difference between the books and the television series quite perfectly. We are at the end of Season 5, and by now, the only light exasperated book-fans have is the fact that certain theories are now being confirmed. Apart from that, this show has become a fanfiction, and we all know GRRM's opinion on fanfiction.

Today, I was told that 'the show is based on the books, so it doesn't have to follow them directly'. Did book readers expect changes? Yes of course, we're not illogical. We know that adaptions are often tricky and it's difficult to include everything in the adaptation. Did we expect the producers to respect the source material? Yes. Did we expect characters, especially key characters, and their character developments to follow the same line as in the books? Yes, of course. Why on earth wouldn't they?

Have they portrayed key character's developments as in the books? Not. At. All. They have white washed so many characters simply because they are fan-favourites or because the actresses have really nice breasts. 

D&D clearly favorite Dany over everyone else, including the true heir to the throne, Stannis. This is why they seem to have swapped the roles of madness between the two characters. Let's talk about the logic of Shireen's burning. Had this series not been based on a set of pre-existing books with pre-existing characters and pre-existing storylines,  one would say say Shireen's burning is an indication of change in Stannis's character, in that he's willing to sacrifice everything for his cause. It would've been a poignant change in character. But this is a series based on the pre-existing - so to have this change is not honouring the books, but rather another example of D&D's lazy story telling by having Stannis go all Dany on his own child rather than finding a way to show Stannis's true character in the most concise way possible. There are lots of ways of doing this. Exhibit A: DONT BURNER SHIREEN BARATHEON. 

Books vs Show

Let's not even talk about how out of character it was off Davos , who saved Gendry,  a boy he barely knew, to not save Shireen, the little girl whose been teaching him how to read,  the little girl with whom he has spend much time with and grown fond of. But hey, D&D's budget constraints (see 'lazy story writing') couldn't have that in either.

You know who HAS gotten crazy at this point in the books? Dany! D&D's beloved. You know who HAS become bitter about everything and experienced an interesting turn in character development? Tyrion! But Tyrion being a fan favorite and Dany bring D&D's precious angel basically means no interesting character developments for these two. Nope, we shan't ruffle any feathers or show full characters on this show because budget constraints. Let's just make Stannis crazy because hey,  he won't fill our nude quota and no fans seem to like him anyway (given than we've portrayed him as a megalomaniac. Oops). 

Dany Apologists

D&D have said they're sticking to the books as much as they can - how is this even remotely true when Stannis wouldn't have anyone else burned just because they were experiencing difficulties? How is this true when Stannis names Shireen heir to Storms End before he marched onto Winterfell? 

I used to dislike Stannis when I first watched the show. But once I'd started reading the books,  I realized D&D made him out to be this crazy,  power - hungry leader when he was really the opposite. He's one of the few players on the Game week wishes to serve the Realm. I realized then that if characterization had been cut out for one major character on the show, how many more could this have happened to?

I think by choosing not to read the books simply because they are too long or because the show will portray the end result anyway, book-burners and show apologists are doing themselves a disservice, You are entitled to whichever form of entertainment you choose, but why settle for a Chomp when you can have Lindt? You are allowing D&D insult your intelligence with sudden, illogical changes in character and plot-holes deep enough to fit Drogon, Viserion and Rheagon. Firstly, why on earth would Stannis take his child, wife and Melissandre down to Winterfell with him when he is on the brink of war?

Lancel Lannister, at the beginning of Season five, stated that he had confessed his sins when he became a part of the Faith - so why didn't the High Sparrow imprison Cercei as soon as they had the power to do so? Why wait for Littlefinger to present him as a means of getting back at Cercei? It doesn't even make chronological sense - unless Sparrow has been acting selfishly,  which we all know is nonsense. But then again, given D&D's disregard for audience intelligence, they probably expect you to believe everything they feed you.

Also, how are you forgetting the Greyscale saga? Show Jorah even says that one touch of someone with Greyscale can cause you to contract the disease. So how is it that Tyrion,  Dany etc have not yet contracted it when Jorah has been freely shaking hands with people?

Friendzone? Here, have some Greyscale.

To maintain its viewership, D&D have resorted to attacking the good, sweet, quiet characters (Sansa,  Shireen and to a degree, Myrcella - although we already knew her shroud would be gold) for shock value. This is precisely what GRRM doesn't not like about fanfiction. But why did they have to resort to these non-existent happenings when they had two whole, 1500+ pages worth of fantastic storytelling that includes action and a water-tight plot?

Do yourself a favour - read the books. Because things have changed to the point where it is not following the books anymore, but rather going on their own path. Jon Snow said two roads lead to the same castle - in this case, I believe the show's road is more likely to end up Sothoryos than in Kings Landing.

Game of Woes

(This post initially started as a post about the increase in blatant misogyny in general - however, the rant about its underlying presence in Season five of Game of Thrones went on longer than I expected.)

If you follow me on Twitter, then you will know that I am currently incredibly passionate about and incredibly annoyed at the progression of the Game of Thrones storyline. Apart from the fact that it detracts from the books in respect of the general storyline, there have been several changes that have strong undertones of misogyny. The exclusion of two strong female characters, Lady Stoneheart and Arianne Martell (who is a point of view character), for me was the worst because, apart from the fact that they're two of my favourite characters, their presence in the story is significant as issues that GRRM explores in the book cannot be explored through other characters. Lady Stoneheart isn't a vengeful ghost - she represents the aftermath of someone who has lost all that is dear to her in the most brutal way possible. All the prettiness is stripped away to reveal the cold, hard and bitter truth. She is justice and she gives the Brotherhood a worthy cause. Arianne isn't another insignificant player in the games - she represents those who have attempted, and failed, to play the game based on manipulation and emotion rather than viewing the game from a birds eye view. She had, as she put it, played the Game of Thrones 'like a drunkard'. But she, unlike many others, has been given a chance to make up for her mistake and is guided by the mentorship of her father. This is where we start to see the combination of character growth and flaw, and I am so excited to see what GRRM has in store for her in The Winds of Winter.

Another character we see growing in the series to become a strong player with a different strategy is Sansa Stark, or rather Alayne Stone. She grows from the victim we saw her become in Kings Landing to a player who stays under the radar, much like her current protector Petyr Baelish. She plays the quiet, intelligent game and in the Alayne chapter from The Winds of Winter, we see her start to beat Petyr at his own game. We see POSITIVE things from Sansa!!!

So why the on earth do D&D ship her off to Winterfel to marry one of the most cruel characters in this series? To revert her to the victim she was in Kings Landing? We needed the Jeyne Poole storyline, we get that. But why Sansa? Because she's conveniently nearby? Why have we reduced Sansa to a plot device? Apart from the fact that this is incredibly lazy script writing, D&D have once again trampled over another female character's development and storyline to convenience themselves.

GRRM about Fanfiction.

This show is now so uncanon, it's a fanfiction; you can read all about GRRM's opinion on fanfictions here.

While we're on the topic of D&D's disregard for female significance in the series, can we please talk about how they've reduced Dorne to some tropical Southern paradise and the anti-climatic Sandsnakes. One of my book-burning friends comment on the Sandsnakes was that they were lame. Honestly, I don't blame him, given their portrayal in Season five. In the books, the Sandsnakes are such a force to be reckoned with that Doran has them locked up before they can avenge their father's death. In season five, we got this anti-climatic tug-o-war between Bronn and Jaime (wth is he doing in Dorne) and the Sandsnakes over Myrcella and an excuse for nudity. WHY ARE WE REDUCING THE EPIC SANDSNAKES TO LAME FIGHTERS AND 'SEDUCTRESSES' TO FILL D&D's NUDE SCENE QUOTA? Oh, and Ellaria has been reduced to a bloodthirsty, vengeful woman who lost her lover in the series, because that's easier than portraying her as a woman who loves her children and would rather keep peace to ensure they are safe and that some sanity remains in Dorne. More lazy screenwriting and female character reduction, curtesy of D&D.

Back to the topic of Dorne, the 'Kingdom of Acceptance', where base-born children are loved and not looked down upon. Where next in line to the throne is not determined based on gender but rather on age. Where the Martells are actually 'Nymeros-Martells' due to the significance and influence of Nymeria of Rhoyne. Why have D&D given us a summer island holiday resort instead of the only kingdom that didn't bend the knee, but joined the Seven Kingdoms through marriage. Why aren't we shown why the Martells, who rule Dorne, are 'Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken'? 

Why is it so difficult for the show to portray the women of the series as strong individuals, instead of reducing them to victims, manipulators and nude scenes, incapable of being worthy players in the game of thrones?

PS: Please do not use Dany to defend D&Ds misogyny. Half her storyline for this season has been cut, meaning book-burners don't get to see her full descent into madness (yaaaay for more female plotline reduction). Plus, in the tv series, she watched, with a straight face, her dragons burn alive and eat a fellow human being. She has no claim to the Iron Throne. Apart from the fact that she lost that claim after Robert's Rebellion, she knows nothing of Westeros or its people. Granted her own ancestors conquered Westeros with the aid of their dragons, so anything is possible - however, she would fly to Westeros with vengeance in her heart and claim that which she believes was taken from her. There are other, less selfish players who would serve the realm better than she would.

This isn't a Subtweet, not really...

Nymeria of Rhoyne

We are under a day short of being halfway through the year and this scares me. Seriously, where have these six months gone? Oh yes, I've spent them either procrastinating or "studying" (see staring at my textbook with a blank expression, thinking of Nymeria of Rhoyne).

On the plus side I am currently on a four week holiday, during which I intend to increase my reading time, sleeping time and cooking time. The last one is because I love food and I'm tired of relying on my mom to make my favourite dishes for me - not because I'm trying to impress a boy or his mother for marriage purposes. Yeah boys, WE LIKE SANDWICHES TOO.

I tried my best to minimize my social media usage for the last few months now and control my addiction. Quite frankly, it sucked. Cold turkey methods do NOT work. Don't try this at home, kids; the withdrawal symptoms just worsen your condition. 

During the time I spent trying to avoid Twitter, I pondered on why we publish our thoughts on a public platform such as Twitter or a blog. Is it purely to express our creativity or a need to stroke our egos with affirmation from others? Why is a tweet only as good as the number of retweets it gets, or an account as prominent as the number of followers it has? Is what we think not good enough for ourselves that we have to seek affirmation? 

There's a week and a day left till my twenty-first birthday and I'm quite happy to be celebrating this milestone during the month of Ramadhaan. Speaking of Ramadhaan and my Twitter addiction; over the last two and a half years (i.e.: the time when people began to believe my rants about Twitter being amazing), I have noticed two 'types' of Muslims on Twitter. These types tend to come out during this month in particular; the cynical types that hate on Ramadhaan Muslims and the self-righteous types that hate on those who aren't Ramadhaan Muslims. 

In respect of the cynics who won't stop subtweeting that Muslim girl with a hijab avatar during Ramadhaan; I cannot deal with their judgement. This judgement of people who are, in their own way, trying to make a positive change in their lives; even it is for a short period. At least they're trying. Also, Ramadhaan is a wonderful opportunity to start making positive changes in your life. Perhaps they see it this way too.

(OH, and while we are on the topic of cynics on Twitter... (Warning: Blunt rant ahead. You might want to stop reading).

It appears there is this belief that cynicism gains popularity. Perhaps it does, given the number of retweets cynical tweets receive. But then again, maybe it's just an appreciation of dark humour. There is, however, no need to be cynical to the point of dissing people who post inspirational tweets.

Constant cynicism doesn't allow you to enjoy anything life has to offer and essentially desensitizes you in respect of other people because one is so caught up in their own life. Apart from ignorance, insensitivity is also a sign of bitterness; one can't be happy with what one has, so one is cynical about everyone else to create this false sense of superiority to mask the fact that one is unable to accept something about one's own life.

If one cant see the sunlight streaming through the clouds, it's one's personal business. But one should not eclipse someone else's rainbow because one chooses to be swallowed by their own storm.

Also, has anyone else noticed the people-hate on Twitter? I don't understand; if you can't stand people so much, why are you on Twitter?  Because you enjoy the false identities that some people create? If that's the case, you'd be better off with a book. I get that the internet allows you to come out of your shell and give you the confidence that you might not have in person; but good God, do you have to be mean? No wonder no one wants to be your friend in person, because all you do is complain about everything.

Okay, wow. That was mean and it's Ramadhaan. I'm sorry.)

Moving on.

The other 'type'of Muslim are the self-righteous who think they're better than the man without a beard or a woman without a scarf. Ladies and gentlemen, this is counter judgment to 'type one' Muslim and it doesn't make you any better than they are.Self-righteousness stems from pride, and, in case you've forgotten your Tahzeeb lessons from Primary School Madressah, "A man with an atom of pride shall not enter Jannah.". Everyone is on their own spiritual journey, so shift your focus to self-improvement.

It is impossible to avoid these types of people, be it in Ramadhaan or any other time of the year. Clearly it is difficult to please anyone, so worry about your own contentment and that of your Creator. 

I wish you a Blessed Ramadhaan :) May the all positive changes you make this month become permanent changes thereafter.

Vanity Fair

There have been a few.. uh, things swimming around in my head recently. Some people would consider them topical and interesting, and others, downright insulting. But there's one I'm sure a lot of people would ideally agree on. Vanity and its prevalence.

I guess we can't really escape it. As human beings, we're naturally attracted to things with aesthetic appeal - people, achievements, status, homes, lifestyles. We always find ourselves envisioning futures guided by vanity. But why has it become the focal point of futures?

Why do parents put pressure on their kids in school to get the DUX or become Head Girl or Head Boy to the extent that to not achieve it is seen as a failure? Does the fact that your child is not the DUX mean that they're academically incapable? Is fifth position, as opposed to first, really that detrimental? And why, exactly, do you want your child to be DUX of the school? So you can show off to friends and family?

Why, in terms of dating or even marriage proposals, is looks so important? Hormones aside, why on EARTH do we still hear the phrases 'oh, he's so fair' or 'does she have blue eyes'? Why do we allow physiques blind us against the important things like values or, simply, personalities? Why do we allow physical attraction crumble solid relationships that we've already built? (And why on earth is the 'prettiness' of our unborn, un-conceived babies so important?)

Why do we care about what cars we drive, the cars our friends drive, why their parents bought them such an expensive car and what our parents would've done? Is it really difficult to simply be happy for someone else's fortune? Why do we see the need to better someone else?

Why is the time spent planning an elaborate wedding longer than the duration of the actual marriage? Why has the detail on a serviette holder on the table twenty five of the reception hall become so important? A single person is not defined by their family or upbringing - so why do we place emphasis on the surname of the family our sons and daughters are marrying into, instead of looking at the qualities of the individuals they are marrying?

Why are the perceptions of others so important to us? And why do we scrutinize and criticize others?

I guess vanity and perception is something that is constantly drummed into us. Every male lead in a book or film is physically attractive, so young girls are brought up looking for their potential 'other-half' based on looks (and probably a dark, mysterious allure). Our economy has places emphasis on consumption, hence the use of marketing and upgrades to create trends. Shiny badges and braided blazers earn us pats on the head (and maybe even money).

Vanity is a veil that both covers and blinds us. It is outwardly. It is perception. And perception is not always reality.

* * *

In other news, I started (and completed) a book that has no relation to my degree of study whatsoever for the first time a few months. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones by Cassandra Clare. I'm a sucker for fantasy novels, so it was a wonderful 12 hours. Keen to start City of Ashes!

Controversial or Disrespectful?

In my opinion, there are two types of controversial statements; one which offends a societal ideal and one which is downright disrespectful. I shamefully enjoy the first type of controversy; it's really interesting to see different ideology being challenged, particularly on a creative platform - my favourite being dramatic arts. But just reading up on Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses' was enough to make me cringe audibly.

Basically in 1988 author Salman Rushdie (I prefer not to refer to him by his newly acquired 'Knight' status) published this book and, though it is classified under the genre of 'magical realism' in fiction, it contains clear, controversial elements directly linked to the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), His life, His family and the Origins of the Holy Qur'aan. Rushdie is clearly well-read, but to use his talent and knowledge for blaspheme is petty and disrespectful. Perhaps he doesn't like Islam or its teachings, and that's okay. That's his opinion. But to intentionally include incorrect and offensive information about something that is important to someone else; where is the respect in that? How does he expect anyone to respect his work if he disrespects others?

At the time of publication, there was (naturally) a huge uproar in the Muslim world about the book. First it was band in several countries, which is acceptable. But a year later, the Iranian government released a Fatwa which ordered the execution of Rushdie and his publishers. As much as I dislike this man and his blaspheme, I really do think that this Fatwa is the worst thing that could have happened. Yes, the book is a clear crime against Islam, but to retaliate with violence doesn't exactly help to improve the image of our religion. The media has a wonderful talent of highlighting the extremist behaviour of people who call Islam their religion and occurrences like these only create a negative image. I understand the anger and frustration over the book and its content, but there was unnecessary loss of life that resulted from the Fatwa.

I came across this quote when I was reading up on the Rushdie Affair:

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” - Salman Rushdie

If expression simply means 'to offend', then you need to rethink your ideas, Mr. Rushdie. Literature and expression is about so much more that about being controversial and offensive. When I was in high school, one of my English teachers raved about Rushdie's work, but I'd remembered my mother telling me about a book he had written which insulted the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and so I mentally cast him aside. Perhaps he is a fantastic writer and deserves those awards he has received for his works, but I cannot possibly enjoy the acclaimed literary merit of his writing when he has published such an atrocity.

Roadworthy

I was just reading a blog post about a stressed out matriculant who will be writing trials in under a month and thought back to my trials period and realized my stress levels were nothing then compared to how I felt when I took my drivers test a week and a half ago. Whilst America was enjoying their Independence Day, I spent most of my morning feeling nauseous and hysterical, clutching onto every shred of faith and Divine Intervention I could get before doing my drivers test.

Now, let me explain why the stress levels over 9000. In South Africa, we have this wonderful method of getting your license through the payment of bribes. The bribe generally 'sees to it' that your inspector will overlook any minor or slight mistakes you make when doing your test - basically they'll overlook anything that isn't apparently an automatic fail. 

According to my instructor, if you do not pay the bribe, you are guaranteed to fail. And for two weeks prior to my test, I was continuously subjected to this mantra, purely because I refused to pay the bribe. Firstly, it's unethical and, call me old-fashioned or (sarcastically) 'holy', but I do not believe that there is an Barkat or Blessing in anything that's done unIslamically. And paying a bribe is pretty unholy to me. Secondly, I couldn't afford to pay the bribe - paying for my driving lessons myself was wearing out my bank account. So the mantra was the main reason behind my ridiculously high stress levels that morning. 

So I go into the test, with the feeling that I was about to vomit and I make the wonderful rookie mistake of mixing up the indicators and the wipers for my pre-trip inspection. And my groundwork. And on the road.

Luckily that was the only mistake I made and, by some Miracle of God, I passed my drivers test. My reaction to my pass: Shock to Disbelief to Numbness to Relief to BURSTING INTO TEARS IN FRONT OF THE INSPECTOR to Disbelief (at this point, I had my temporary license in my hand). [Fast Foward to the next afternoon] OMG MOM I CAN DRIVE ON THE ROAD LEGALLY.

Of course my mother still wont let me use her car, but that's okay. My faith that integrity does get you  somewhere has been restored and to all those instructors who pester your learners into paying the bribe: take that. It is possible to get your drivers license in an honest fashion in South Africa.

Oh, and to the matrics who are preparing for trials - good luck! I know it currently seems like the end of the world if you don't get all A's, but you'll be laughing at yourself next year when you write your first university exams, I promise.

I think I overslept

For the past week, I've spent every second waking hour sleeping (first waking hour is for Fajr, btw). Exams are finally over and, finally, I can read more, sleep more, exercise more, write more and blog more. Right? Wrong, I've been spending most of my time oversleeping to the extent that I'm so tired when I wake up and all I look forward to is going to sleep. Not to mention all the post-exam cleaning up, those mini heart-attacks whilst opening up the campus site to see my marks and projects. Yes, I still have campus work. So much for a holiday.

I do have a list of things I would like to do during this one month holiday, though. And I intend on crossing off at least half the things on that list. One of those include learning the Glee cover of Papa don't Preach on guitar. I found this video tutorial that makes it quite easy to learn, so I'll be using that to help me.

In other news, Kim And Kanye have named their daughter North West. And, of course, it is currently a World Trend on Twitter. And, of course, the first thing any logical person would think is that everyone is talking about the South Africa province, right? RIGHT?? I guess, though, that the parents looked at their baby and thought 'YOLO'. Speaking of the couple, a friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I checked on Twitter if it was legit, but I couldn't find the post. So, assuming that this is in fact a photoshopped item, hats off to the person who made this.

Monday Madness

Does it make me weird that I enjoy Mondays? I mean, I know it's the generally accepted view that Mondays mean work and reality. But Mondays are beautiful. They're the start to a new week, a fresh start to correct mistakes of the previous week. A chance for redemption, to catch up on work that should have been done ages ago. An opportunity to study for that test on Tuesday, the one which you promised yourself you'd study for on the weekend. My point is, if there was no Monday, you'd be quite screwed for that test.

Monday's also start with 'M', which is the first letter of my name. I'm currently spending my Monday afternoon waiting for my lift to pick me up from campus. I should probably make use of this time and study or something. Believe me, I tried. But it's almost 5pm and I want food. So I'll study for my test tomorrow when I go home.