Book Reviews: Flat Broke In The Free Market

Flat Broke In The Free Market
by Jon Jeter

This book's subtitle is "How Globalization Fleeced Working People" so it's not as if the reader should be too surprised that the author, a former Washington Post bureau chief for southern Africa and South America, and Pulitzer Prize finalist, very clearly takes a stand against globalization, or to be more precise, globalization as it's been implemented. Broadly speaking globalization has meant that there have been ever greater capital flows in search of cheap labor and low regulation, less protection of native industry, deindustrialization and destruction of unions, massive privatization of key public sectors and monetary policy that is far more concerned with fighting inflation and protecting the value of investments than with fighting unemployment and ensuring that those people outside of the investor class at the very least have a job. However this book was written in 2009 so some of the specific economic information cited about certain countries is now out of date. Some of the countries Jeter cited as basket cases have slowly turned things around but on the other hand some of the countries which he didn't mention because they didn't support his arguments have since had experiences which fit well with Jeter's theme. However, specific data points aside, the larger trends remain more or less the same across the United States and especially what is called the Third World. Corporate profits are up. Banking, investment, finance, and real estate sectors are larger parts of the world economy. Wages are down. Inequality has risen. Worldwide, people struggle to pay or obtain basic services and goods such as food, clean water, electricity and housing. Theories that seem to make sense and have a certain elegance in academia or corporate board rooms somehow have devastating impact on the real lives of people across the world, especially the half of the world's population who struggles to live on less than $2.50 a day. Jeter struggles to make sense of all of this. He describes the genesis of this book as coming to him after interviews with right-wing libertarian Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman and former Rhodesian white separatist leader Ian Smith. Although he had no truck with either man's point of view, Jeter found that each man was surprisingly hard to dislike even though they apparently lived in an alternate reality to that which most of the world's population inhabited. Friedman thought that everything was going well for the world's investor class and that everyone else would be helped further on down the line by what he called reduction in interference in trade. The polite and genteel Ian Smith thought that the blacks in "Rhodesia" were much better off under white rule and were the "happiest in the world". I guess that Smith didn't really think too much about why such "happy blacks" launched a war to end white rule.
Anyway.

It's after these conversations when the basic thesis of this book came to Jeter. His argument is that colonialism and globalization are basic riffs on the same theme, service to imperialism and the ownership class. This is not a dry book full of charts or mathematical models. But there are oodles (and I do mean oodles) of footnotes. Jeter explains over and over again that he's not an economist. Jeter was born in 1965 and grew up in the Midwest. He describes the difference it made in his lifestyle that his father was able to find a job at Chrysler plant. In later years when because in part of globalization and capital transfer, inner city (i.e. black) male residents suffered through wage drops and high unemployment, Jeter appreciated even more the value of a good paying job. Jeter doesn't believe that people are inherently damaged or less than because of their race or ethnic class. Nor, would I venture to say does he think that individual failings are the sole cause of poverty. This book is a strong corrective to the widely accepted view that poverty is always and only a personal moral problem. Many of the issues which are used to criticize the underclass are quite often a response to economic stresses.For example, in Argentina, probably South America's whitest nation, Jeter talks to lower and middle class women who've turned to prostitution to feed their families. He also gives a history of the country's economic policies to see what's worked and what hasn't. In this book Jeter examines communities and countries across the world and points out how they have been ill-served by so-called "free trade" and globalization. His points of exploration include Zambia, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Malawi, Mozambique, Mexico, Venezuela, and of course places closer to home such as Washington D.C., Chicago and the post-industrial Midwest. Jeter mixes economic history and personal stories together to put everything into context. For example, if we didn't have subsidies for corn and sugar, would we have our food supply overflowing with added sugar and high fructose corn syrup? And if that weren't the case would we have skyrocketing obesity and diabetes rates? If you take nothing away from this excellent book you should understand that globalization is neither inevitable nor is it a force of nature. It is a result of human decisions designed to benefit a very particular set of people. It could be changed to benefit a wider group of individuals. For example in South Africa, the whites took steps away from the free market to benefit themselves at the expense of the Africans. It was only after their economic dominance was complete that they were interested in a "free market". This book was just about 200 pages in hardcover. It's quick but rewarding and even dense reading. Jeter ties a LOT of disparate events and problems together. I found it generally convincing but then again I share some of his assumptions. Jeter is scorching in his dismissal of the black political class, a group he views as being largely unable or uninterested in helping the black masses they claim to represent. He does give some positive attention to street level activists across the world who are challenging the narrative, albeit with decidedly mixed success.

HBO Game of Thrones: Rethinking Theon Greyjoy

As Roose Bolton matter of factly reminds Theon Greyjoy in the book (not sure if this happened on screen and it's not that important) Robb Stark's cause was permanently lost the moment Theon took Winterfell. The eternal symbol of Stark authority had been captured and was later burned. Robb's heirs were supposedly dead. Theon's actions (and the Bolton secret backstab) were not only serious symbolic blows to Robb's cause, they also caused both Stark allies and enemies to pause and wonder about The Young Wolf's judgment. If Robb couldn't protect his own castle and smallfolk, how could he protect his retainers? If Robb misjudged Theon's loyalty, would he make other similar strategic wartime errors? Well, we know that Robb did indeed make horrible strategic blunders. Chief among these errors were trusting the Boltons. The Boltons ruthlessly exploited Robb's mistakes in order to realize their long dreamed of goal to supplant the Starks as the Wardens of the North. None of this would have been possible without Theon. And Theon knows it. He verbalizes in both book and show that he should have died with Robb at the Red Wedding, and that he sees Robb and Ned as a better brother and father to him than his own. By then it's too late. All of Westeros knows him as a traitor. Many people start using the alliterative appellation "Theon Turncloak". And that's the nicest thing they call Theon. He's despised and mocked throughout the land. A man who could have been the living symbol of reconciliation and/or alliance between the North and the Iron Islands became the ultimate icon of Iron Islander treachery. What went wrong?

Both Theon Greyjoy and Sansa Stark were forcibly separated from their families and made to live with people who either had been or were currently in a state of war with their respective relatives. Both Theon and Sansa had to worry, needlessly or not, that they, children or not, would be killed to send a message to their relatives. But that is where the similarities end. From pure sadism, the Lannisters made Sansa look at her father's and tutor's corpses. They regularly beat her, stripped her and mocked her. She couldn't leave and was kept under constant guard. For every setback in Lannister fortunes that occurred, the Lannisters made Sansa pay a psychological or physical price. Theon Greyjoy, although presumably he can't just sail back to the Iron Islands, has extensive freedom of movement in and around Winterfell. Although from time to time he's reminded, sometimes bluntly, that he's not in fact a Stark, he's considered loyal enough to carry weapons around Stark family members and retainers, including Robb, the heir. The Stark master-of-arms trains Theon along with Jon and Robb in swordplay and combat techniques.  
Rodrik: For ten years you have been a ward of Stark.
Theon: Hostage and prisoner, I call it.
Rodrik: Then perhaps Lord Eddard should have kept you chained to a dungeon wall. Instead he raised you among his own sons, the sweet boys you have butchered, and to my undying shame I trained you in the arts of war. Would that I had thrust a sword through your belly instead of placing one in your hand.

At Winterfell no bored psychopath beats Theon for amusement or threatens him with rape. And although as a child Theon no doubt feared Ned Stark and his stern nature, from what we know of Ned it's unlikely that Ned would have executed an underage Theon for his father's actions. When Catelyn Stark shares her suspicions about Bran's "accident" and her plan of action with Robb and the Stark retainers, Theon Greyjoy is there to listen and pledge his fealty to the Stark cause. Would Catelyn have done that if she had serious doubts about Theon? Can you imagine Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei having a Lannister war council and letting Sansa sit in?  Would anyone let Sansa carry weapons around Joffrey? Of course not. So while Sansa Stark was unambiguously a hostage, and a poorly treated one at that, Theon Greyjoy is something a little different or rather, something a little bit more. It's the confusion that both Theon and Robb shared over Theon's status which caused the actions which ultimately led to Theon's downfall and Robb's murder. There's no guarantee that Balon Greyjoy knows that Ned is generally opposed to killing children. In fact he may not. Ned and Balon weren't friends and didn't meet under pleasant circumstances. Ned Stark, Stannis Baratheon, Tywin Lannister and King Robert Baratheon suppressed Balon Greyjoy's rebellion. Ned Stark took Balon's last living son and heir, Theon, as a ward/hostage. This is pretty obviously meant to make Balon think twice about revolting again. But the secondary reason is that once Balon passes away, Theon Greyjoy,  schooled in the Stark/Northern ways and raised as a "semi-Stark" ,would hopefully be a friendlier Lord to the North, the Starks and to all of Westeros than his father had been. But that's the long game. Even kind decent Ned hoped that Theon could be used to compel Balon to do things he might otherwise not do. He told Catelyn as much when he saw her in King's Landing: And from this day on, I want a careful watch kept over Theon Greyjoy. If there is war, we shall have sore need of his father’s fleet.

Again, Ned would probably not have executed Theon under any but the most extreme situation. But Ned was okay with letting Theon and especially Balon Greyjoy think that Theon could be in harm's way. So although Ned was obviously not the best game player,  he at least understood that Theon was a piece to be moved and used. So while Theon is initially a hostage, when war breaks out, he's clearly something else. Although Jon Snow is not that friendly with Theon, Robb certainly is, while the younger Stark children apparently view him as a foster brother, if a somewhat annoying one.  Nevertheless Theon saved Bran's life from a wildling attack and later covered himself with glory fighting at Robb's side during the initial battles with the Lannisters.  It's Theon's actions and his seeming loyalty which make Robb forget that Theon is not in fact his brother and commit the mistake of sending Theon, bound to him by oaths, back to the Iron Islands to carry Robb's offer to Balon Greyjoy. The problem with oaths, as Jaime "Kingslayer" Lannister mused, is that they often conflict with good sense and with each other.

Robb put Theon in an impossible position. Although oathbreaking and treason are horrible sins, kinslaying is even worse. Theon's a psychologically fragile young man, who upon returning home to his family, is met with indifference by his uncle and retainers, mocked by his sister and openly attacked by his father, who views Theon's continued existence as an unpleasant reminder of his own past failings. In Balon Greyjoy's mind the Starks, not the Baratheons or Lannisters, were the primary source of his humiliations. Now that the Northern leader was dead/imprisoned and his inexperienced son had taken most of the Northern armies south, what better time to strike at an undefended North? Strategically, attacking the only other force who is willing to recognize you as an independent entity is extra special stupid but clearly Balon Greyjoy's resentments outweighed his good sense. And Robb's friendship with Theon outweighed his mother's warnings that giving something for nothing to Balon Greyjoy was a very stupid move. Although Catelyn Stark couldn't know that Balon had already written Theon off and was preparing for war, she did know that showing kindness or good faith to Balon Greyjoy was futile. When Theon returns home he's reminded repeatedly that his family thinks he's a failure, a weakling and a punk. His family questions his manhood and loyalty. Balon showers Theon with abuse, verbal and physical. Theon is shocked to learn that his father considers Theon's sister Asha (Yara in show) to be the Greyjoy heir.  When he learns that his father intends to make war on the North, Theon does not feel himself capable of doing anything about it. Think about it. What would you have done in Theon's place? Would you have continued to argue against it to no avail? Would you have raised hands against your own father and sister? Would you have refused to participate and thus confirmed your family's low opinion of you? Would you have sent a warning to Winterfell? Theon had to pick a side.

Considering your father had already written you off as dead, kinslaying taboo or not, he might have been willing to bring that status about. Theon had no good options. He chose his blood family over his foster one and you know the rest. But in Westeros, this is not an unreasonable choice. In fact it's the only choice. Blood is always thicker than water. Theon's "betrayal" came as a shock because Robb didn't heed his mother's warning about the Greyjoys or consider the possibility that Balon Greyjoy might not be eager to bleed FOR the people who had suppressed his last rebellion and kidnapped his last son. Hindsight tells us that Theon's choices were the wrong ones, both morally and consequentially. But at the time, Theon's decisions made sense from his pov. He chose blood over friendship. He tried to cover himself with glory and impress his father by taking Winterfell. And he trusted the wrong people (his own men in the show, "Reek/Ramsay" in the book). The ultimate problem is that the Great Houses need to find a different way of enforcing peace and good behavior than taking hostages. Hostages, even long standing ones who are well treated, may have deep resentments. When Balon rebelled, Theon's use as a deterrent was at an end. Robb's naivete and Theon's desperate need to impress and be accepted led to disaster. It's ironic that Theon's confusion over whether he's a Stark or a Greyjoy led to him losing his identity completely and being turned into "Reek". Theon paid a horrible cost for his crimes. No one should endure what he's had to go thru. Is Theon evil? Well, he's killed children. But so has fan favorite The Hound. Theon's switched allegiances but again so has The Hound. Theon betrayed the "good guys" House Stark but would you have had loyalty to people who kidnapped you from your family? It's complicated. I hope that Theon has, no matter how rocky, a redemption arc. He's done evil things. But as Rodrick Cassel and Maester Luwin pointed out, Theon is more lost than evil. He continues to be a fascinating character.

Key and Peele: Hillary Clinton Anger Translator

I don't watch a tremendous amount of television but I ran across this skit and thought it funny enough to share. I recognized Stephnie Weir from MADtv. I always thought she was a bit underrated there. Nice to see her here. I really like the whole Obama anger translator bit so it made sense to use it to parody Hillary Clinton. I think that like Obama or really most other politicians, Clinton keeps a lot of her true feelings very tightly wrapped. Key and Peele continue to impress. They, like Weir, are MADtv alumni and apparently reached out to Weir to do the translator bit.

De'Andre Johnson dismissed from FSU football team

Some people like to say that there is no excuse for violence against women. I don't really like that framing at all because it turns what could be a valid reason into an "excuse" and ignores the fact that whether we like it or not there are some very violent, dangerous and even deadly women on this planet. What IS true however is that almost regardless of what a particular woman might have done to initiate or continue a physical confrontation, a man who hits a woman rightfully has a very high bar of skepticism and contempt to climb over in a court of law or especially the court of public opinion. Because this is the case it is a good idea to avoid putting hands on women. It's a bad idea and is often morally repugnant. However, men, like women, do have the right and duty to defend themselves. There ought to be a better way for us to distinguish the case of a man who is legitimately defending himself from the case of a lowlife punk who just gets his kicks beating and terrorizing those who are weaker than he. I've seen both situations. This problem is further muddled by the assumption that women are and should be in all ways "equal" to men. Some people say that if we wouldn't worry about a bad outcome happening to a man because of his or someone else's dumb decision than we shouldn't worry about a woman in the same position. So by this logic if a woman wants to be in combat and is qualified, let her do it. There should be no cries of "Save the women and children!" if a ship starts to sink. We're all equal. Well.
De'Andre Johnson, former quarterback for the Florida State Seminoles football team, found out the hard way that "defending yourself" from a woman in the same way that you might defend yourself from a man is not, at least for him, an acceptable course of action. He got into a physical confrontation with a woman at a Tallahassee bar. She raised her hands which were balled up in fists. They both appeared to push and grapple with each other. She took a swing at Johnson. Johnson punched back. The woman lost. It is the difference in gender and strength that makes this a shock. Johnson was suspended and later dismissed from the team.


Florida State Seminoles coach Jimbo Fisher dismissed freshman quarterback De'Andre Johnson from the team Monday night, hours after the state's attorney's office released video showing Johnson punching a woman in the face last month at a Tallahassee bar.

Fisher made the announcement in a brief statement released by FSU on Monday night.
Johnson, who was named Florida's "Mr. Football" as a senior at First Coast High School in Jacksonville, Florida, was indefinitely suspended from the team in June. He was charged with misdemeanor battery for striking the 21-year-old woman during an argument June 24. He surrendered to Tallahassee police on June 30 and was released on $500 bond.
The video, which was captured by security cameras in a bar near the FSU campus, shows Johnson trying to push past the woman, who was waiting to order at the bar. The woman turned toward Johnson, who grabbed her right arm after she raised it in a fist. The woman raised her knee and swung at Johnson with her left arm, and then he punched her in the face.
LINK

When I watched this I asked myself what was Johnson, who is under the legal drinking age, doing in a bar in the first place? But I was informed that some bars allow underage people to enter; they just won't serve them alcohol. Both Johnson and the woman made bad decisions. If I were the prosecutor I would charge both of them or charge neither of them. But I'm no lawyer. Perhaps someone with actual legal training and experience will chime in to discuss the charges. Bottom line though is that I think it's critically important that we teach all people regardless of their race or gender not to put hands on other people. If this were a smaller man who had started something with say, a heavyweight MMA or boxing champ before losing in a spectacular fashion, many more of us would likely find it humorous. We would tend to judge same gender interactions differently than we would opposite gender ones. Is that wrong? Perhaps. I think it's good and proper to teach men not to hit women. I also think it's good and proper to teach women not to hit men. No hands. Why is this so difficult? Did the woman think that Johnson was just to going to accept a punch in the face? Did Johnson think he was going to walk away with no repercussions? 

Book Reviews: Necessary Evil

Necessary Evil
by David A. Van Meter

This is a very creepy thriller/horror revenge story. It's told in first person so you never get the chance to step outside of the subject's mind. This was a short novel, just over 300 pages. It's an older book, written a little over twenty years ago. It was very graphic for the times, but still retains its ability to shock even in today's grindcore market. Revenge is not really a morally good feeling is it? We try to get rid of it by outsourcing private revenge to a dispassionate justice system. But for some crimes and for some people that's not enough. Some people are able to forgive the worst trespasses as indeed Christianity argues that they should. Vengeance is not man's but God's. Other people scoff at such arguments. If someone hurts them or gives them trouble they want to repay evil for evil, hurt for hurt, pain for pain to bitter end. For some people turning the other cheek only invites further attacks. And even if it didn't it would still be morally wrong to do so. You come after me with a bat; I get my gun. You put my brother in the hospital; I leave your son's casket on your front door. And so on. Most societies can not operate if everyone behaved in such a fashion because we'd live in a Hobbesian state of nature where no one can trust anyone who is stronger than they are. So in order to have the benefits of society we all implicitly agree to give up our private desires of revenge or retribution to accept the dictates of judges, juries and the law. But what if the law lets us down? Then what? Do we accept that sometimes a guilty person gets away with his or her crime? Or does that haunt us? In Necessary Evil, Van Meter shows almost in a clinical way how an act of evil impacts a child and warps him for life. If you have ever wondered where an adult psychopath came from, Necessary Evil gives a pretty good, though occasionally cliched, depiction of just how such a human being is created. The story jumps back and forward through time. We get childhood memories, teenage memories and finally present day descriptions from a thirty three year old man.

Billy McIlwaine is a thirty three year old man who has just been released from prison for a horrific crime which is not important to know about in this review. He's seemingly adjusted to being back in society. He has a job as a security guard and does his best to stay out of trouble. All the same though Billy is haunted by memories of a better time. Twenty three years prior when Billy was just ten he was forced to witness the murder of his maternal grandfather. In part Billy blames himself for his grandfather's murder. Not only did the lowlife perpetrators not go to jail they were able to claim self-defense and even successfully sued the estate. Billy's father Ned cared nothing for his father-in-law or wife and son. As soon as he learned there was no money forthcoming, he left. Even when he was around he wasn't much of a husband or father. He abused and cheated religiously on his wife, Billy's mother Grace. Grace is an alcoholic who has attempted suicide. Left to grow up with the clingy and oft inappropriate Grace (this is quite a Freudian story) Billy becomes alienated in some very real ways that go unnoticed. By the time Billy is a teen, Grace has turned her life around and become very financially successful in real estate. She doesn't have a lot of time left to tend to Billy. She has work to do. But Billy is obsessed with finding the two men who murdered his beloved grandfather.    

The book sort of dragged a bit in the middle. I did like the idea that people can often be in love with a false memory of a person or in love with who that person used to be and not realize that that person doesn't exist any longer. Our experiences define us and can also twist us. If evil is anything it's the inability to empathize, to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Over time, Billy gradually loses the ability to do this. As everything is told from Billy's POV, the story can get kind of claustrophobic at times. And because Billy is not always certain that what he's seeing is actually there, there are some deliberately unanswered questions. All in all this was an ok book. Not horrible, not the best. Evil can invoke pity at the same time as we know that we must remove the infected person from society, perhaps even from the planet.

Chris Christie is running for President: You gotta problem with that?

If it's Tuesday it must be time for another man or woman to announce that he or she is running for President. Today it was New Jersey governor Chris Christie. I think, similar to what happens after someone you know hits the lottery there's a feeling that if that person got lucky why not you. I think that after President Obama pulled off the longest of longshots by getting elected, not just once but twice, that a lot of would be candidates have reached the conclusion that if he can, they can. 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) announced he's running for president in 2016. Christie told supporters of his plans in a phone call Tuesday morning, according to NBC and the AP. Christie made a public announcement Tuesday afternoon at Livingston High School, his alma mater, in Livingston, New Jersey. I am now ready to fight for the people of the United States of America," Christie said at the public announcement. He praised his home state during his speech, sharing how working as governor inspired him to run for president. Christie also took hits at lawmakers in Washington, including President Barack Obama, claiming a lack of productivity from Congress is giving Americans anxiety. "Both parties have failed our country... both parties have led us to believe that America, a country that was built on compromise -- that compromise is somehow a dirty word," Christie said. "We need to have the courage to choose, we need to have the courage to stand up and say 'enough,'" Christie added.

LINK

When I think of Governor Christie I think of aggression. To me that seems to be his defining characteristic. Some of that could just be my discomfort with his particular communication style, which is very stereotypically East Coast blunt. He reminds me of a few bosses or co-workers I had whom I did not like one bit. But then again what difference does it make if someone tells you that "Your idea stinks. Why are you even wasting my time with this bovine emission?" instead of telling you "Your idea needs a few tweaks. Let's discuss it later." Either way, someone is telling you that your idea is not what they needed. Christie strikes me as a man much more comfortable with the former phrasing. I tend to use the latter. Before the 2012 Presidential Election, people who were unhappy with what they saw as Romney's genteel style, tried to get Christie to run for President or get Romney to put Christie on the ticket as Vice-President. Christie's big draw would supposedly have been his pugnacious nature. Obviously neither event occurred and here we are. Christie has a few problems this time around. He may have missed his chance for the big time. There's the Bridgegate thingie. There's the fact that despite Christie's slow move to the right and his flip flops on social issues, I don't think too many Bible Belt Republican primary voters are thinking , Chris Christie, culture warrior. He's entering a very crowded field. He has low approval ratings in his home state. On the other hand Christie relishes attention and a good fight. Unlike Trump, Christie has actually won elected office. And doing so as a Republican in a reliably Democratic state shows that if nothing else, he's had good political instincts. 

I don't see Christie winning the nomination but there will be some fireworks between Christie and Paul, assuming both men make it to the televised debates. Christie has the confidence and deftness to make an appeal to moderates and independents should he somehow win the nomination. The question is how far right will he be willing to tack to appeal to the kinds of people who are calling for massive resistance to the Obergefell decision.

HBO Game of Thrones Season Five Differences/Analysis

*There will be some spoiler type material here below the fold. 
If you've read Mario Puzo's book The Godfather and watched Francis Ford Coppola's films The Godfather and The Godfather II, you will know Coppola excised many book plots from his film adaptation. Although I don't think Puzo was a horrible writer I do think that Coppola was a better filmmaker than Puzo was an author. The Godfather novel featured Puzo rambling on at length about Lucy Mancini's anatomical sexual abnormalities, the racist, familial and job related frustrations of NYPD police officer Albert Neri, Hollywood's poor treatment of writers and third tier talent, and the noble sacrifices of a friendly abortionist with the guts (however fleeting) to stand up to Michael Corleone. I thought that this was tedious reading and would have made for boring viewing. Coppola was right to drop it. There were other better written book subplots that weren't necessarily key to Coppola's story or were excessively detailed. Some of this material found its way into Godfather II, but some of it is unadapted, waiting for a Godfather IV film perhaps? I mention this because although I'm generally supportive of the author's original intent, I believe there are always things that simply don't translate well from text to screen. So I'm not a book purist or rather not only a book purist. When I read some books I hope that certain characters are massively redone or dropped from a possible film version. Just as I was relieved not to have to watch Lucy Mancini's gynecological melodrama in The Godfather, I thought that HBO's Game of Thrones was well served by (so far?) skipping or possibly rewriting Strong Belwas, a black obese eunuch former slave, who fights for Daenerys and often relieves his bowels upon or at those he defeats while speaking of himself in the third person (and often broken English). Yeah, no thanks on that one GRRM.

Season Five of HBO's Game of Thrones took several steps away from the published books. It wasn't always clear why the showrunners did this. We didn't know if the new material was their own creation or instead something which GRRM told them about but hadn't published yet. GRRM's British editor and some of his collaborators on other works have panned many text deviations. There are far too many changes to discuss but I did want to list four I thought most significant. Again there will be some inevitable spoilers listed. But, honestly there's not much left to spoil. Most main characters are now at the same place on screen and book. The last book was published in 2011. This year viewers saw things book readers didn't know about. I wasn't crazy about Season Five but I also wasn't crazy about the source material upon which it largely drew, the books A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons.

Shireen, Stannis and Selyse are still alive. 

This all grew out a fundamental difference in how Benioff and Weiss saw Stannis and how Martin wrote him. Stannis is an unpleasant man. Virtually no one in the Seven Kingdoms likes the man. He has the personality of a lobster. He's married to a less than attractive woman. He has no sons. No one wants to marry his daughter. Still, Stannis' defining characteristic so far in the published books has not been ambition, as Benioff and Weiss have shown, but rather duty. This is repeated over and over and over in the books. Stannis does things which are required because they are required. His own personal desires are less important. Stannis almost starved to death resisting a year long siege during Robert's Rebellion, long after most men would have surrendered because his older brother, whom he saw as the rightful king, told him to hold Storm's End. Stannis, at least in the books, was less interested in being king because of his desires but because according to the rules, after Robert's demise, Stannis was the man who should have become king. Rules and duty. It's only later that Stannis considers that he can do good for the realm as king. That's partly why he was the only Lord to take seriously the Night Watch's call for assistance. I'm not saying that Stannis has no ambition or hypocrisies. He's not a "good" man. But at this point in the books whatever ambition he has is still outweighed by his outrage that the rules have been broken. Of course in Stannis' case he would be well served by the rules being followed so no matter what he does in book or show he will be seen as self-serving. If, after your parents pass away, and someone steals your entire inheritance, will you really listen to a third person who tells you to let it go and stop being greedy and self-serving? Or will you perhaps decide that the fight is worth it. If the Shireen burning really did come from Word of God (Martin) then it is what it is I guess. But for Stannis to murder his only heir seems grotesque and completely out of character for a man who made these quotes in the books:

It is not a question of wanting. The throne is mine, as Robert's heir. That is law. After me, it must pass to my daughter, unless Selyse should finally give me a son. I am king. Wants do not enter into it. I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm. Even to Robert. He loved me but little, I know, yet he was my brother. The Lannister woman gave him horns and made a motley fool of him. She may have murdered him as well, as she murdered Jon Arryn and Ned Stark. For such crimes there must be justice. Starting with Cersei and her abominations. But only starting. I mean to scour that court clean. As Robert should have done after the Trident.

In the books Stannis has marched off to an offpage battle against the Bolton armies. Despite setbacks he's alive and kicking in the last published book and released excerpts from book six. And as he explains to Theon Greyjoy, whom he immediately despises, he's not exactly messing his pants at the prospect of throwing down with Ramsay Snow.

I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?

Sansa was not married to Ramsay Bolton or raped by him.

This may have been the biggest single deviation from the books this season and the one which worked the least. This got all sorts of criticism because of the wedding night rape scene, which caused some bloggers and other viewers to stop watching the show. Ramsay is who he is. He rapes, murders and tortures. The fact of the rape didn't bother me as much as the fact that Sansa never should have been there in the first place. In the books, there was a wedding scene and a rape. It was FAR worse in the book. I had to put the book down for a moment to wonder about the mind that conceived such things. But it wasn't Sansa who suffered. It was Theon (will he ever get a break) and Jeyne Poole. Jeyne Poole is Sansa's friend and the daughter of the Winterfell Steward. When Ned Stark and his household were murdered in King's Landing, Jeyne was seized by Littlefinger and put to work in his brothels. When the Boltons have taken over Winterfell and need a patina of legitimacy, Littlefinger sells or gifts Jeyne to the Boltons. Jeyne is forced to pretend that she is Arya Stark. Obviously Roose, Ramsay and Theon know that this isn't the case, and probably so do some of the Northern Lords who attend the wedding. But with Roose, appearances must be kept up. No one, least of all Theon, has the guts to say that Jeyne isn't Arya. Some of Ramsay's abuse of Jeyne may well be related to the fact that she's not a real Stark. In the books, Sansa is still under Littlefinger's control. They are in The Vale. No one knows who Sansa is though some suspect. Sansa is governess to her sickly cousin Robert/Robin Arryn, also kept under close watch by Littlefinger.
It's very strongly hinted that Littlefinger struggles to maintain control of himself around Sansa. He jumps back and forth between trying to creep on her and portraying himself as her impressive intelligent father figure (who also still wants to creep on her). He reveals to Sansa how he's bribed and corrupted some of the Vale Lords. Littlefinger drops a few hints about his master plan, which may involve getting rid of Sansa's cousin, and marrying off Sansa to the Vale heir before revealing Sansa's true identity. This would allow her to make a claim to the Riverlands (through Catelyn) and The North (through Ned) backed up by the unvarnished power of The Vale (which stayed out of the wars). She could theoretically control almost half of the Seven Kingdoms.

Of course this is Littlefinger we're talking about so it's doubtful he's telling all or even any of the truth. Nevertheless he definitely views Sansa as an important asset. For both political and more personal reasons Littlefinger would not let Sansa out of his sight. This is why the televised version didn't ring true. Given that the Iron Throne still wants Sansa Stark for the murder of Joffrey (something arranged by Littlefinger and the Queen of Thorns) even a coldly ambitious Lord like Roose Bolton would think twice before allowing Ramsay to marry Sansa and thus make an open enemy of the Lannisters. I understand that the show runners didn't want to have Sophie Turner stuck all season in the Vale watching Littlefinger twirl his mustache and laugh evilly but it simply didn't make sense for Sansa to willingly walk into the clutches of a family that was well known for betraying her own. It did violence to her character and storyline. I don't think it added anything to the tale. In the books, Brienne is not in the North. She's still wandering around the Riverlands looking for Sansa Stark.



Northern Resistance

Speaking of Sansa the sole television Northern Resistance seems to have been reduced to a few grimy peasants muttering "The North Remembers" and an offscreen Northern Lord refusing to pay Bolton taxes. Well it's important to remember that the Starks have been in charge of the North since time immemorial. They aren't always liked but they are generally respected and even loved. In the books, Northerners who don't even know or like Stannis decide to join his march on Winterfell to save "The Ned's little girl". Other Northerners who can't act openly because some of their relatives are still held as hostages find other devious and deadly ways to express their displeasure. The Lannisters and Boltons aren't the only people who can get down and dirty. I hope that this will be shown in greater detail next season. In the Riverlands, Arya's wolf, Nymeria is still attacking Freys and Lannisters, though (like Arya?) she may have become completely feral. She's leading a wolfpack of over one hundred. Someone else is also killing Freys both in the North (several of them came North with Roose) and in the Riverlands. Again I'd like to see a lot of this shown next season. Time will tell. It was only nodded to in the show via an offhand remark by Roose, but the Boltons can't rule solely by terror. The North is too big and has too many other scary people. There were a lot of families who lost people at the Red Wedding. They're mad. They want revenge. Their patience is at an end. And the Boltons and Theon are not the only people who know that Rickon is alive. Purely for context it also would have been nice if the show had more greatly emphasized the long planned treachery of the Freys and especially the Boltons. The Boltons have had it in for the Starks for centuries. The Frey's sigil is a double cross. That tells you all you need to know right there. In the books, Roose Bolton, once he had a command and relative independence of action from Robb, proceeded to use houses that were more loyal to the Starks as cannon fodder. Most of the people who are aware of Roose's deliberately suicidal orders are dead, which is just the way Roose likes it. Unlike his illegitimate son, Roose is a very cautious calculating man.



Jaime is not in Dorne. Myrcella is still alive.

Myrcella didn't die in the books. She was wounded by a Dornish retainer who wanted to start a war. I thought the Dorne sections of the books were interminable. They contributed a lot to my dislike of A Feast For Crows. I understand that Martin wanted to move away from the Stark-Lannister battle royale that had consumed much of the story but I wasn't ready for him to do that. This was made worse by the fact that virtually nothing happened in Dorne. The ruler, Prince Doran likes it this way. As he explains to his nieces, the Sand Snakes:

I am not blind, nor deaf. I know you all believe me weak, frightened, feeble. Your father knew me better. Oberyn was ever the viper. Deadly, dangerous, unpredictable. No man dared tread on him. I was the grass. Pleasant, complaisant, sweet-smelling, swaying with every breeze. Who fears to walk upon the grass? But it is the grass that hides the viper from his enemies and shelters him until he strikes.

Doran is playing a very long game, the details of which aren't important now and/or are too spoilery. But suffice it to say that he, like Oberyn and many other people in Dorne, has not forgotten the rape and murder of his sister Elia and her children. Another difference is that as Dorne practices equal inheritance, Trystane, Doran's son, is not his heir. Doran's heir is his oldest child, his daughter Arianne Martell, apparently dropped from the HBO adaptation. It's Arianne who schemes, not to kill Myrcella, but to declare Myrcella as Queen, attempting to apply Dornish succession laws to King's Landing. Rather than being insanely vengeful towards Myrcella on account of Oberyn's death, Ellaria thinks enough blood has been shed. She counsels patience and acceptance. Jaime doesn't ever go to Dorne. He's in the Riverlands trying to clean up after the war, live up to his oath to Catelyn Stark to find the Stark girls and not take up arms against Tullys or Starks (not that there are many left). Jaime is undergoing a lot of introspection about his past actions and what it means to be a knight and Kingsguard member. So I get that this might not make for exciting television. But I thought that a daughter finding out a horrible family secret, being okay with it and then apparently dying in her father's arms was horribly cliched. In the books the Sand Snakes merely ask Doran for vengeance for Oberyn. He has them all arrested and imprisoned. 


So I understand why Benioff and Weiss made many changes from books I thought were less than gripping. Some of their changes were actually good ones. In the books Jon Snow does not go to Hardhome and engage in a desperate battle against the White Walkers and the Night King. Many show only viewers I know thought that was a high point of the season. But too often the showrunners tried to ante up the shocks and violence, often needlessly. I sometimes think that the showrunners (and GRRM?) have fallen in love with shocking people too much. The books may have had too many details of political manipulation and the war's aftermath. But the show went too far in the other direction. Barristan is still alive in the books. I thought his show death was well done but unnecessary. Loras is never arrested. Jorah never got greyscale. I did like the increasingly strong hints that maybe, just maybe Ned didn't break his marriage vows, a theory which is not confirmed in the books.

What did you think of this season?