• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Orphalesion

  • Rank
    The Younger and More Beautiful "Queen"

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,884 profile views
  1. She clearly suggested it, there is no way around it. And we know form past examples that the morality of characters in GoT depends on whatever D&D find "kewl" at any given moment. What else was the point of even saying something like that? To make herself look stupid?
  2. Nope, on both accounts. With Zombie Gregor by her side Cersei had a number of other options (it was shown that the Sparrows can't touch her with him around), she blew up the Sept out of spite for Margaery, to punish the Small Council for taking away her political power, and as a convenient way to rid her of both the Sparrows and a Tyrells, Not because she "had to". The whole trial situation was nothing but her own fault to begin with. And no it is not unfair to bring up the Sept in a comparison between Daenerys and Cersei. Blowing up hundreds of civilians is something Daenerys wants to avoid at all costs, while Cersei basically got off on it (judging by her creepy monologue to Septa Unella...that's something else Daenerys would never do, leaving an enemy to be raped by a zombie). Even if we compare the Sept to the Dothraki leaders. The Dothraki leaders were, again, a military target. Of the thousands of civilians, slaves, traders, children, servants etc. that were in Vaes Dothrak that night not a single one lost their life because of Daenerys. She also went out of her way to protect the innocent bystanders during her wars in Slaver's Bay. And above everything else, Daenerys still gave a choice, Cersei wouldn't (that with Ned was just in hopes of getting Jaime back, not out of any kind of mercy or compassion) Unless you point me towards a scene, or passage in the books in which Daenerys randomly torched a crowd of civillians because they happen to stand next to somebody who inconvenienced her, then I gotta say Daenerys is leagues above Cersei.
  3. Seriously, what the effing fuck was wrong with the Large, Angry Squirrel in that scene? Sansa: "If we offend them, Jon loses his army." Large, Angry Squirrel: "NOT IF YOU HAD CHOPPED OFF THEIR HEADS! WARGH! BLOOD! KILL! YOU ARE EVIL FOR WANTING NICE THINGS! WE MUST KILL EVERYBODY ESPECIALLY OUR MOST IMPORTANT ALLIES!...except when I happen to like them, then you'd better not touch them!" Lord, I never thought I'd see the day when Sansa is more apt, and more at home, in dealing with the greasy, boisterous Northern Lords than her sister would be. Arya better eat her own hat once/if she finds out that Ned or Jon wouldn't have acted any differently, or that Jon is very adverse to chopping of people's heads because they....shock!...have an opinion.
  4. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the whole scene and how Daenerys handled it. One of the bits and pieces of leaked material I accidentally read before this season started stated: "Daenerys burns a group of Westerosi lords, Randyll Tarly and Dickon among them." The phrasing, combined with the shows...atrocious... handling of Elaria, the Sandsnakes and Cersei, and the scene were Daenerys burned that random nobleman in Meereen, made me worried that it would be just a scene of Daenerys randomly rounding up some nobles and burning them and that it would be presented in a way that was supposed to make Daenerys look "empowered" and "badass". Instead however, not only were the deaths of the Tarlies basically their own fault (Daenerys gave them a choice, after all) but even so Daenerys' idea to execute people with her dragons was seen as controversial by everybody around her. Daenerys' actions were not portrayed as completely justified and it was stubbornness (and loyalty to the wrong person) that led to Randyll's and Dickon's demise. Pretty good for the show, imho. The difference is that Daenerys gives you a choice, at all, Cersei just kills you if she thinks you have crossed her, or thinks that you might be planning on crossing her somewhen in the future, or happen to stand in a 500 meter radius of somebody who crossed her. Daenerys executed two military commanders after giving them a choice to surrender. Cersei blew up hundreds of civilians for the crime of attending a trial. See the difference?
  5. As far as I see it you are basically correct. And yes, Tywin would be pretty good for the job. I however don't agree that it would necessarily turn into a "reenactment of the holocaust". First of all, the goal wouldn't be the complete eradication of all Iron Born, men, women and children like it was in that case, instead the aim would be eradication of their culture as it exists at present day. I think a close analogy from History would be fate of the German Saxons after their conquest and forced conversion at the hands of Charlemagne. 1)Exiling of any problematic ruling class and any rebels to into less developed, less hospitable border provibnces (in this case the Wall or the Gift) 2) Forced religious conversion at the pain of death 3) Complete assimilation into the larger empire and loss of a separate cultural identity. Supplanting the IB nobility with nobles from the Westerlands would already do wonders, for example. Then rename them something like the "Rocky Islands" and annex them into the Westerlands (they are ytoo small to be their own region anyway)
  6. Yes, the supposed pact with the CoTF is really just a Racial Pogrom that the Perfect, Pure and Superior Northern Masterrace(tm) must stay Perfect, Pure and Northern. Because the Others are really just Ice Zombie Nazies who would really give a damn about human bloodlines. Let's not forget that that "nasty UnStarky Woman" is nor only a dirty, mongrel southerner, but also defiled, perfect, pure, superior, northern Winterfell's perfect superior northerness by building a blasphemic shrine to her effeminate, filthy Southerner Gods. Seriously I really don't get people who support that theory. besides I wouldn't call Catelyn particularly "UnStarky" by the time of GoT she has integrated quite well into her new home. Plus, I still say "there Must always be a Stark at Winterfell"(TM) merely means something to the effect "Someone must hold down the fort" from a time when the Starks weren't the undisputed Kings in the North/Wardens of the North. Aside from the Stark blood connection just being beyond silly (particularly because GRRM has already said that the population of Westeros has pretty much mixed and there aren't any "pure" Andal and First Men lines left) and full of unfortunate implications there's just too many factors we don't know: 1) Why do the Others want to go South? 2) What are the origins, purpose (if any) and agenda (if any) of the Others 3) Do the Others cause long winters, or do long winters merely give the Others a chance to launch their invasions 4) Does this whole thing have to do with the return of magic and/or the Dragons? 5) Might it just be a natural circle.
  7. I agree that the symbolism would be somewhat weaker, due to winter being the season of death in the Western Mindset. But I could still see it working: the Seven Kingdoms just emerge from a ten year winter in GoT and everybody is happy and joyous about summer finally coming, except for some old folks like Old Nan who caution something along the lines of "Summer brings fear/peril/death". Sure now they can grow their fields of grain, but those will just serve as so much fuel for the flames of the "Fire Others" And if we are completely honest, as I can tell you from experience, an extremely long, dry and scorching hot summer can be very perilous as well. So hot that nothing can grow, that trees shrivel up and die, dropping their unripened fruit prematurely, that whole orchards and fields just expire and become useless. Famines, fires, heat stroke. Now imagine the sun never setting during that period, drying up even large rivers, turning the Reach and the Riverlands into barren desert. Insects and other pests multiply rapidly in the heat ruining what little food is left and preying on humans, spreading sickness and pestilence. An endless day would be just as terrible as an endless night. Consider also that in the earliest version of the story of Persephone, the three months she pent in the underworld were not winter (a period during which most of Ancient Greece could have comfortable harvests) but Summer the time in Greece when vegetation shrivels up and all becomes dust.
  8. Okay first of all: Out of universe GRRM has made statements along the lines of "I've made it too big". He has admitted himself that he's not that great with sizes and proportions. Second: the Children of the Forest have magic and are very apt at using it, particularly in relation to water it seems. In ages past their power both shattered the land-bridge between Westeros and Essos (creating the Steppign Stones) and created the Neck in a failed attempt to sever the North from southern Westeros. So, since ice is just solid water, it stand to reason the Children could enchant it and form it to such huge proportions with the help of men, giants and mammoths. As Coolbeard has said, the water came from lakes, possibly the sea. Maybe the Children even transported it there through magic and/or condensed moisture from the air.
  9. There could be a lot of reasons as to why dinosaurs are endemic only to Sothoros (and possibly Ulthos, and possibly the lands east of Asshai, of which we know nothing at all) Climate, habitats, available food sources competition by other species and humanity (and Giants and COTF) We could just as well ask why unicorns only exist on Skagos, Direwolves only exist beyond the Wall, COTF and Giants only seem to exist on Westeros, why there are no Basilisks on Westeros etc. etc. etc. etc. It would be nothing out of the ordinary to have Sothoros be the only place to have dinosaurs. No, not really. Nothing at all points towards that. Zero evidence or even hints. As you write Dragons were bred from existing animals, not "engineered" out of bones or trace DNA. That all doesn't mean that they had 1)knowledge of long extinct species (which is a very recent thing in our world) 2)magic to ressurect them 3) let alone technology to resurrect them. ^This, basically.
  10. I think the idea that a writer shouldn't introduce major elements into a story and then not do anything with them is pretty universal. And the coming invasion of the Others has been a major element of this story since the prologue of Game of Thrones. Even right now, with all the others storylines that have developed two of the five/six major POV characters are still primarily concerned with the coming of and the defense against the Others and their undead armies. No I haven't read the Armageddon Rag, and neither has anybody I know, but from what I can tell from reviews online and both storylines I can gather from the various summaries came to full fruition, in a pretty clever and sufficiently climactic way. Also I'm not saying that the Others have to be defeated, they can very well conquer all of Westeros and rid the continent of humanity, all I'm saying is that, by the necessity of the importance the Others and the War for the Dawn have been given throughout the story so far, their invasion has to happen before the story is over. After all the Armageddon Rag didn't end before the West Mesa concert either. What I'm saying is, no matter the results of the Others invading Westeros, the story can't stop with them still five years away from thinking about maybe, perhaps, possibly breaching the Wall at some point in the future (maybe), while Daenerys still sits in Meereen, trying and failing to pass reforms and thinking about going to Westeros some day. That would be very dissatisfying. I pointed out that Satan was dealt defeats in both the Gospels themselves and in the Revelation of John, because Damon_Tor tried to claim that the Satan vs. Jesus "plot-line" in the Bible was "open ended" or inconclusive by the end of the text, which is simply not the case. No matter the expectation of the reader, at the end of the text Satan has been dumped into the Lake of Fire.
  11. That comparison is extremely flawed because: 1) The bible is not a novel, it's a religious text. (or if you want to be very pedantic a collection of religious texts, codes of law, myths, folktales, pseudo-historical accounts, poems, political allegory, and philosophical/theological treatises) so it's not subject to the same conventions and expectations as a novel. 2) Satan doesn't stay undefeated because the writers of the bible wanted to focus on some character study of Jesus or the Disciples' inner power struggles. He stays undefeated because, again, it's a text of a salvation religion (not a novel) that proclaims its deity as the supreme good. If the supreme evil was defeated already priests would be in a huge predicament to explain why bad stuff still happens or when the Kingdom of God finally shows up. And even so: if you read your Bible to the end we get a pretty clear and detailed account how he is going to be defeated, not some vague statement that he "might" be defeated someday, somehow, but a pretty clear and solid statement. 3)Technically, even within the confines of the Gospels, Satan was dealt a huge defeat through Jesus' resurrection alone (and the potential for personal salvation that is believed to result from it). He wasn't destroyed, or sealed away for eternity, but his dominion over the Earth (itself another retcon that isn't supported by the older tests at all) was broken. 3) Comparing the Bible with ASoIaF is like comparing a squirrel to a cumquat. Since the beginning of the first book we have been consistently pointed towards two eventualities: 1) The Others are coming South, they are a big deal, they might spell the end of the world and they actually exist since we have proof of them. 2) The Girl with the three flying reptiles is coming West, she's a huge deal, might spell the end of the current social order and she actually exists, because we have proof of her. And with the amount of attention those two ideas have been given across the last five books, there is simply no way those things aren't happening. Plus if you want to see it that way...well, then the Lord of the Rings isn't about the defeat of Sauron either, not really. It's about power, corruption and salvation.
  12. I miss the way he wrote in GoT-SoS I don't care what Willas Tyrell eats for breakfast or what conversations Cersei has with her Myrish Swamp. 2.Nah, the show will finish the series at the very least. It will not be in book form and it will be severely abridged and les logical, but it will be a finale. Now I haven't read most of the sample chapters, but what I have read sounds exactly like more of ADWDFFC, plus remember his old statements that in the next book we will "explore" the lands beyond the Wall? "Exploring" doesn't sound very much like plot progression. That aside...yeah, he'd need to do that. Not every Greyjoy needs a POV. Or any Greyjoy at all at this point, reallu/
  13. I loved the Sansa/Arya reunion. In general it's great to see multiple Starks back at their home. And things like Daenerys flying her dragon into battle to win back the seven kingdoms. The show might have it's logical and creative flaws, it's horrible, horrible flaws, but at least it is delivering all those things that were promised to us in the very beginning of ASoIaF, unlike the books. Now I have been a Sansa fan since I first met her character and I have been hoping and waiting for a happy reunion between her and Arya ever since. But I have to agree with those that saw jealousy when Sansa was watching Arya and Brienne. And I think that jealousy was genuine. I don't think she was jealous of Arya's fighting skills (i.e. no "Darn, I wish I was as skilled a fighter as Arya!") Rather I think she was jealous at how well Arya would fit in and how well her sister would be regarded among the Northern lords for those skills. Even Brienne was intrigued by Arya in this scene. There is a potential for understanding and friendship between Arya and Brienne that just isn't possible the same way between Brienne and Sansa. I think she is worried that from now on, and in the future she is going to be overshadowed by her younger sister. That Arya will be in the centre of the Great Hall, laughing and trading battle stories with the other Northern Lords, while she will sit in the corner embroidering something and being ignored. Sansa might have decided that Winterfell is her home, and she might be Jon's current regent and Lady Stark to booth. But Sansa is not a Northerner, not quite and will always find herself in scenarios where she is reminded of that fact and experience alienation. However all that means (imho) is a little bit of tension before Sansa ultimately accepts that and aids her siblings in getting rid of Littlefinger.
  14. Well, he is obviously "Lord", but she'd be lady, same rank just different sexes.
  15. Yes? And Aerys II and little Aegon died in the same night. With Jon not begin born yet, and unknown, the crown (or at least the claim to it) passed to Viserys. But since the Targaryens lost their hold on the Throne during that war, the whole thing isn't as clear cut anymore.