Ran

Administrators
  • Content count

    32,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

About Ran

  • Rank
    King o' the Board
  • Birthday 05/06/1978

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    garciaelio
  • MSN
  • Website URL
    http://www.westeros.org/
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    elio_garcia
  • Blood of Dragons
    Balerion (Admin), Aidan Dayne, Rhodry Martell

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Westeros! History (ancient and medieval), SF/F, adventure and strategy gaming, MUSHes and MUXes (but not MUDs), Linda.

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Elio

Recent Profile Visitors

105,388 profile views
  1. That's interesting, IMO. Could be worth trying.
  2. What assumption? It's plain in what you wrote that you are arguing that your feeling that it isn't Joffrey means that you can ignore contrary evidence. Also, Martin isn't "non-commital" when he says that ASoS resolves the mystery. That's pretty much as straightforward as you can get without his explicitly saying what the answer is in a book that had (at the time) not yet been published. I know THB pointed this out, but it's worth reiterating it because I've never seen an argument for someone not Joffrey that stands up to the idea that ASoS resolves it. And in particular, GRRM's assertion that he believed you could guess the answer from the first two novels surely rules out Mance Rayder (which I see has been floated), a character no one has ever met and had no reason to believe was involved in events south of the Wall prior to ASoS and the reveal that he had been at Winterfell when Robert was there.
  3. You have the exact same access to relevant information that I do. But again, my point isn't that, it's that someone's reasoning seemed to be in essence, "I don't like it therefore it is wrong." That's not how you can have a constructive discussion. As it stands, all the evidence is out there. If a person chooses to ignore it, that's up to them, but then I don't see why they're trying to argue their point.
  4. In what sense is this hypocritical? I'm at a loss. I say this as the person who spun the Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory for years on previous iterations of this forum, which pinned the blame on Littlefinger, but ASoS put together means, motive, and opportunity for Joffrey that outweighed everyone else, and Joffrey's reaction to the description of the knife in relation to his suggesting he had handled it was damning, as was his clumsy attempt to pretend he didn't know what Tyrion was talking about. It's Joffrey. The text says it with two characters reason their way to it, and GRRM says it repeatedly. Regarding the app, GRRM was sent the full text of it for review and signed off on it.
  5. That's not evidence. The reasoning from the characters, and Joffrey's reaction to Tyrion's description of the Valyrian steel dagger after Joffrey revealed he's handled a Valyrian steel blade before, is simply the only solution that exists in the text. Joffrey did it to prove himself strong, and perhaps with just a bit of thought of spiting his uncle Tyrion who publicly humiliated him over his attitude towards Bran. That's all. Means, motive, and opportunity all line up. If you want to shut everything out but your own reasoning, why are you bothering arguing with people about it?
  6. Not seeing the problem myself with Edge, either. That said, we've gotten a fix in for the ad unit that was not acting properly. Please clear your browser cache, close and then restart the browser, and try editing and see if things are improved.
  7. To be fair, we only ever got Simon's side of the story, and it's not entirely clear that the disagreement regarding Jackson's films were the sole or even the primary reason for the estrangement. I recall a Telegraph article that hinted that Simon was barred from commenting on "other reasons" for the disagreement -- the film stuff was the only thing he was allowed to speak on. Suppose the beef was that he actually had a falling out with his father over issues with his step-mother -- whom I remember him complaining about -- and it got serious enough that there was actual legal action (hence his being barred from commenting for legal reasons), so he took out his frustration and ended up over-emphasizing the role that his attitude towards the films had in the estrangement? In the end, we don't know. We just know what Simon claimed at the time. I don't know the man and have no particular reason to distrust _or_ trust him. But without CT's side of it, it's pretty hard to pass judgment without knowing it.
  8. Whistler and Poore are correct. As Nittanian suggests, Poore may be more a family name rather than an indication that there is/was a House Poore.
  9. Adam is not on the board, though, but I believe he is/was one of the Estate's three employees at some point, and had a hand in organizing its website.
  10. I've seen no evidence of this. Did a quick test and no problems. What browser are you using? ETA: We do have a video slider ad that we've added recently that might be at issue -- I notice that it recently changed behavior and is more obtrusive than it should be, which may be leading to the apparent slow down for some, though as I said I don't see the problem. I've reported it and it should get fixed, and I'll see if I can have it not appear when pages are being edited.
  11. Huh. That does lead to some fairly unpleasant thoughts about this all. Perhaps Le Monde or some other outlet will get an interview with him and clarify his view on the matter. That said, his second wife Baillie remains an active director. So perhaps what actually happened is that once he felt comfortable with the way they wanted to approach things, he signed off on it.
  12. The repeated references to LotR make it clear to me that that is what the deal is about. Late Third Age Middle-earth, not The Silmarillion. Christopher Tolkien is the sole executor of the estate, but there are other family members involved, and as I recall his nephew Michael George Tolkien was noted as having a large role in affairs as he was of like-mind to CT. CT's own son, Simon, did have some serious disagreements regarding how the Tolkien Estate was keeping at arms-length from Jackson's LotR films, but as I understand it they later reconciled.
  13. I am exceptionally familiar with all of Tolkien’s work, and own the HoME and so on, so I don’t need it quoted at me. But what Scot says. These are tragedies but on a very different scale and in a very different mode from anything I’d consider “gritty” fiction. “Gritty” literature is about tone, style, and focus — you’re down in the muck and filth. None of Tolkien’s work is “gritty” to me, from that perspective. But YMMV.
  14. That Atlantic piece is well-put, although to be sure the "Moneyball" thing has worked for Netflix -- their first big prestige show, House of Cards, came together because Netflix recognized that fans of David Fincher films were also fans of Kevin Spacey films, and both together seemed like it'd be a sure-fire winner (and it was, at the time). But the general thrust -- that audiences like the familiar, and they like it _a lot_ -- is right on. When we thought it was just re-doing LotR, it seemed crazy. This... not so much. If they hit the right notes, evoking the things that made people love the books and the films, then it should be a great success.
  15. But "grit" isn't really part of LotR, which is where the rights are. I also think that the overall tenor of all of Tolkien's work has very little to do with "grittiness", even if there are things that could be seen that way, so it would strike me as strange and disturbing if this new series ended up being "Middle-earth made gritty!" This isn't to say that there can't be complicating aspects. But if the whole tone of the show is grimdark, well, it's not Middle-earth.