• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chebyshov

  • Rank
    Purveyor of moon tea

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Wherever Dornish spouses go

Recent Profile Visitors

4,007 profile views
  1. Definitely interesting, and I'm always glad when something is brought up that makes me reconsider it. But like others I will say the context makes it pretty clear, and not sure what subverting the implication would really accomplish, at all. Unless it's to make a grander point about no one really giving a shit about the women in these cases, which I daresay we've gotten the message by now. With this thread in general... I can't believe how many people take Barry "dumb women prefer hot guys to nice guys" Selmy's account of anything at face-value. Dude has intense patriarchal POV bias, and his conception of Rhaegar "choosing love" would be part of that. As others have pointed out, those two were not particularly close at all. I feel like the concept of bisexuality is eluding many people. What would Martin be attempting to accomplish by hinting at a love story between two men through nothing other than parallel and buried implication? What does this add to the story? If it's about Rhaegar being a tad cynical in his approach to Lyanna, why is sexuality a part of that over his already established interest in prophecy? Is this making some point about in-verse homosexuality, and if so, how would we expect this to become explicated? It's not a bad shade to the tale or anything (and I'm 100% team Ned had a big ol' crush on Robert, for the record), but IMO something this veiled is a little wanting.
  2. Margaery is more or less a walking hymen who may or may not be a tad more cynical than she lets on with her performance of idealized maidenhood. Kind of confused about her inclusion, especially when like...Cat isn't?
  3. Martin's not writing a historical documentary, so that'd be about as useful as nipples on a breastplate. Let's look at the patriarchal society in the books. And to that point, it's pretty damn clear in the narrative that Cersei's societal value is her baby-making capabilities (like all other noble women), and if you're confused as to why having your personhood reduced down to being a shiny baseball card is oppressive (along with not having the right to consent, as @mankytoes already pointed out), then you likely don't understand the concept at all.
  4. Maybe part of the point of the series is holding up a lens to the inherent untenable nature of it even for the noble class with cushy jobs. Or something. You know, cause the "best possible quality of life" in that context is actually really shitty and oppressive?
  5. I'm not that super into feudalism, bro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  6. Ask me how many shits I give about a guy being "cuckholded." I truly have no clue what you're trying to insinuate with Sam. I'm glad you would have probably not been chained to a wall had Randyll been your dad? But this reads as incredibly disturbing victim blaming. Cersei is a complicated and a wonderfully challenging PoV character between her internalized misogyny and years of abuse (which has sadly perpetuated, as she's now an abuser and acted as a secondary abuser to Tyrion growing up). I'm not saying she's a peach, but I think the fandom tendency to woobify everyone she comes in contact with is ridiculous.
  7. I think she would have done what she needed to do to avoid high treason charges, sure. I also think her response to abuse with more abuse is not meant to be taken as a positive. But I object to the framing of being her husband as being on par with being raised by Randyll Tarly.
  8. Yurp. I also don't really hold her attempts to control her sexual agency against her, given the situation, to be perfectly honest.
  9. Well as Cersei's husband I wouldn't be raping her, so maybe that situation isn't so equivalent to Sam being chained to a wall, eh?
  10. Nitpick threads were the stuff of Season 4. I still want to know who set the time and date for this wight meeting. Sansa was invited before it had even been captured! They had no story to tell in Winterfell, is what it comes down to. Sansa should have executed LF last year, or could have easily opened to it this year. Any other plotline would have been preferable to the bait-and-switch idiocy we got (featuring homicidal sisters!), but I'm scratching my head as to what it could have been. Maybe Sansa is worried about the loyalty of some of the Lords to Jon, with winter setting in and stores going down and like...those two nebbish kids keeping their castles (like she said, "we do nothing about treason?")? Idk, it's some kind of tension that at least could have arisen from the situation, and maybe she juggles that while having difficulty relating to her two siblings and understanding what her place is as Lady of Winterfell. I also would have taken 7 episodes of Arya teaching everyone how to make pies. Littlefinger smirking on his wall spot was not exactly titillating.
  11. Most TV shows have writers' rooms, and they don't have anywhere near the problems with consistent characterization that GoT has.
  12. It was a bizarre tonal call on an already tone-deaf show.
  13. Charles II of Spain might have words for you. (wtf did I just read)
  14. The real Aegon is the friends we made along the way. I'll echo the others re: Varys's motives.
  15. The one point worth clarifying for others here (I've long since learned everything else is an exercise in futility with you): Joff had to be killed specifically at the wedding after the ceremony and not before Marg's valuable hymen was punctured because that is what would have given her some legitimacy as a queen and the Tyrells more political power, while still putting themselves in a position where if shit goes toe-up with the Lannisters, they can get out. Sort of like how she was Renly's queen but never tied to that cause. Their reasons for acting are quite well-established, and once again, this pet theory does nothing for the story in terms of meaning or character arcs.