• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sweetsunray

  • Rank
    House Rave, For the Critical Watch

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

10,101 profile views
  1. Totally second that! @The Dragon Demands I'm not buying any DVDs anymore (haven't since after S4), not going to lend it, and there's no way I'll listen for hours to them talking on episodes I do not want to rewatch at all. But I appreciate it enormously that you look up the various interviews, fact check and stomach their commentaries, and compile them and make a coherent proposal based on it. (I can't even stand listening to them in the inside the episodes). Also I watched/listened to the RedTeamReview with Preston Jacobs podcast on youtube. One of them was about the S7 leaks, which I think I ought to get a mention here for everyone: But your youtube video about stunt-casting Indira Varma was brought up by RedTeamReview to Preston in the podcast where they discuss the Dornish Master Plan, and Preston mentions he suspects that Ellaria may plan to stop Doran's Fire and Blood plan in more than just the speech we had towards the end. It's more towards the end of that podcast (called ep2: Dornish Master Plan)
  2. More, in the books the brotherhood is already pretty much as bad as it is in aFfC. We know from jokes and comments made that "he gives them a trial" is pretty much a mock trial to begin with, because it ends with "and then he hangs them". We actually see what type of trial it usually is at the start of Sandor's trial when they all accuse him of being responsible for the death of a list of names, some that died way back when, and he's only guilty of association. Only because Sandor speaks back and calls Beric out on his trial BS, Beric and Thoros try to find a legitimate reason to kill Sandor. And then when Sandor wins the trial by combat (of a death of a child he is actually directly responsible for) Beric lets him go. Arya's pretty much dillusioned by Beric's form of justice then. But basically all of it was winessed through the eyes of a child who's more a fan of stories of the Kingswood Brotherhood and Wanda the Fawn than of kissing stories. But we get the grain of truth in Arya's POV if you look for it. Only a superficial read makes one come away with the idea that the BwB are this grand, noble group. George deconstructs the trope already in Arya's arc, but you have to read between the lines. Then in Brienne's arc and the aSoS epilogue, we finally witness the BwB from a victim's POV, who are accused of being guilty by association, just as Sandor was, except this time LS actually is a valid witness. Just like Beric she gives them a trial first and then hangs them, but LS has far more background knowledge as a witness than Beric has. Thoros' lament to Brienne is quite frankly BS to me. The BwB always robbed from both the living as well as those they killed (no need to waste good steel or horses, etc). It's just that when his friend is dead, Thoros lost the lie he told himself all along. When Beric dead, the time to "pretend" is done. And the only big shift I can see between Beric and LS is that Beric was apolitical (Wolves or Lions make no matter), while LS politices the already existing BwB cells in place to strike against her enemies. While I dislike how the show had Gendry sold and linked to Melisandre as if she's a higher up of Thoros (I doubt Thoros would see her that way), the show did make clear back then that the BwB is not some merry band of outlaws with justice on their side, but just as compromized as they really are already in aSoS under Beric (but too many gloss over that subtextual point in the books). But the S6 "cameo" was pretty much overall crap, suddenly giving them a higher calling to face the enemy north, apparently not being much of a problem to the Freys and have Arya suddenly inserted into the revenge-on-the-Freys plot. Sure, the Riverlands become the Rivermess in the books, but the show makes a mess of the Rivermess there to streamline stuff into Arya's arc and make her this time jumping psycho killer, that we somehow have to combine with an Arya who feels sorry for Cersei (play Cersei).
  3. Craster does not hold to the old gods, he does what he likes and holds to the Others. Check out my essay Craster's Black Blooded Curse in relation to him being a copy of the Blood Emperor. People seem to think he keeps to guest right, but his "guest right" practice is one-sided: from guest to host, not the other way around. In fact, he does not follow the proper basic code for guest right, and the only time that actual guest right is in place, he jumps on the table to assault a man at his table with an axe. He practices incest of the abusive kind, he sacrifices children, he doesn't care a flip about guest right (only insofar it prevents a large group of strong men not to attack him), certainly no weirwood tree in the vicinity, and long pork sausage in the secret larder (that is - cannibalism isn't wrong, but I'd betcha that some black brothers he had as guests ended up being black sausage). Jeor expresses disgust in private to Jon about the man. And he also left the axe on the table for the wives and daughters to kill Craster sleeping in the loft if they wished it. Jeor tolerates him because he has nobody else as an informant or source. That depends on how people can become nobility. As long as people can become landowners, because of say a heroic deed, then the gene pool isn't closed. Or if they allow a house of thousands of miles away to receive land and set up shop. And yet, legitimized bastards can make good marriages at times, or even become the heir, or receive lands, and become a new house. I don't see how the sanctity of a marriage pact proves selective inbreeding, when said marriage pacts are between Starks and Baratheons (with Targaryen geness) and Starks and Tullys (with more Andal blood than the Northerners). Murdering children is a greater sin in his opinion perhaps? It isn't the children's fault. The abomination is on the parents in his eyes. Exiling said abominable parents and her children isn't exactly the same thing as condoning it.
  4. As always a reminder of the OP: And that is all I have to say about my rationality.
  5. No, that's ok. It's hard to put it into words at times and I used "winning" in a manner that could be misunderstood, especially because it's already so often misunderstood by many in "domination" terms, and your post elaborated on the several examples. I personally like the Ygritte-Jon example very much. He manages to make her surrender because he has a knife at her throat. But then he can't actually come to kill her and he lets her go, and she's the reason he's hunted down, and she's the one who takes the sexual initiative. Yet, she still considers herself "stolen" and in later conversations about "stealing" reveals she's pretty demanding on that department. The Sansa-Sandor example is entirely different, but still works. She basically disarms (without emasculating him) him by her song. And my point, like you, is that there are so many ways George can vary this challenge theme between a man and a woman, or boy and girl. There's no denying that Arya acquires some tricks up her sleeve in the HoBaW though she does not actually learn sword fighting anymore. Though she'd probably got very good with a stick. And I expect her to spend some time serving for a courtesan swan, like the Black Pearl, not to have sex with a guy, but to get her in touch with the more feminine part of herself, to learn how she can integrate that unavoidable development with the rest of her identity. Likewise I can see Brienne starting to train Gendry (no sexual subtext). His sword was nearly finished in aFfC. The combination can lead to various situations in a meet-up, where I would not underestimate Gendry, nor Arya. I think that the important point of such a challenge and fight is that Gendry doesn't disappoint. That seems overall how George writes these pairings: not as the guy technically winning over the female character (POV or secondary), but having a moment where he has the upper hand that he does not hold on to, let alone abuse, and that the boys and men did not disappoint during that physical altercation.
  6. Well, I don't disagree with any of what you say. It's never about dominion at all imo. In part, all these women hold their own in the fights or captivate the man/boy. When I think of the bear-maiden fighting and flirting and challenging and "besting" it's nothing to do with one "winning" over the other, but the thrill of the challenge itself. All the "stealing" and the "fighting" is often interpreted as "male dominion" and "female submissin" in discussions by readers, but the text shows somethign entirely different, that was my point from the very start. Imo Gendry doesn't need to win or dominate Arya in any fight. I think all he needs to do is steal/sneak a kiss in to make her aware of his attraction to her (instead of conquering... like a kiss on the cheek), even if she'd give him a beating for it as first response. All he ever needs to show is that he's willing to fight for and with her and can hold his own and "why" that is, but not "beat" her. At that point she's free to put 2 and 2 together and make up her own mind and make the terms if she's willing. Back to the the alpha-roles; again it is not about the alpha-male subduing the alpha-female, but finding each other equals, or combined a balanced mix. If the alpha female has to continually fight of male rivals to her chosen partner, then that's not a partnership anymore, especially if she were to have a nest of pups. She might as well be on her own then. If the alpha male can hold his own as well as her, then she doesn't have to fight for two anymore, but can actually be a team. That's how I take Ygritte's words about stealing.
  7. Arya wants an alpha right? Arya's the one who starts to challenge Gendry, and he initially doesn't want to because he thinks he might hurt Arry. After that, the challenge goes back and fort. Engaging in that challenge can actually be a sign that he doesn't treat her as a "girl". And GRRM can write the winning of the scuffle in a way that is not paternalistic at all. That he's strong, dangerous and able to meet a challenge matters to Arya. It's not "our norms" but Arya's.
  8. No, not necessarily. But GRRM does use "stealing" and "dangerous" and "strong" and alpha-male identification and "bear-maiden" song to pairings. GRRM does it with Ygritte and Jon, with Val and Jon, with Jaime and Brienne. And almost nobody interpretes that in a paternalistic way. So, why should we suddenly have to interprete it that way with Gendry and Arya. Meanwhile Gendry's accused as being too much of a wuss, because he doesn't want to hurt a girl. So, as long as it isn't Gendry a male character intended for Arya must be alpha? And only in Gendry's case we should regard it in a paternalistic way?
  9. "dangerous" is a word that GRRM uses romantically. And let's not forget that Brienne takes an interest in him. I wouldn't be surprised if she starts teaching him.
  10. Pretty sure she did subconsciously. Arya admires the "swans" in the books - Lady Smallwood (a Swann) who talks her own mind, the courtesans at Braavos (especially the Black Pearl with her swan ship). And Arya's made to "dance" on her tippy toes like a swan by Syrio. Those are the women she admires and watches and studies more and more - women in control of their own sexuality.
  11. He is "strong" and Arya thinks of him as "dangerous" already long before he is actually.
  12. I actually disagree that he'll be eaten for breakfast. Initially she wins verbally to him, but that changes. He loses in the forge tickle fight. But it seems to me he's set up to learn. It's not that Arya would want him to win it. It's that she wouldn't want to actually kill him, and all he may end up wanting to do is kiss her.
  13. There would be some "challenge" in the way of the Bear song. A "fight" challenge has been repeatedly done phsyically and verbally between Arya and Gendry from the second chapter they're on the road together. Just like we have a sword fight between Jaime and Brienne, Sandor's dagger at Sansa's throat, or Jon's drawn sword and ordering Val to stay inside the tent and "capture" her.
  14. Yes, that was funny. I was also reminded of S2 when Charlotte was drawing it for him, uhm right about before she got murdered by Anne. BTW every actor and writer live tweeting during the airing of it, said something abotu Anne having her old hat back again, and saying "remember where she lost it?" As if it was something uber-special. But I'm not sure. I know that after Charlotte's murder, they burn her clothes, but Max saves her hat from being burned. Is that the old hat, or did she lose the old hat someplace else? Then eventually she wears a hat again, but it's a darker leather hat. I don't think Max giving the washed old hat she saved from the fire in S2 is uber special. Anyway, next re-watch I'll be making note of the hat. Before S4 they had quizzes of the actors, and one was about the number of Jack's moustaches, and Toby Schmitz answered correctly that Jack had 8 or 9 different moustaches. And you see it in S2 when you pay attention. The scenes in the inn (the brothel) his moustache is closed (no gap in the middle), and then in scenes outside of the inn it's a moustache with a small gap in the middle. And so you have a scene inside the inn, then outside, inside again, and outside once more. And you can count that as being 4 different moustaches in say 2-3 episodes. LIkely caused by having been filmed on different days, and the make-up department having done two types of moustaches on different filming schedules.
  15. Hands is in the little canoo to the Maroon camp, but that's before the tale is told. Silver is on the cart, but doesn't go through the gates. Israel and Morgan do the handing over. Morgan pays the "toll". And from there it's only Flint and the plantation people. But I agree that if Silver is telling a vivid tale, so vivid that we get a visualisation of it, this certainly works. Some argue: but they never "lie" visually. Well they played around quite a lot with the manner of storytelling from S2 on - flashbacks for 5 episodes, 1 time voiced-over by Abigail, then 5 dreams and or hallucinations of Miranda, hallucination/visions again with Woodes, and then this sepia Elysian Fields type of thing. Visions and hallucinations certainly are a form of visual "lie". I certainly like how it ties in with Silver telling BIlly that if he were to say the sky's red, people would believe it. To have Silver tell it, and then show us the fantasy ending, including a kiss in the middle of the fields, is Silver making the viewer believe the sky is red. (which is the reason why I wrote that chatline in the afterbuzz chat).