sweetsunray

Members
  • Content count

    6,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sweetsunray

  • Rank
    House Rave, For the Critical Watch

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Belgium

Recent Profile Visitors

9,447 profile views
  1. Vane wasn't a lead character. He was the antagonist throughout S1 for both Flint and Eleanor. And early S3 Vane floundered as a character while he was an ally to Flint and Eleanor wasn't there. His character returns to strength once more, when he can antagonize Eleanor again. And the sole way his character could have an impact beyond that storyline to Eleanor was to hang him. Hannah New has been the lead actress since S1, while Toby Stephens has been the lead actor. And if you look at the stortylines it becomes clear that you have two storylines that are supported by other characters: Flint's and Eleanor's. So, I disagree they set her up as the villain. Instead they set her up as the pirates' "scapegoat" until in 4x02 they shifted it to Max becoming the scapegoat, with Anne voicing anger towards Max, Max trying to capture Silver, Billy actually telling he wants to use her as a classic cathartic scapegoat sacrifice (not unlike the pirates did with Eleanor at the end of S2 and start of S3 with the theater and feasting her expected hanging). In fact, the writers both in interviews and in representation very much defend Eleanor, including her choice to hang Vane. They themselves say - he killed her father, what do you expect she would do? Even the way scenes are shot with her, she's often bathing in light, in even the darkest places (such as the ending 4x04 scene), and it's no coincidence they have her wear a butterfly pendant for a necklace. The ancient greek word for butterfly is Psyche, which means "soul". We have almost everything adapted into Eleanor's story of this legend: father offering her to a "beast", taken away on the westwind to her future husband in a funeral dress, a feast about her hanging (now we are saved), an affair with a man who shouldn't fall in love with her (Cupid was sent by Venus to make Psyche fall in love with a monster, but falls in love himself), the large mirror in Woodes' office has a Cupid figurine often featured in romantic scenes, killing the "beast", wounded and feverish uncosncious Cupid, a marriage, a child coming, making a deal in the underworld to retrieve and acquire a deadly box, together with Max who is a major cause of her downfall in S2. In other words, the writers regard Eleanor as the soul of Nassau, the restorer of love and harmony, if she can be forgiven, a flawed human who acquires a higher soul. At the very least we saw Eleanor heal Max's emotional wounds in 4x04 (see Orual, Psyche's sister who envies Cupid having the company of Psyche and is greatly the cause of Psyche's mysery, in the 20th century adaptation Until We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis).
  2. Yes... maybe aSoIaF fans are more readily able to appreciate the greyness? For me the hanging of Charles Vane and Eleanor's love story with Rogers was one of the gutsy storytelling to me. That gave me enough confidence that the writers were intent on telling the story they had envisioned and weren't writing for fans. It actually made me like Eleanor, less wishy-washy, more grown up. She had gone through an arc and grew from it. I liked Vane up to a level, but he was mostly written as a catalysator, a challenge to overcome by either Flint or Eleanor. I do tend to have a sympathy for the female characters. There aren't many shows where women, including supporting female characters such as Anne, Madi or Max get their own unique characterization or storyline and at times at odds with the male they are paired with. I hope they all survive, though I'm starting to be more and more uncomfortable about Eleanor's fate. Where Vane's death propelled the story beyond pirate vs English antics (where the rebels always come out of it alive) and into this will have consqequences, I can see Eleanor's death in 4x06-4x07 propel the pirate-English war into total end-game, and Woodes into a Flint-arc ending any pirate shenanigans for good. Although the same can be done, if say Silver has Eleanor disappear to "Savannah". And I agree about the Rogers-Flint moment. Flint's demand was asking the impossible imo. The fact that Woodes was given governorship with the pardons showed that a change had occurred, and that Woodes was a progressive Englishman willing to start off expanding Nassau from its existing melting pot situation. Certainly for the era that is progressive. Ashe's personal cover-up and Thomas's father aren't Woodes' fault. But Flint couldn't see beyond his revenge and being the King of the Island. The broken tea-cup and overrun home of Miranda in 4x01 was a good illustration what the consequences of his choice were, that and the 4x04 total mayhem. Nassau and New Providence has become the island the villains in Shakespear's Tempest dream of: island of knaves and whores without commerce and even farming. So, aside from rooting for the women, I also root for a Nassau as Eleanor and Max dreamed it could be like, which used to be Flint's dream too. ETA: the Black Sails wikia is btw imo horribly biased in the manner you describe. They insert purely their own interpretation of Eleanor and Max in there, ignoring interviews by the writers and actors about S3 and S4, ignoring crucial scenes that reveal these character's true feelings and thoughts (you know when Eleanor speaks to an unconscious Woodes who can't hear her). I'd expect a wikia to remain factual and consider all available evidence, isntead of stating an admin's biased opinion. And one of the best reviewers on Youtube who appreciates characterization is DWJacques.
  3. Thanks for the link. One of the things I greatly appreciate about the show is how they portray the pirates (and citizens) as morally ambiguous. Nor do they skirt slave issues of that time. A character or a society is typically "burned" when they are involved in keeping slaves in a modern audience's view, enough we don't blink an eye at such people being slaughtered. They used this "burned" in the S2 finale in Charleston. But then when Flint & co arrive at the Underhill plantation, they still include a lingering sympathetic shot on Mrs. Underhill and her daughter. And I noticed the first response to Mr. Berringer's claim that the whole Underhill family was murdered (by Billy's army) was one of disbelief, that he must be lying. And yes, while they clearly used sexploitation in the first three episodes of S1 to garner an adult audience, they shifted more and more to mature content, nor are they afraid of making their characters commit actions that might anger fans of another character (Woodes keelhauling BB, Eleanor hanging Vane) and yet still persist in giving them a sympathetic storyline as if they are not a "burned" character in the fan minds. It's mature character writing and they my hat off for sticking to it, rather than pleasing fans of a certain character for revenge. In that way I don't think they're just doing something unique for pirate fiction, but for televized storytelling in general. But the pirate genre is perhaps the most daring genre to do it with, exactly because the "good pirate" myth has been so prevalent in any previous pirate depiction. A large section of the show's fans easily forgive the pirates their crimes, and cry "foul" when a citizen takes extreme measures to protect citizens from the pirates. And the writers use this almost to do the unexpected in these fans' eyes. Hehe, anyway, looking forward to this Sunday's episode
  4. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    IF Ramsay is the author and dictated the PL to a maester, yes we would have Ramsay's signature or spiky scribbling somewhere, regardless of what Jon thinks or not. We do not disagree on that. We disagree on what it means that Jon makes no particular observation about the writing style of the Pink Letter: Your argument is that since the spiky hand is the norm for Ramsay, and Jon already has seen the Ramsay norm, the absence of observation about handwriting this time confirms it is written in Ramsay's spiky style. My argument is that Ramsay's spiky hand, while the norm for Ramsay, stands out so much against everybody else's writing, deviates so much from standard writing style, it would always provoke a reflection upon it, especially as he gets many messages from all over the place. In contrast, maester handwriting is so "normal" that Jon is less likely to reflect on it. The one letter he had from Ramsay would not necessarily make him expect that every letter Ramsay writes contains the spiky hand. Even if Jon does at some point reflect on it off-page during the several hours gap with Tormund in his office, Jon can think up several reasons for Ramsay not writing a line himself - he could imagine for himself that Ramsay might be wounded to his writing hand. And while Jon certainly may end concluding it contains lies, he is not prone to suspect forgery.
  5. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    dp
  6. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    No - I'm not dancing around the point. You never comprehended my original point. Must be me being a non-native speaker. My piont is that Ramsay is the exception to otehr writers,and that in general maesters write letters. My point was that IF Jon receives a letter written by a maester, including a letter from Ramsay, this would not spike (pun intended) his suspicion or even make him raise an eyebrow. I do not disagree that a letter actually written by Ramsay would contain his handwriting. WE know this because of Asha's letter and the first letter Jon has. I do not however make the jump to conclude that therefore Jon must assume the same for any other letter he receives allegedly written by Ramsay Don't mis-mash it together.
  7. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    And so we can agree that whomever the author is, that the auhtor had no access to the Bolton seal. We have gone over this back and forth before. You don't care about personal established voice. I do, and I maintain George inserted discrepances on purpose.
  8. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    It is your interpretation, and thus speculation. UNTIL you have confirmation about the author and his or her motive given by George, you don't know for certain. Because clearly, Lysa's motive to write her coded letter to Catelyn about Jon Arryn's murder was warning Catelyn and Ned to stay away from the Lannisters and remain North - based on the secretiveness and language, right? Perhaps Fat Walda's letter that Roose wanted burned and Arya read was truly a dutiful love letter between young wife and husband. And I'm a non-native speaker. Are you really telling me that I possibly cannot understand English as well as you do? What does your native speaking reading comprehension to do with my argument that basing your conclusions on speculated "motive" is a very unrealiable method in the books.
  9. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    It'sz obvious that we are talking at two complete different length waves. The point is WE DON'T KNOW what handwriting is in evidence for the Pink Letter. There is no evidence that it is written in a spiky hand or a maester's hand. And then pro-Ramsay argumenters try to argue it must be Ramsay's spiky hand because Jon never reflects on it and so it must be the same hand. So, when it comes to determining whatever reason there may be that Jon does not reflect on it, Asha's letter doesn't matter because Jon NEVER saw that letter. Yes, we "the readers" have two letters described to detail, but Jon DOES NOT. Asha's letter is completely irrelevant to determine what Jon's mind is at. Oh, funny. Thank you. How could I forget that Luwin was dead. Stumps her forehead (not). Come on. Really?
  10. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    Actually, I never claimed to know what Stannis's motives are exactly. All I ever did was sum up a specualtion of several motives that George is free to insert, never even claiming I believe those are the motives, but to make the point that at this point excluding or pointing the finger a character purely based on motive is irrelevant. So, don't come with this cettle-pot argument. I'm going with what we are given physically, not speculation about motive and intent when the series has repeatedly shown time and time again "motive" is the worst lead, and you very well know it, because I note how you avoid Lysa's letter, who murdered Jon Arryn, who hired the catspaw to kill Bran, etc.
  11. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    We have for the letter to Asha and the first letter to Jon. We don't have for the Pink Letter. And Jon never saw Asha's letter. The Lord of Winterfell is Ramsay. LOL: ok, so you argue that Ramsay wants to keep his plans secret by raising the alarms at castle black who can send a raven to WF. Genius!
  12. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    Oh, what is the argument used again about absence of evidence? A maester's loyalty is to his lord. The argument that Ramsay would keep it secret from a maester, especially when threatening to come with an army is ridiculous.
  13. Well, I was wrong by using "mostly". I wanted to say "partially". There were a combination of reasons, no? That there were no representatives of the colonies in Whitehall, tax laws, growing ideas of enlightenment (mostly for white males of property), the right to settle west of the Appalachians (the Indian reserve), the right to keep slaves in the South ... By the time of WI Vice Admiral Courts had less to do with pirates, but they were created at the start of the 18th century for this, and had a bad rep... At least one was attacked in Massachusetts Bay, no? After all Vice Admiral Courts were one those elements that denied full judidical independence in a colony.
  14. And Madi replied with a Don Quixote quote. As for American Independence, we're talking about 50 years difference. And as I understand it, the AI was mostly inspired by the judicial system that England enforced in the colonies. Piracy was a particular crime related to crimes at sea and not until the 18th century did England even allow colonies to judge these crimes. While colonies had civil courts, they did not have the legal right to set up a criminal court for crimes like piracy. The captured pirates had to be sent to England. Instead of wasting their time on such expense, pirates were simply set free again, and the problem increased. So by 1700 or 1701 (partly in response to pirates like Avery), Whitehall set up Vice Admiral Courts in the colonies. These were courts of several professional judges, without a civil jury (example Flint's trial at Charleston in S2, same thing but fast paced int he tavern trials in S4). Only in London pirates could still have a trial with a jury. Vice Admiral Courts and its lack of jury and professional English judges with no attachment to the colony whatsoever are partly the reason of the uprising against England by the American colonies. When Featherstone claims a jury was set up for Vane's trial, we have a total inaccurate statement. A jury judging Charles Vane would have been illegal in any colony. That's not even an error against historical timing of 1740 versus 1715.If there was a jury at Vane's trial that was illegal. So, the irony is that the cry for independence was partially born not by pirates, but by colonies wanting the legal rights to use a jury system to condemn them. ______ Meanwhile some people probably were surprised at Woodes being able to remarry after being divorced, and assume this is an invented anomaly. Well, it's historically inaccurate that Rogers divorced Sarah officially, let alone remarried (he was however in practice separated from Sarah since 1713), but surprisingly it's not a legal anomaly. In England divorces and annullments were only granted by the Church Council of the English Church. There could be several reasons for divorce, but one could not remarry, unless it was a divorce granted for adultery, and then only the innocent partner had the right to remarry. The adulterer had no right to it. People who had their marriages annulled could both remarry, but their children would become non-citizen bastards. However, in the colonies divorce was not a matter decided on by the Church, but civil courts. Massachusetts Bay civil court for example granted a divorce in 1639 already. In general the Northern colonies were more liberal minded about divorce, would even grant it for "want of mutual affection", and allowed both partners to remarry. The Southern colonies were more restrictive about it. So, it's theoretically completely possible for Woodes to have empowered Judge Adamas to decree a divorce with the right to remarry based on him having been separated for years from Sarah and there being no possibility of reconciliation in a colony, while the Church Council in England would never have granted him the right to remarry.
  15. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    Since Jon pays so little specific attention, I don't consider this particular as evidence there was a spiky hand. And my point is that even if there is no spiky hand in evidence, Jon wouldn't even care to notice, because many letters are often written by maesters, with some lords even having several maesters. Jon simply isn't paying any attention to handwriting at all, unless someting of the handwriting stands out. If the majority of the letters you receive and read are the words of a lord or castellan written by one of their maesters, and you're used to seeing several different handwritings because of different maesters, Jon is not inclined to pay attention to the type of handwriting much. He notices Ramsay's spiky scrawls in the first letter, because it differs greatly from the normal individual handwriting of a maester. To Jon the spiky handwriting is a one-off exception. So, if the next letter contains only maester writing and not spiky handwriting, he's not even bound to think "Hmmm, curious there's no spiky handwriting this time." No, instead he reads a normally written letter that is not peculiar to him at all. Let's just say that you receive printed letters (bills) from several companies. At some point you receive a printed bill of a new company, but something is peculiar about it - a part of the letter was printed out as magenta instead of black. You will certainly notice that. Several weeks later you receive another letter supposedly from the same company (same name, and you think that's their logo) but it's just usual black print out. Will you even wonder "Hey, it didn't print out in magenta!" Of course not. You will consider the magenta one an aberration, and the last one normal. Later it turns out that all their letters have magenta lines, because there is an issue with their printer, and that the black letter one was actually sent by an imposter, who owns a perfectly working printer, and has no idea the magenta print is typical.