kimim

Members
  • Content count

    2,870
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About kimim

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Madison, WI

Recent Profile Visitors

1,571 profile views
  1. I'm disappointed by the show's decision to cut out wolfie things. I miss the crows and the ravens, and Stranger, too. It feels like they put all their critter budget into dragons, and had nothing left for less glam animals. There can be reasons for the rejection, other than budget. Arya is not acting like a Stark, a non-budgetary reason for rejection by the Stark symbol. Arya will find cores without Nymeria. Jon, Sansa, Bran are alive. Starks have WF, which is still standing. She's on Westeros, her home. Sandor is still around, and he and Arya were perfect together. One thing I do not miss as an anchor or teachable moment that "revenge is bad" is Lady Stoneheart. Cat deserved better than resurrection as a shock effect zombie.
  2. I'm not defending the show Sansa. The show doesn't make sense when it comes to this character. It flirts with "the new Sansa," without ever specifying what that is. Battle of the Bastards Sansa, though, does work. I see this discussion as an example of this "new Sansa" (assuming this is a gamer Sansa) giving Jon a last chance to be worthy of the Vale, which he fails to do. Re "what manipulating action of Ramsay did she see," you're right that Sansa never saw Ramsay take WF, but she also never saw Jon infiltrate the wildlings; your conditions go both ways. What she knows of Ramsay: he's the guy who took WF, defeated Stannis, killed Roose, captured Rickon. Jon's her mopey bastard brother who allowed himself to be assassinated. Is Ramsay, who consistently wins, manipulative? Why yes, he is: Sansa is LF's pupil. LF's definition of winning is winning through manipulation; for Sansa, the two things go hand in hand. A terrified, unarmored boy is running straight down an open field, no cover, daylight, with archers aiming for him. Odds of killing him would be excellent. Ramsay forces Jon to either move forward to save his brother, or watch as his brother is killed. From Ramsay's pov, it's no biggie. He'll kill Rickon whether Jon goes for him or not, and win the battle as he outnumbers the wildlings who have never fought against armored folk anyway. Releasing Rickon is just a cruel trick which works. As for Jon's survival: tell that to the novels, and the multiple times Tyrion survives near-certain death. Again, I'm not seeing logic in this mess either. I would see logic if the show allowed Sansa to play the game consistently, but consistency is an alien concept when it comes to her. I think this discussion and Battle of the Bastards in general is an example of the show keeping to the concept of a new Sansa, and doing a decent job of it. Here's the beginning: Jon opens the discussion with Rickon, interesting given what happens at the beginning of the battle. Sansa tells Jon to specifically give up on Rickon, as "we'll never get him back." It's dark advice, and Jon won't accept it. She then segues from Rickon to Ramsay wanting them to make a mistake. There's clearly a connection to Rickon here, which Jon won't see. He asks "what should I do differently," when she's just told him: give up Rickon. She's trying to point out places where he can be manipulated, with Rickon as the key, but he wants battlefield strategy. He's placed her in a frustrating position. He says that he'll listen, but doesn't, then demands info they both know she can't give. Pretend this is the "new Sansa," debating with herself the night before the battle: should she tell Jon about the Vale army? If she does, he wins. What does Sansa get out of that? Should this unreasonable, depressed bastard lead her house? She decides he's unworthy and unreliable. She'll take care of herself. She watches him fall into the Rickon trap, the exact thing she warned him about. She waits until he loses a good portion of his support and disappears under a pile of bodies (she may believe he's dead) then enters with the Vale, destroying Ramsay, whom she then feeds to his own dogs. She is dark in this episode. ...and "dark" is the only way I can make sense of Sansa in season 6. Sadly, Battle of the Bastards is not the entirety of the season. Mostly, the script for Sansa consists of her looking troubled and saying idealistic crap that's immediately disproved (North remembers; Glover does not). She makes huge decisions in dead silence, as she does when she writes to LF. It's all incomprehensible without some hint as to who she is now and what's driving her. In this episode, there is an explanation, but not in any of the others. Truly, the script sucked. The Battle of the Bastards was one place where it did not.
  3. ita the problem is that her motivation was never explained, and that's a mistake. Sansa's decisions have consequences but are incomprehensible, as the show both touts the "new Sansa," without explaining what that is, and resists adding dark elements to her character. Without some type of explanation, without some darkness to Sansa, the only conclusion is that Sansa's hiding an entire army and sending her allies to near-certain massacre because she's been traumatized and finds it difficult to trust. These are all emotional reasons, with no strategy attached. If she's doing all this without knowing where that army is, without knowing that LF can arrive in time, then she's stupid (sorry, no other word applies) beyond belief, and everyone is damned lucky. And none of this works. She's LF's pupil, and LF does nothing without a strategic purpose. A dark Sansa who knows where that army is, who decides to hide it to allow Ramsay to take Jon out, then use it to take out Ramsay...that's how LF's pupil would act. Actually this bit worked for me. First, Ramsay's superiority to Jon in the cruelty and manipulation department are so obvious that no deep knowledge of either Ramsay or Jon is needed for Sansa's advice to ring true. Then, of course Sansa knows what Ramsay is capable of; she spent time with him, saw him in action. She tries to warn Jon in that conversation but it all falls apart when he refuses to believe that Ramsay is better than he is at manipulating people. The way I read this conversation was as a test. Sansa was giving Jon an opportunity to show that he would respect her advice. He fails the test when he refuses to realize an obvious truth about himself and his enemy. He thinks only in terms of protecting her; she's his little sister, no more than that. I think she understands that with him in control, she'll be relegated to being the sad, traumatized lady of WF, while he is the decider. So when he mocks her with "what should we do, then," she's silent about the Vale She says she'll save herself--ie., she's got the biggest army in the North working for her, not him, and she'll keep it that way.
  4. I agree. Problem started back in season 6, with the show refusing to make Sansa's motivation clear. That means we're entering season 7, with Sansa behaving in ways that are unresolved, mysterious. If the show remembers what Sansa did, and if the show explains why she did it, great. However, I'm not sure if the show has the time to manage that. It only works (imo!) if Sansa knows LF is waiting and will arrive in time, and if she is deliberately working against Jon. If Sansa were anyone but Sansa, there wouldn't be a hell of a lot of mystery: she hides the Vale because she wants Ramsay to take out Jon, after which she can enter and take out Ramsay. She gets rid of the bastard, becomes the great power of the North, lady of WF. She's LF's pupil as much as Bran is Bloodraven's, and Arya is the FM's. It's as fitting that she would behave this way as it's fitting that Arya would kill. But she's Sansa, hence she's good, and innocent, and long-suffering. It's inconceivable that she'd go this dark (for no reason other than that she's Sansa) despite the fact that, honestly, I can think of no other reason for her series of decisions in season 6.
  5. Rhaegar is known for his beauty, and Wilf Scolding is adorable, cute, but not beautiful or melancholy or mysterious. Rhaegar is one of my least favorite characters in the series--I see him as an unpleasant cross between a supermodel and a moody rock star, a guy who could make a living posing for covers of romance novels. This is why my thoughts automatically go to melancholy male model types, instead of more substantial human beings who have something to offer other than "Aren't I beautiful? Aren't you turned on by my moody mystery and strange melancholy? Sit and sob while I play the harp." ...and there won't be time to set him up as a character. All we'll know of him, probably, is that he ran off with Lyanna and (possibly) married her. His looks will be all that matter.
  6. This! However, I think Cersei was right. Tyrion would know that Westerosi families can be ruthless and unpredictable in their pursuit of revenge, and he would also know that Dorne has reason to want revenge upon the Lannisters. Given that, why send Myrcella there? I never got that decision by Tyrion, not in the novels, not on the show.
  7. If Jon is an oath breaker by virtue of siding against the Boltons, Marsh is an oath breaker by virtue of siding against the wildlings against his LC's orders. Jeor Mormont says it in Game: The primary purpose of the NW is not to fight the wildlings, but to protect the realms of men. Wildlings, as men, fall under the Watch's protection. The NW was low on men at the beginning of Game. After Mormont's ranging, it's really, REALLY low on men, possibly down to 400 or so crows. That's not enough to protect the Wall. The Watch needs the wildlings, but Marsh can't accept that. His prejudice and history against the wildlings come between him and his oath's primary purpose, which is to protect the realms of men from the dead, icy things from beyond the Wall. I can't find a shred of defense for Marsh's behavior. Jon at least gets the numerical difficulties the Watch is facing. Roose is Warden, but Ramsay is his recently legitimized heir. Roose's hold on Ramsay is tenuous: Roose is TERRIFIED by his son's treatment of Arya. Ramsay? He doesn't care, nor can Roose make him care. Ramsay matters. Add him to his father's responsibility for the RW, and all I can conclude is that these two must go, for the North to unite. ...re failure to tell anyone else about the threat: I think it might have been a plot hole in the beginning, but by the time Dance comes around, it's probably hopeless. Westeros is tearing itself apart, with Cersei the idiot at the helm. I doubt that even Tywin would have given credence to rumors of creepy crawlies beyond the Wall. Cersei sure as hell won't, nor will anyone else. But sure, Jon should have tried. I think it's a gamble. The Watch is facing the certainty that the Walkers will turn every wildling at Hardhome into a zombie. Jon risks a few men to save himself the trouble of facing thousands of wightified wildlings. If he loses (and odds are he will) then he'll have to deal with thousands of wildling wights, plus a few NW zombies. If he wins, the Walker army is reduced by thousands. I'd take that gamble.
  8. That they should unite is a no brainer, as you say, but the point of the novels so far is that these people (including the Northerners) are so overcome by their dynastic ambitions and feuds and traditions that they can't. Look at Bowen Marsh. He hates the wildlings, and he will stick to that hate, whether the Walkers are coming or not. That the North is in a weak position doesn't mean that it shouldn't try to defend itself. Stannis (and Jon, sorry) fighting the Boltons is necessary, as the North will not unite under the Boltons. On top of the RW, Ramsay is a maniac, a flaying madman who feeds people to dogs. There's no way to underplay that. He is not a person the North (or any other region) can remain united behind. 1. Dynastic ambitions have torn Westeros apart, to the extent that many houses are now wiped out. 2. No one believes in the supernatural disaster awaiting humanity beyond the Wall. Not even NED, the Northerner incarnate, believed it. This is why the Watch is, as Mormont tells Tyrion, dying. Given the political atmosphere, Jon's letters would achieve nothing. Besides that, he does send letters, doesn't he? Mormont tried to let KL know and failed. Marsh has been complaining about Jon's decision to allow wildlings in forever. He is never resigned to it; as I said earlier, his hatred of the wildlings prevents his being able to unite with them. He's a reflection of divided Westeros as a whole. As for handing weapons to the wildlings: thanks to the lack of interest in the Wall, the NW's numbers are depleted in the beginning of the novel. They're further depleted when Mormont takes them on his disastrous ranging. The Wall needs bodies, defenders, which is why Jon arms the wildlings. The wildlings are the only other human group that believes in the Walkers. They're the Wall's natural defenders. The expedition to Hardhome might be suicidal, but it's needed. Either allow thousands of wildlings to be killed and added to the Walker army as wights, or attempt to prevent it. A suicide mission to prevent that is (imo) worth the losses. EDIT: Jon's great fault is not in trying to get the wildlings into the NW, or in attempting to rescue those at Hardhome, or in siding (to an extent) with Stannis vs Boltons. Like his "father" Ned, he can't do politics. He treats Marsh and friends with contempt. He acts as if his role as LC is enough, and it isn't, and it's what kills him.
  9. OK, North must unite, right? They won't unite under the Boltons, thanks to the RW. Boltons would be able to settle things had they some years, but they don't. They have to die. Someone more palatable (even STANNIS is more palatable) has to take control and unite this place, because in the crudest sense, the Big Bad is coming, and the North will be the first place to meet it. Jon's decision to save wildlings is based on denying Others an army: Others raise the dead. Thousands of vulnerable wildlings are potentially an army of thousands of zombies for the Walkers. This is shown in the prologue to Dance. No LC would want that coming at him. The mystery for me is that supplies or no, any crow should be able to see that preventing that at any cost is worth it, even if the cost is that the wildlings are allowed to die of starvation once they're safely past the Wall.
  10. Syrio is important because he brings out the theme of "seeing well." The cat story has nothing to do with glamor or with fawning over what the lord is telling them. It has to do with looking past the false "reality" offered by someone you respect and trust, and seeing what is truly there. This is why I don't believe Syrio is a magical FM. His philosophy is the opposite of magic: put away your preconceptions and see, literally, what is in front of you. That kind of "seeing" is the opposite of magic, requires trust in objective reality. It is compromised when faced with magic, which literally changes what's in front of you.
  11. ita on Arya. Her bits season 6 were terrible, worse, even, than Dorne. They could have fixed it: Jaqen could have explained FM's interest in Arya and the Starks. If magic had been involved in her survival, he could have talked about it then. But no. Jon, though, worked for me. I loved the fact that season 6 didn't treat him the way it treated Dany. He was not perfect. He was capable of making huge mistakes: he is resurrected, having discovered that "nothing" awaits him after death. He's not happy. He's near-suicidal. Possibly he destroys his own strategy and leads his men to massacre because he no longer cares about strategy, his own life, or his men's lives. He takes a final risk to save Rickon from that "nothing," and fails, falling into Ramsay's trap. He fights, ends up buried under that mass of bodies, then discovers in himself the desire to live, to achieve something, and crawls back up in a second resurrection that (imo) worked better than the first. As for his surviving the battle: it's unlikely, but I'll accept it. Shit happens. Heroes survive. How many unlikely encounters has Tyrion survived? Battle of the Bastards was my favorite episode, ever. Re Sansa: I think you're right. She does what she does, just because. What frustrates me about it is that the show was on the cusp of finally, FINALLY!!! bringing forth the "new Sansa" it's been talking about for years. It chickened out.
  12. Is Six Duchies also the only place where the Wit has been identified and refined? It's the only place with Witted communities.
  13. In favor of the KotV arriving too early, there is the fact that shortly before they arrive, Jon was buried under all those bodies. Maybe Sansa and LF assumed that he was dead, and moved in? His clawing his way out of that "grave" was unexpected. But then, as you say, the script isn't there. The script does support the reasoning that she doesn't trust Jon. There's one conversation between them right before the battle (I think). She complains that he doesn't listen to her, and he agrees to hear her out. She tells him that she knows Ramsay, that Ramsay is better than he is at manipulation, and will lure him into a trap. He dismisses what she has to say; he believes that he's as good as Ramsay at that sort of thing, which is laughable. He then goes on to dismiss everything else that she has to say, leaving her frustrated. She is, of course, correct: he begins the Battle of the Bastards by undoing his own strategy and leading his men to what would have been a massacre, without the arrival of the KotV. Having said that, the trust issue doesn't work, as hiding an entire army is too strange and extreme. She wants Ramsay dead. Why not tell Jon about the Vale? Keep it hidden to lure Ramsay out of WF, then destroy him. She doesn't do that. She is LF's student. That involves an education in manipulation, in playing the game. Bran and Arya are what they were trained to be. Why should Sansa be the exception? Hiding the Vale, using the Vale to destroy Jon and take over, is exactly what LF's pupil would do.
  14. Ah. Thank you! Can't wait to see the new season.
  15. I haven't read the leaks I'm also not sure why there's a reluctance to attribute negative motives to Sansa. Arya is now an assassin who kills with a smile; she can apply what she learned from the FM. Bran is a prophet whose decisions have already doomed Bloodraven, the remaining Children, and Hodor. He learned, too. Sansa's teacher is LF, the man who specializes in manipulation. Why should Sansa be the one Stark kid who does nothing with her new knowledge?