Ser Quork

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Ser Quork

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday December 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,943 profile views
  1. I agree. Suddenly, hell on earth and Vanessa's breaking happened "off-screen" and - and then that ending seemed so rushed. It was really wasted for me.
  2. It's perfect. Although possibly not as well crafted as your average Scooby Doo.
  3. Too many to count but my favourites are: Too tragic, especially when it's possible the Red Wedding would not have happened had Theon not sacked Winterfell and purported to kill Bran & Rickon. The whole scene before the weirwood is so atmospheric. The scene with Davos and Wyman Manderly and its great reveal: My heart leapt when I read this. For the first time, I had some hope for the North. And, of course, my signature. VVV
  4. I agree. There was plenty not right before season 5, but 5 is the season where it started to hurtle downhill. The Sansa Marriage Strike ("Avenge them!") obliterated so many excellent arcs in its wake: it laid waste to Theon's arc, the North remembers plot, Stannis's arc and even Jon and Arya got cobbled into that hot mess, and - worst of all - raised Ramsay to a ridiculous Villain Sue. Doing a proper rendering of Roose Bolton/Frey/hooded man claustrophobia in WF, Wyman Manderly/Lady Dustin, etc., and Stannis's war plans would have kept the political intrigue and subtlety (Frey Pies should be subtle, not Arya pointing to fingers, FFS) that gave the show its initial fame. We should have seen Sansa being LF's 'apprentice' in the Vale rather than being led by the nose to be Ramsay's punch-bag for a reason that simply made no sense. All this fed in to the ever-growing stupidity that was season 6 and the sheer nonsense of season 7. They had plenty of material to have made a thrilling story from the books, but they wanted to put Sophie in Winterfell and have a cartoon Big-Bad - and everything suffered for that.
  5. Er, no. In no sense does that answer the question. A vision is not reality. . People, the phrase is avunculate marriage not avuncular. . I know everyone keeps banging on about the marriages of Serena and Sansa Stark being avunculate and therefore proof positive that the North approves. That isn't fully the case as their father was a half-brother to their respective husbands and that does cut the genetic risk to a degree. Plus it's pretty clear to me that something very particular happened in that generation as there were three Lords of Winterfell from that set of brothers alone and it looks like some kind of political consolidation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this generation is part of the She-Wolves of Winterfell D&E story and we'll get the full story then. Apart from this generation, however, we don't see it happening again in the Stark line. We see cousin marriage, which isn't considered incestuous in Westeros so is disregarded.
  6. The Old Gods is a fictional religion. I don't believe any reader believes the Old Gods are literally real gods in the story. So when I say that the Old Gods forbid it, I mean that the tenets of religion of the Old Gods (as practised by the Northerners) forbid it. Which is said a number of times in the series. I think that is what everyone understands (but you). The baby that was dead looked like a healthy child in a vision so therefore it's safer to assume he was normal? Why?
  7. That's the Night's King who was a man and 13th LC of the Watch (so post-dating the White Walkers) of whom GRRM says: The show has the Night King, the original White Walker - a completely different concept.
  8. I don't follow it because it makes no sense - it's a completely different proposition that does not transfer to this scenario. That Jon is not this Jon - it is a different story with different characters. Of course, he does have the argument - the one that is repeated consistently throughout the series, that it's considered an abomination by the Old Gods which he follows. We shall see. That's putting the cart before the horse. How do you suppose both real and fictional people came to condemn incest or that it became part of a religion's canon law? Just because reasons? Because a religion just decided arbitrarily? No, because people observed the incidence of birth defects, stillbirths, madness, etc., increase with incestuous pairings and made their own rules accordingly. We are led to believe that, but we don't yet know if they are not fully human or altered by blood/fire magic. Yes, Rhaego appeared to be killed by dark magic, but we don't know that he wasn't already deformed in the womb. I wonder. We see magic increase once the dragons are born (potency of wildfire for example) - it's equally possible that the increase of magic is responsible for the increase in the activity of the Others. We'll need the end of the books to know if this isn't actually a case of self-fulfilling prophecy, which I think is possible. Good grief, what does the bolded mean? No, best not answer that. There's nothing exemplary in hoarding power to one's family irrespective of merit or ability. Better for the realm to have been able to move past the stagnant monarchical system to a better system of government. Times have to move on, one way or another. . As for the rest, no, it's not "silly" to prohibit aunt/nephew incest. Blood incest can and does cause health issues in the real world (as it does in fictional Westeros) - the more it happens, the greater the likelihood of health issues. Unrelated adults meeting as adults isn't going to be an issue for anyone. However, the additional protections in law against grooming are child protection measures deemed necessary precisely because some people take advantage of their positions in authority for their own gratification. You call it silly if you like but this isn't a conversation I will have with you as it's just too disturbing that some people think such things are acceptable or shrug them off as inevitable. I won't respond to anything else in that vein.
  9. There is no legislation here that allows a niece to marry an uncle here. Step siblings are not covered, although adoptive siblings could well be, dependent on circumstances. Your original example though was of widower who wanted to marry his step-daughter - that's a different scenario altogether, and could well be viewed as incestuous if he helped to bring her up. As to the last paragraph, Illyrio isn't an incestuous example so it's off-topic. Of course it's offensive, but it's not what is being discussed, which is incest. My point about Viserys is that he has groomed his younger sister from an early age and she now believes that a familial sexual relationship is acceptable so she is more likely to be accepting of the relationship to Jon (although probably not to his "greater" claim to the |IT).
  10. Here in the UK a person cannot have a sexual relationship with an aunt/uncle and certainly not marry them. It is the sexual relationship itself that is a criminal offence. Prohibitions re. in-law and adoptive 'incest' are more about those who groom young people in their care. Such prohibitions have been brought into law here in the UK precisely to prevent those who have authority over children in their care having relationships with those children and that grooming can start when children are young even if not acted upon until the child grows up. These are protective measures. In-world, you can see this with Viserys - he has effectively groomed Daenerys since she was a child. I have no idea why any reader/watcher would be a proponent of this.
  11. I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here at all. GRRM wrote an outline in which incest turns out not to be an issue and that somehow supports a story where incest turns out to be an issue? I don't see how that outline supports you. We know GRRM writes about incest, and how incest is destructive of family lines through madness, deformities and stillbirths (such issues being the real-world issues with incest, for those who think incest isn't an issue). It's there in ASOIAF and in his other stories, like Skin Trade, etc. He doesn't endorse it and I'm pretty sure that if (and it's a big if) there is a Jon/Dany hook up in the books, it won't be the trite nonsense we get in the show. The Targaryens are so interbred to the extent of stillbirths and deformities being frequent in their recent history - even for Rhaego, who had an unrelated parent. Both Jon and Dany have so much interbreeding in their direct and shared Targaryen lineage, there's no way we are getting happy Targaryens with silver haired babies. If GRRM writes it, it won't be "a love story".
  12. It goes away because in that scenario it ceases to be incest if they are cousins (in Westeros) rather than brother and sister. It's such a strange example to use and just doesn't work as an example for Jon-Dany as their show situation is the complete opposite of that example - they have gone from being (in their view) completely unrelated to the third degree of consanguinity as aunt and nephew. I'll be amazed if it isn't an issue. .
  13. For me, it was season 5. Once they put Sansa in the North, the Northern storylines (Winterfell and Stannis) from the books were pretty much destroyed as was Sansa's arc (not to mention LF).