[Spoilers] Rant and Rave Without Repercussion

[Duckface]

11 hours ago, Deedles said:

Wtf. Greyscale is super contagious. A touch will infect you, but Jorah 'says' he is cured and cue hugs from Danny. No. Just fucking no.

Don't worry, if there is like 1 cm wide crack, you can just cut a tiny bit of skin. It's not like you'd have to cut your hand off.

[Armand Gargalen]

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, the speech is Westeros related: it's a speech from gong to a feudal kingdom where a king doesn't have absolute power but is beholden to barons/lords to abolute monarchy.

King John would be  a perfect illustration of a king who'd love to break the feudal wheel for the barons forced him to accept the Magna Carta. He could only dream of the absolute power that the Medicis in France and Henry VIII manufactured for themselves by taking down the ancient power houses and handing posts to favorites with much less ancestral claim. Of course that did not benefit the common man much, unless you were a favourite of the king (until you disagreed about something and lost your head), nor were common men so fond of kings having absolute power, for 3 centuries later you have the era of revolution where for once the kings were the ones losing their heads, and voted for parliament made laws, including the separation of judicial, lawmaking and order powers.

Dany is more like Catherine de Medici of France than a Robespiere. And it annoys the heck out of me that the show even tries to confuse her as someone with democratic aims, when clearly she isn't. She's still an an absolute judge and lawmaker all in one, combined with right to rule based on blood heritage and lifelong fealty bound to her person alone. Meanwhile her "government" is but a small council of favourites. And while I find that quite realistic of her (I don't expect her to invent democracy at all), that speech has been pushed and portrayed as something revolutionary and democratic for the people. It ain't.

Great analysis

[Gala]

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, the speech is Westeros related: it's a speech from gong to a feudal kingdom where a king doesn't have absolute power but is beholden to barons/lords to abolute monarchy.

King John would be  a perfect illustration of a king who'd love to break the feudal wheel for the barons forced him to accept the Magna Carta. He could only dream of the absolute power that the Medicis in France and Henry VIII manufactured for themselves by taking down the ancient power houses and handing posts to favorites with much less ancestral claim. Of course that did not benefit the common man much, unless you were a favourite of the king (until you disagreed about something and lost your head), nor were common men so fond of kings having absolute power, for 3 centuries later you have the era of revolution where for once the kings were the ones losing their heads, and voted for parliament made laws, including the separation of judicial, lawmaking and order powers.

Dany is more like Catherine de Medici of France than a Robespiere. And it annoys the heck out of me that the show even tries to confuse her as someone with democratic aims, when clearly she isn't. She's still an an absolute judge and lawmaker all in one, combined with right to rule based on blood heritage and lifelong fealty bound to her person alone. Meanwhile her "government" is but a small council of favourites. And while I find that quite realistic of her (I don't expect her to invent democracy at all), that speech has been pushed and portrayed as something revolutionary and democratic for the people. It ain't.

Absolutely agree!

[sweetsunray]

49 minutes ago, Armand Gargalen said:

Great analysis

 

36 minutes ago, Gala said:

Absolutely agree!

If you consider the show characters who actively tried to break the wheel by sawing the legs from under the chair of power (both by lords and kings and queens) that was actually the High Sparrow. He had many people following him, completely voluntarily, from all social classes, without him having dragons or even the means to liberate anyone. Hell, he tried to set up trials where the king or queen or nobles wouldn't be the judge, a type of splitting judicial power from lawmaking power. That's the character who actually was breaking the wheel, and came pretty close in succeeding to.

[Gala]

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

 

If you consider the show characters who actively tried to break the wheel by sawing the legs from under the chair of power (both by lords and kings and queens) that was actually the High Sparrow. He had many people following him, completely voluntarily, from all social classes, without him having dragons or even the means to liberate anyone. Hell, he tried to set up trials where the king or queen or nobles wouldn't be the judge, a type of splitting judicial power from lawmaking power. That's the character who actually was breaking the wheel, and came pretty close in succeeding to.

That's also true, but High Sparrow was a fanatic...religious fanatics....they usually do not create, they just destroy. It could seem as breaking the wheel, but in the end it always turns out to be something even worse - servitude.

[Armand Gargalen]

Just now, Gala said:

That's also true, but High Sparrow was a fanatic...religious fanatics....they usually do not create, the just destroy. It could seem as breaking the wheel, but in the end it always turns out to be something even worse - servitude.

Daenerys is coming out as a fanatic as well. Not a religious one, but a fanatic nonetheless. 

[Gala]

3 minutes ago, Armand Gargalen said:

Daenerys is coming out as a fanatic as well. Not a religious one, but a fanatic nonetheless. 

That is also true, she seems like a fanatic. 

[fairwarging]

15 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

 

If you consider the show characters who actively tried to break the wheel by sawing the legs from under the chair of power (both by lords and kings and queens) that was actually the High Sparrow. He had many people following him, completely voluntarily, from all social classes, without him having dragons or even the means to liberate anyone. Hell, he tried to set up trials where the king or queen or nobles wouldn't be the judge, a type of splitting judicial power from lawmaking power. That's the character who actually was breaking the wheel, and came pretty close in succeeding to.

I agree! I feel they really butchered his character, making him more interested in oppressing gays and sex workers than religion. I am reading AFFC again, so I'll see if I've got him right. But so many of his ideas were correct, and it made so much sense that he would appear when he did, after the rape and pillage of the Riverlands. 

[Armand Gargalen]

6 minutes ago, fairwarging said:

I agree! I feel they really butchered his character, making him more interested in oppressing gays and sex workers than religion. I am reading AFFC again, so I'll see if I've got him right. But so many of his ideas were correct, and it made so much sense that he would appear when he did, after the rape and pillage of the Riverlands. 

Indeed, books HS is much more a populist who wants to reduce noble and royal power than a bigoted puritan. He has not a harder take on incest, adultery or homosexuality than the previous High Septons. He is just saying that nobles and monarchs have gotten away with it for too long.

[fairwarging]

On 8/16/2017 at 6:16 AM, Low Sparrow said:

That was the problem with the people of King's Landing. Too fickle. Always caring about who slept with who, who walked around with the dead, who was nice to them, who had them killed for no reason, whom they saw naked and hurled feces at, and about getting food and all sorts of unimportant things like that. Thus, they were replaced with Hollywood tour groups so they cheer for whoever the applause sign tells them to.

At least they wear color! Actually, why do they all look like Romans when no one else in the country does? Is the costume designer sleeping this season?

 

[Rhodan]

As I see it, showrunners are increasingly relying into simplistic contrast that they like to show wise ruler in contrast with aggressive nagger. So, first its Jon as wise with nagger Sansa, who is kinda wise in his absence and her nagger becomes Arya.

EDIT: Reason usually wins, only in Dorne, nagger becomes the ruler.

[fairwarging]

On 8/16/2017 at 5:47 AM, Holly Macaroni said:

Similarly, I usually come here and post my rants and raves with a video (even though it's a video I myself have done).

With an episode so filled with plot holes, it's hard to chose on the ones to focus on.

Here's this week's recap:

 

Awesome work! I was really happy to see Monkey Island in there! 

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, the speech is Westeros related: it's a speech from gong to a feudal kingdom where a king doesn't have absolute power but is beholden to barons/lords to abolute monarchy.

King John would be  a perfect illustration of a king who'd love to break the feudal wheel for the barons forced him to accept the Magna Carta. He could only dream of the absolute power that the Medicis in France and Henry VIII manufactured for themselves by taking down the ancient power houses and handing posts to favorites with much less ancestral claim. Of course that did not benefit the common man much, unless you were a favourite of the king (until you disagreed about something and lost your head), nor were common men so fond of kings having absolute power, for 3 centuries later you have the era of revolution where for once the kings were the ones losing their heads, and voted for parliament made laws, including the separation of judicial, lawmaking and order powers.

Dany is more like Catherine de Medici of France than a Robespiere. And it annoys the heck out of me that the show even tries to confuse her as someone with democratic aims, when clearly she isn't. She's still an an absolute judge and lawmaker all in one, combined with right to rule based on blood heritage and lifelong fealty bound to her person alone. Meanwhile her "government" is but a small council of favourites. And while I find that quite realistic of her (I don't expect her to invent democracy at all), that speech has been pushed and portrayed as something revolutionary and democratic for the people. It ain't.

I'd say she wields more power than that.  I'd step back further in time, and say it's more like one of the power struggles in the Roman or Byzantine Empires.  Daenerys, like Caesar, will tolerate no rival or superior.  Cersei is a usurper, but Daenerys is a dynast who is determined to establish her rule by force.

That's not to see she would necessarily be a bad Queen, but the best the Smallfolk could hope for is that she keeps the peace, and prevents private war among the lords.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

28 minutes ago, fairwarging said:

Awesome work! I was really happy to see Monkey Island in there! 

Victarion's Monkey Island?  I may watch this if so. 

[Prince of the North]

7 hours ago, fairwarging said:

Well, no, he swore to have no lands, even if the wall falls. His sister is head of the house. But yeah, the show will probably ignore that. 

Yep.  That's exactly what I think has been oh-so-conveniently set up with Randyll and Dickon Tarly's completely nonsensical and ridiculous refusal to pledge loyalty to Daenaerys.

[sweetsunray]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'd say she wields more power than that.  I'd step back further in time, and say it's more like one of the power struggles in the Roman or Byzantine Empires.  Daenerys, like Caesar, will tolerate no rival or superior.  Cersei is a usurper, but Daenerys is a dynast who is determined to establish her rule by force.

That's not to see she would necessarily be a bad Queen, but the best the Smallfolk could hope for is that she keeps the peace, and prevents private war among the lords.

Well, the size of Westeros, make it more an "empire" and Dany wanting to be a dynastic absolute empress. The reason why I did not use Roman emperors as an example is because that Rome went from a "republic" where the power was in the hands of the senate was taken in the hands of an individual, but Westeros is not a republic. More, feudalism resulted out of the fall of the Roman Empire. And as a political system it stood for close to a millenium. For those with power that was actually a very stable model. Sure, plenty of individuals (this or that king or this or that baron) with power got killed through murder and war, but the houses and families maintained a large body of nobles with most of the practical power: the common man too illiterate and too beholden to a lord, and the king but an individual who could only field armies the size of the lords that supported him. Longshank's son, Edward II time and time again tried to give his favourite Galvestone power, but the barons forced Galvestone time and time again into exile. Though he tried to resort to executions with trials where the accused had no right to speak and confiscation of lands to gain more power, which all failed when his wife abandoned him. Other ways in which a king tended to prevent from barons being a miltiary threat was to send them on a crusade and foreign wars. 

So, I used examples of monarchs who not only managed to break feudal power of barons but also managed to unite the many different feudal regions into one cohesive land, with a state religion, etc. And used it to show how the breaking of the wheel that Dany talks about is basically "enlightened despotism", and certainly the opposite of anything remotely democratic. Of course whether they are "enlightened" is somethign else. You can end up having a Bloody Mary for "enlightened despotic queen" or an Elisabeth I, or a Willlem of Orange. But somewhere down the line you end up with a Louis XVII who the people more than love to see beheaded, and the appearance of republics that hadn't been seen as a ruling model since Augustus.

[george]

On 8/15/2017 at 3:07 PM, Rhymes with Sneak said:

I agree that the scene is painful to watch, but I will say your change does not really fix it.  Sam has no reason at the moment to think it is urgent for Jon to know what Gilly is telling him.  That probably should have prompted some interest from any reasonably intelligent resident of Westeros, but Sam does not have any reason to connect Jon to Lyanna beyond it being interesting gossip about his long dead aunt.  Bran is probably the only person (unless they plan on introducing Meera's dad at this point) who can connect those dots.  So I imagine we will have another idiotic moment where Sam remembers something important that someone told him that is crucial to the story.  

 

I should have explained myself better but I was really ranting internally at this point.  My "fix" was based on my personal head canon that Sam and Jon had talked sometime while they were together at the Wall and Jon brought up Lyanna.  It's not like nothing happens off screen on this show. 

My biggest gripe was that this entire scene was unnecessary that's going to lead to that idiotic moment you bring up.

[george]

On 8/15/2017 at 1:15 PM, Ser Didymus said:

Sam was directed by the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (an order Sam is a sworn member of) to join the Citadel and become a trained and chained Maester to serve at Castle Black.

so, is Dolorous Edd going to cut Sam's head off?  or is Jon still the Lord Commander, seeing as how he is garrisoning Eastwatch with his wilding friends?

either way, i'm pretty sure Sam's voluntary expulsion from the Citadel means that he is violating a direct order from then Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.  Janos Slynt once disregarded the Lord Commander's orders.  Eddard Stark beheaded a man in the first episode of the show for abandoning his assignment on the Night's Watch...  what's next for Sam?

Heh, I wasn't even thinking that far ahead.  Those are good points.  Thinking this scene through makes it even worse.

[Lot Seven]

That annulment... Seriously?! That was such a big thing, and I appreciate someone stumbling over it by accident... But not like this?! 

And I really hope LF has some genius, logical plan up his sleeve!

[george]

On 8/15/2017 at 3:33 PM, Illiterati said:

This is a beautiful illustration why writing can be so challenging.  Your version is worse than the original version.

Why?  Stark is a major House in Westeros, so the mere mention of Stark is not going to raise eyebrows-it's probably all over those books and journals.  He may have said, "Oh, she must be related to Jon!"  But he would possess none of the pieces he would need to put enough of it together to say, "OMFG, we've got to get to Jon Snow YESTERDAY with this!"  

Honestly, I think the writers were wise to cut off the conversation before Lyanna was mentioned for this very reason.....That light bulb isn't going to come on until Bran mentions that Eddard had rescued the baby of Rhaeger and his sis, and nor should it.  Him hearing the Stark name and not being able to process anything out of the info would have been confusing to many of us.  "Ohmagerd he just learned that Jon Snow is Aegon Targaryan, and he's doing nothing about it!"

They shut it down so that fans don't jump the gun on it.  There is a recipe at play here, and it is still missing the main ingredient.

Quote

But he would possess none of the pieces he would need to put enough of it together

Because nothing on this show happens off screen.  Is it so hard to imagine Jon telling Sam Lyanna's story at some earlier time (not that the writers have a concept of time)?

 

Quote

Honestly, I think the writers were wise to cut off the conversation before Lyanna was mentioned

Once the writers cut off Gilly the scene became meaningless other the writers telling us "hey fans, we haven't forgotten about this!".  R+L=J is the single biggest piece of information in the show we know of and the writers threw it in the garbage can with things like logic and chronology only for them to pick it out later covered in coffee grounds and a half-eaten apple.