Jump to content

John Meta

Members
  • Content count

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Meta

  • Rank
    Squire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    ... a guy who is tired of having to fight the ones that "unjustly criticize in order to defame, malign, condemn" - it appears to me that you're a kid in a line of kids moving through the area and I have to pause an let you waltz through while eyeing the bald guy across from me. No, this is the opposite of fun to me. It's not possible to refute subjective reasons. If you say "I hate what they did with Dany" that is justified and impossible to refute. If you say "I hate what they did with Dany because that is character assassination and the writers are failures who cannot write a story correctly" then you are not only objectively wrong, but have put yourself into the category of one who "unjustly criticizes in order to defame, malign, condemn". That's where I come in. I have no problem with a person who has a mind and a voice of their own. In fact, I encourage such - that is the point. A person caught up in an illogical witch-hunt doesn't have a mind and a voice of their own; that is the point of the "to leave you defenseless" remark. Look, let me give you three criticisms: 1. It was stupid when Drogon burned the Iron Throne because dragons are dumb beasts with no intelligence. 2. Arya's character isn't realistic - a girl would never be allowed by her father to become a swordsman in that time period. 3. Ned Stark is a failure of writing - nobody would ever choose honor if it meant death, especially if they have a family that needs them alive. So? Comments? Anything wrong with those criticisms or, they all just and true? Sometimes criticism is okay, sometimes it's off-the-rails ignorant. And when off-the-rails ignorant targets the innocent in order to hurt them? What do you do? Let it alone? Or, intervene for the sake of the innocent? What do you do when a group of people surround a girl with glasses criticizing her with "You're a failure because we don't like the way you look and you're ugly and stupid" and then they pick up stones to throw at her. Do you smile and say, "They all have their own mind and voice!" or do you start walking over with smoke coming out of your nostrils?
  2. John Meta

    Did the writers confirm Jon’s ending?

    An agenda which causes you to make absurd claims in order to criticize. You're equating Arya's journey west with suicide. Do I really have to explain why that is an absurd attempt at equivalence? The fact that you're willing to go that far indicates there is an agenda which is at the wheel, doing the driving. I didn't say "most people" so this is another false equivalence. I said there were people who left their loved ones behind and came to America if only to start anew in a new and unknown place. Everyone who ever went to sea in times past had to leave their families behind; including all great explorers. I don't suggest she has the urge to travel, the narrative does. It does that with the "passing comment" which informs the audience that Arya has a desire to travel west. So your statement is "We've never seen [that Arya has an urge to travel] beyond the narrative informing us [that Arya has an urge to travel]". Just like Jon's "passing comment" that he wanted to join the Night's Watch, or Sam's "passing comment" that he wanted to be a Maester. No, it's not "mapped out forever" but if you ended up going to Rome one day, it would make sense, wouldn't it? Since you made a "passing comment" that you'd like to do it some day? You're seriously suggesting the presence of a range of interpretations indicates "failure"? You're basically saying that every piece of art in existence is "failure"? You do realize that every piece of art - be it music, story, poetry, painting, anything - inspires a range of interpretations through the variety of subjective lenses of the perceivers? This you would say "variety of interpretation" indicates "failure" only indicates you have little understanding of the medium of artistic expression. Because she wants to. She stated as much, just as did everyone who ever stated what they wanted to do. What is left for her in Westeros? A scattered family? What should she do? Stay to knit with Sansa in Winterfell? So why did any explorer in the real world do it? Bilbo did the same thing. Why did Bilbo leave the Shire at the beginning of LotR? Because he wanted to travel. That is the explanation. The same explanation of any person who has ever wanted to see new places. Like Arya. Arya made it home to her family. And that family scattered to the four corners of Westeros. Suppose you wanted to get home, and you did. And then your family all went separate ways. Now what? Who tried to stop Jon from leaving to the Night's Watch in season one? Who tried to stop Sansa from leaving to live in the south? Who tried to stop Bilbo from leaving the Shire in FotR? Arya's a big girl. She can make her own decisions. Your "criticism" is just based on nonsense. A "catchphrase" is something that is frequently repeated. Like "I'll be back" coming from Schwarzeneggar. None of these are catchphrases. You bring up three lines of dialogue (one of which you say "fits") to support your statement that "Arya was reduced to catchphrases in season eight"? Two bits of dialogue? Arya restates two bits of dialogue and that, to you, renders her "reduced to catchphrases" for an entire season? And you're questioning how I'm proposing an obvious agenda here? I remember when people were wondering if Bran was the Night King and if Snoke was Boba Fett. What's that got to do with anything? People wonder the dumbest things. You mean like "I'd like to travel west"? You mean like Sansa wanting to be a queen - and then, later becoming one? Like Sansa? Like every kid in every story who wants to do something and then, does it? Like Sam who always wanted to be a Maester and then? Does? You didn't notice and had to be told? So much for "show don't tell" eh? To be equally honest, I always have to smile with a bit of irony when I hear people say that. "Show don't tell" and then when it happens "I don't understand. Why didn't they tell?" Ah, is it comedy? Tragedy? A bit of both? I stated that because they both made it home as they desired, but then they left. Their primary motivation was to make it home - but they left. Why? Because they changed. Like Arya changed? Remember when the Hound "straightforward" told you that? But you "honestly hadn't noticed"? That Arya had changed? Is it irony that Arya is the one who changed, yet you call Arya "stuck"? Your whole argument is asking "Why did Arya change?" yet you write about how Arya isn't allowed to "change" but is "stuck" and yet, you don't see that everything you're saying is a huge mass of contradictory nonsense? You realize books and movies are entirely different mediums? One is based on "telling" the other on "showing"? In the movie LotR, Tolkien doesn't explain anything. Frodo leaves because his road changed him, and there was no place for him in Middle Earth anymore. Arya had no place in Westeros. Her journey had changed her. Her family was scattered. She wanted to explore west. That's what she did. The end. I presume by "we" you're talking about you and the mouse in your pocket? That makes one of us. Yawn. I appreciate you providing me with something to do.
  3. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    I don't disagree. In the same manner, it's best to avoid using the F-word in poetry - but sometimes, if even rarely, poetic license allows for it when no other word has enough emphasis to deliver the desired form of expression. However, even here I'd propose that what I said is less along the lines of condescending and more along the lines of, foreshadowing.
  4. John Meta

    Why S8 feels wierd.

    I agree that you're intending a pejorative use of a term; but you're not using the term, you're misusing the term. You'll find this is common among "critics" in that they lack a basic understanding of the words being employed in the criticism. Words like fan-fiction, plot hole, Mary Sue, deus ex machina, character assassination, etc. are all being misused in an attempt to create the illusion of an objective technical criticism where there is only irrational emotional rhetoric with no basis in objectivity.
  5. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Is it all just a flood of emotional rhetoric intending to defame others, or is there any spark of rational thought inside of that mind? If not, how can we light that spark? How can we get you to leave crawling on all fours and stand upright on two legs like a genuine human being in the full dignity of mind and thought? Suggestions? I refuse to believe it's not possible. To leave you like this is to leave you defenseless and at the mercy of any piper who comes along to carry you away to wherever the choose to take you. I don't know. Maybe that's the point.
  6. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Just because I like someone doesn't mean I'll agree with them that "five-sided triangle" makes rational sense as a statement. It's precisely because I like you that I won't lie to you or mislead you in order to placate your ego. Also, as I said, my like encompasses the people at the end of your barrel as well as you. I care just as much about the victims as the perpetrators - but the victims have more of my compassion because - need I explain?
  7. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    spoiler warning All subjectivity is, of course, "justified" - a person who doesn't like a certain type of music is "justified" in that dislike by their own relative subjectivity. The reaction of "I don't like it" is justified in regards to a red car if the person doesn't like the color red. The reaction of "I don't like it - the engine doesn't run and the person who built the engine failed" is not in any way, shape or form "justified" by their own relative subjectivity. Again, this isn't about people stating opinions - none of the posts to which I'm replying have anything to do with people stating subjective opinions. They are stating objective "facts" in relation to a technical/objective structure. Meaning, when a person says "That isn't how you write a character: Storytelling 101" this isn't an opinion, this is an attempt to place objective constraints onto a measure of judgment thus attempting to create an "objective" conclusion. Example: "I don't like classical music" vs. "That musician has written a song with changing time signatures which is not how music is correctly writtern: Music 101." Former is justified, latter is objectively wrong and the criticism is not justified. Objective criticism is justified when it is objectively true. If an engine doesn't run because of a "bad" alternator, then the criticism "You've built a "bad" engine" is justified. Most people I see making criticisms against the writers and the show are doing so under the guise that what they are saying it "objective" and I see hardly no one making any kind of statement of opinion. When they do make statements of "opinion" I can still ask to see the reasoning, and often (if not always) the reasoning can be objectively determined as "bad" reasoning. In such a case, the conclusion is that it is the reasoning of the critic which is "bad" and not the narrative. If the reasoning was "good" then I wouldn't be posting. There are many stories I like of which I've heard criticisms, and I don't disagree with the criticisms. I liked the movie Avengers: Endgame - but I've seen a lot of criticism of the narrative, and I don't see any flaws in (some of) the criticism. Flaws, no flaws, it generally doesn't matter to me if I like something, I like it (and am subjectively justified). But, again, in this case, I don't really see "criticism" I see a self-righteous mob condemning innocent people and doing it very, very loudly - with an irrational pomp and a very pronounced hypocrisy. This, isn't about a story - to me, it's about a huge mob of irrational hypocrites growing a warped and corrupt tree from which all manner of foul fruit are produced. So when I see that - no matter what it's about, stories, politics, religion, you name it - I'm compelled to, grab and ax, cut down the tree - throw it into the fire. Look, if I am a teacher, and a student writes a narrative in which a person is wanting to meet someone but states they "didn't get their phone number", then in the next scene they are calling that person - that is a place I'm going to write "the narrative is in conflict" and that (if anything) is an example of an objective "flaw". If a narrative includes a character with no left hand (got blown off or something) and then later has the character "picked it up in his left hand" that is a narrative problem. The above are "objective" is the meaning of the word as it relates to incontrovertibility. Everyone would agree the "picked it up in his left hand" is an error in the narrative. Sure, anyone can criticize whatever they want - including the criticism of others, true? People like to "measure" but sure hate it when that measure is used to measure them. It's like an acid bath, you know? But in relation to your statement, I'd ask "What didn't you understand?" "What didn't make sense?" etc. just to see if maybe you missed something that could provide a clearer picture. Etc. This isn't to say, I'll always conclude your statement unreasonable. It may well be reasonable since you're speaking in generalizations. But again, in this specific situation (i.e. this specific story/series) we're in a very different scenario because of the segment of the "critics" which have gone off the mob rails and threaten to defame/hurt/condemn others (who may be innocent of any "crime"). If you think this is all harmless, I'd say: Jake Lloyd. One name out of many whose lives have been utterly filled with pain, hurt and ruin because of this type of nonsense grown by this type of, mentality. I do have a sense of humor, believe it or not. Honestly, what you're seeing of me right here is one facet of myself that I have absolutely no love of showing. In fact, I hate it. I would rather that I never have to show this side. But you know what they say, Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  8. John Meta

    Did the writers confirm Jon’s ending?

    And there were people who came to America just to follow a dream and a new beginning. They still do it to this day. Then there are people who just hear the proverbial call to explore new lands. Arya happens to be one of them. What's to explain in a self-explanatory situation? She wants to travel and see unknown places. Pretty common desire even today. The fact that she gets on a ship and heads to sea informs us of that. Would you believe people used to leave their families and go exploring on the seas? And sometimes they never came back. It's surprising (not really) that I have to ask that question but here we are. Just out of curiosity, could you provide a couple of examples of the "catchphrases" which "don't mean much" to which Arya was "reduced"? I'd like to see if what you're saying here actually makes sense, or, is just baseless rhetoric of the order someone might say "Oh, Breaking Bad season 5 is awful writing. Everyone was just reduced to catchphrases." You say "she once said she was curious about the west" and, right - that's called expressing interest. Her primary motivation of making it back home was accomplished when she made it back, home. Like when Bilbo or Frodo made it back home. Then left again. Was that "bad writing" too? It's funny how when I bring up direct parallels from other well-liked stories like LotR, the critics here don't address them. I think that's telling. It's pretty much when you say "going on a voyage we suspect is suicide" that you go completely off the rails of anything resembling reason and tip your hand in a pretty major way. The hand that says "I'm biased, and have an agenda. I have no interest in saying anything other than creating baseless rhetoric in an attempt to justify my criticism of other people." It becomes really transparent.
  9. John Meta

    What was the purpose of Jon Snow?

    Or you could elaborate on your post in order to provide some measure of clarity. If clarity is a possible outcome.
  10. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Obviously you're free to call me any names you wish, but let's be real and acknowledge that I'm simply criticizing (your criticism). If criticizing makes one a "dick" then, I guess that word applies to us both. However, I'd propose that my criticism of your criticism is justified, while your criticism isn't. It's the difference between just and unjust criticism. About all of your "accolades" they don't matter even if they actually exist. You can upload a form in which every human on the face of the earth names you "Prime Logician of Earth" and it wouldn't suddenly turn bad reasoning good. And your reasoning is still as bad now as when we first began. About the burden of proof, you're the one who made the positive claim that you can "objectively" determine "good" stories from "bad" ones - thus the burden of proof is squarely on you to demonstrate that claim. I deny it. Also, you keep using the word "opinions" (of which I have no problem) but you're not presenting "opinions" you're presenting "facts" as evidenced by use of words such as "rational" - and we all know (well, at least I do) that there is nothing "rational" about opinions. They are simply a form of statement both relative and subjective. At any rate, at this point you can either address the reasoning in my refutation of your "opinions" (i.e. "rationale"), or, keep the rhetoric flowing (which only demonstrates an inability to maintain a reasonable defense). Or, flee altogether. Your move. I'd advise the third option.
  11. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    I claim that you can't tell a "shit story" from a "great one" - now all you have to do is demonstrate your claim to be true. Otherwise it's just a claim with no support. You might as well claim you're the King of France.
  12. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    No, your criticisms are no more "opinion" than if you were to claim that since you do not like the color of my car, then my car doesn't run and the person who built the engine was a failure. That is not an opinion and neither are your "criticisms" "I’m sorry, but the way it as depicted on screen (combined with what the showrunners stated) allows only one rational explanation" is you making an objective "rational" statement which is objectively wrong - no amount of calling objectivity "opinion" will do anything other than misuse the word "opinion" in an attempt to save face. Bear in mind again, if it appears that I don't like you, that's not true. In fact, I wouldn't be discussing with you these things if I didn't like you. The same is true of everyone. It's unconditional like. Which also applies to the people who made the show. As I said, what I don't like is witch-hunts based on "rational" reasons which are utterly irrational. I know for fact if you were on the receiving end of such a thing, and it was your neck in the noose, you be shouting THANK CHRIST! as I rounded the corner to evaluate the mob's "judgment".
  13. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    And the Night King signifies duty to the extreme (made to destroy, follows that duty without deviance) while Dany signified love to the extreme (much like Gollum's love of the ring, so is Dany's love of the throne) and thus Jon is the one who must spearhead the battle to "quench" both extremes - symbolized in his own inward conflict reacting to the manifestation of that inward conflict in the outward battles he leads. We could write essays on the theme as it plays out - in Jaime who is a parallel to Jon, though cannot overcome the extreme of love, thus returns to Cersei once fulfilling his "duty" to fight in the battle at Winterfell (signified by his coupling with Brienne, duty) followed by his coupling with Cersei under the rubble of a collapsed King's Landing; the ruin of his inability to overcome the extreme, which Jon does overcome, thus not falling into ruin but bringing stability/balance to Westeros. It all weaves together in a way that is, to my mind, an incredible feat of writing.
  14. John Meta

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Isn't internal conflict a reason for a character who "flaps to and fro"? Can you provide some specific character who "flaps to and fro" and is "convincing" and how that contrasts with, say, Jaime, as not being convincing? "The state of being turned inward" - that's the idea I was looking to convey. A better word would be what? Inversion? Involution? When you say what you say about editors - is that a fact or an opinion? And from what reasoning is it derived? It's like your teacher may have said at one time: show me the math.
  15. John Meta

    What was the purpose of Jon Snow?

    He did fight a White Walker - two, in fact. If you cut out the entire Aegon plot: 1. Dany's claim to the throne is true. Her identity and destiny is founded on a truth. 2. Jon willingly returns Dany's affection. 3. Jon isn't able to pass Drogon to get to Dany leading to: 4. Jon can't kill Dany. Dany survives, the Iron Throne remains. 5. Ned doesn't have to sacrifice his honor to protect Jon. 6. Jon is killed by the Night's Watch and isn't brought back to life by the Lord of Light. 7. Varys doesn't betray Dany. 8. Sansa has no direct role in the Stark outcome. These are several direct consequences of multiple. Other indirect consequences may be things such as: Dany doesn't destroy King's Landing since the complete absence of love for her is what culminated it the decision to wake the dragon "Then it's fear." When you say "nothing changes" you clearly have either put no thought whatsoever into your words, lack the ability to understand the relationship of the information to the function of the narrative, or don't know the meaning of the word "nothing". Also, Jon wouldn't be a "Song of Ice and Fire" and wouldn't symbolize the conflict between duty and love.
×