Jump to content

Many-Faced Votary

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Many-Faced Votary

  1. Please let me preface the following rant by saying that I try to be as objective as possible when analyzing the show -- although I am unapologetically snarky when discussing it, given my findings -- in an attempt to provide balanced and valuable criticism. Indeed, I was a huge fan of the show in the first season, even declaring it as good an adaption as could ever be expected (at least when translating from the specific mediums of a book series to a television show), still considered myself a major fan of the next two seasons, and was ultimately a willing supporter of the fourth season (instead of considering it to have clear good and bad parts, with the latter having the definite edge, as is now the case). I even made apologies for most aspects of the show throughout the first three seasons, and attempted to justify the various -- to be diplomatic -- creative changes that multiplied exponentially in Season 4. However, not to put too fine a point on it, I now know better. I had eventually realized there was something very wrong when I was watching Season 5, and by-and-by made the decision to watch it again after a few months so that I could approach it in a new light, and in so doing, take careful notes in an attempt to understand the point and implications of the narrative and to assess its strength as an adaptation, and even to try pinpointing themes for fellow eighth graders. With Season 6, I immediately realized that the endeavor of attempting to judge GoT as any sort of "adaptation" of ASoIaF was futile -- but I also found, when I followed the same procedure to analyze the narrative on its own merits, that virtually all of the plotlines barely even functioned as actual stories! The misgivings I had formerly dismissed, ranging from the simplification and vilification of more traditionally feminine characters (especially Catelyn and Sansa) and casual whorephobia as early as Season 1, to the joke that was Qarth in Season 2, to Loras being obviously stereotypically homosexual and for some reason eager to sleep with any gay man he meets in Season 3, to the omission of the Tysha reveal in Season 4, among countless other examples, suggested consistently problematic outlooks at this point. More generally, the gratuitous and meaningless use of nudity, violence, torture, and rape -- in direct contrast to Mr. Martin's careful use of these for world-building and serious storytelling -- as well as the removal of careful thematic cohesion and plotting in favor of shocking "twists" (the Red Wedding in ASoIaF seems inevitable in hindsight, particularly with all the foreshadowing that can later be deduced, whereas it was intentionally framed to appear as horrifically random as possible on GoT), started to become very clear. I began to identify countless problems of perspective (meta) and framing (within the show itself) with respect to the show, and realized that these formed clear patterns: the misogynistic implications most of all. Now, this is not to say that Messrs. Benioff and Weiss decided, "Let's be sexist!" (or, "Let's make horrifically racist implications!" or anything else they are guilty of), but bigotry is rarely in the form of clear and malicious hate, and such is a reductive and dangerous view to take. What is ultimately clear is that how -- for the sake of the example of sexism -- the men and women on their show acted is truly how they believe women (and men, to an equally damaging albeit much lesser extent) do act, or else that they should act in these ways. Quite frankly, in light of Seasons 5 through 8, Game of Thrones might be the worst show I've ever watched that isn't a throwaway sitcom when it comes to writing and literary merit. Certainly it is the absolute worst television show ever to accrue critical acclaim. I cannot imagine how anyone could consider the abomination a proper "adaptation" of A Song of Ice and Fire in any way, shape, or form; it is, at best, fan fiction inspired by it for the mist part. Even more so, I cannot fathom how anyone could consider the show on its own (lack of) merits and declare it -- for instance -- "bold" or "feminist" when it is among the most pedestrian yet illogical, and utterly misogynistic, works to ever exist. Season 4 was the last season that was watchable for me, as it should have been to all viewers who care about any amount of substance in the works they choose to peruse, in my contention. Season 5 was sufficiently coherent as to make sense without thinking about something for more than 30 seconds. However, virtually all of the little that was retained from the books ultimately proved to demonstrate the perfect thematic opposite on the show, which of course meant thematic changes for the worse. The veneer of faux-book material and mangled book dialogue successfully tricked most viewers, even book readers who later did not hesitate to be critical, into believing that it was at least decent. (From an analysis of the writing, every single storyline was approximately as bad as Dorne; that was merely the most obvious one, due to how unsubtle it was, and because even the acting and cinematography seemed to have suffered.) This was also the season that showed us precisely how D&D try to subvert expectations: rather than organically develop the plot from believable and sublime characterization in an often crushingly realistic fashion, as GRRM is wont to do, they literally present the opposite of the situation by which they wish to shock viewers and randomly flip it around. (Refer to Stannis sharing touching moments with Shireen, while Selyse seemingly despised her; and we know how that turned out.) Season 6 was far worse than even Season 5, because it no longer even pretended to be an adaptation of the books. My hypothesis as to why people commonly say otherwise is that this is when spectacle completely overwhelmed substance, which spectacle appeased many viewers; the books were no longer commonly used as a comparison; and those who were critical of the show previously simply gave up or stopped caring. All of these "refreshing" and "original" plotlines fell apart with just the barest scrutiny; the entire season felt like a series of random plot points presented as a checklist, disconnected and with a complete lack of logic or themes. Granted, this is how D&D think adaptations should be handled, judging by how they (for example) believe that "For the Watch" was adapted in any real, meaningful way when all the context, complexities, and characterization were stripped away, and all the motivations changed. Yet this is ironically the season that began to drastically move away from the books, according to them. (In reality, Season 5 was clearly the first mostly original one.) Season 7 was so absurd that it didn't make sense in the most fundamental ways, even at the surface level. This is beyond just "bad writing;" it's simply ludicrous, for a fifth grader taking creative writing would fail the course due to the inability to get from Point A to Point B exhibited in this season. The political foundation of the Wight Hunt and Meeting is the most obvious example. Yet it can be argued that Season 7 was still a story, even if it did lack almost all of that which makes a narrative logical or significant. Season 8 could not even be called a story, and I cannot apprehend why anyone would give it allowances or the writers any benefit of the doubt -- and even more so, I question those who continue to defend it, either by saying that it was rushed but otherwise fine (manifestly false), or by asserting that people didn't like it because their favorite characters didn't end up how they would have liked (which, sorry to burst your bubble, but the content is simply irredeemably terrible). There is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance when it comes to Game of Thrones. The most obvious way in which this manifests is book projection from those who have read ASoIaF, especially onto the show characters who bear virtually no resemblance to their analogues, but this is only symptomatic of a larger problem. GoT has been undeservedly treated as sacrosanct, with fans going out of their way to make excuses that usually wouldn't even work given the internal logic (or, more accurately, lack thereof) of the show and which are usually unwittingly debunked by the showrunners, personal attacks made by apologists when they failed to recognize the extremely offensive implications, critics falling over backwards in order to kiss D&D's butts, and Emmys thrown at the show for the seasons that should only ever have won technical awards. When we divorce scenes from the (mostly) extremely talented actors and television crews, what do we have left to indicate any modicum of quality from a purely literary standpoint? The total number of scenes in the final four seasons that, strictly from a writing perspective, are successful -- which is to say, they follow basic conversational pragmatics such that people are talking to each other and not merely asserting things near each other, retain their current characterization throughout the scene and to a level that can reasonably be derived from their previous scenes, act in accordance to their interests, and so forth -- probably number fewer than a hundred. (By the way, this is very much an exercise we can perform on this show because, at least for the latter half, it is ultimately nothing more than a series of disjointed scenes that don't flow together very well.) Of the aforementioned scenes, those that are decent can probably be counted on three hands, and the ones that are good on three fingers. I would like to point out that I likely missed a lot of basic criticisms, and could have chosen much more -- and better -- examples, but I should publish this post before I write a legitimate essay. In any case, I do sincerely appreciate this platform that enables me and others to express our contempt for the abomination. This isn't merely empty venting. With time, I can explain in great detail what is wrong with virtually everything on the latter half of the show, and point out the many problems -- from adaptational decisions to social implications -- in the former part. Incidentally, @SeanF, I'm not addressing you directly; rather, your post inspired me to say this in general, which is why some of it can be taken as a response to yours. I sincerely apologize if it seemed like I was vehemently disagreeing with you at any point.
  2. Many-Faced Votary


    It is unfortunate that this is an unpopular opinion, because it is objectively and manifestly true. No doubt the undue conflation of A Song of Ice and Fire with Game of Thrones has colored people's perspectives and induced confusion when attempting to analyze characters, but it's especially problematic with Show!Cersei. It is true that marketing played a major role in painting her as villainous, but how readily people bought into it is very much due to sexism -- but it wouldn't be Game of Thrones if misogyny didn't permeate every aspect of the show, internal and external. Until the nonsensical and very poorly justified cleverly crafted and logical transformation into Mad Queen ™ at the end of Season 6, Cersei essentially did nothing wrong since killing Robert in Season 1, besides issuing verbal threats and engaging in some immature conduct -- both of which she was hardly the only culprit in doing, and neither of which is indicative of a villain, especially on GoT. For the most part, she was largely reacting to clear and present threats to her children. The narrative exhibited something that was at odds with what we were apparently meant to think; we were only told, by other characters and by promotional materials, that Cersei was evil, and were never shown it until she "chose violence" in Season 6, at which point she... was retconned into being a deranged hedonist? Your mistake is thinking that anything pertaining to the show had any purpose or semblance of deeper meaning; it was all extremely superficial and illogical more often than not. Having said that, Show!Jaime most consistently fulfilled one purpose: to promote twincest.
  3. Many-Faced Votary

    Was rebellion inevitable against the Targaryen Dynasty ?

    Why are you obsessed with attempting to discredit the Targaryens in opposition to all textual evidence?
  4. Many-Faced Votary

    ASOIAF quotes used in real life?

    Tyrion Lannister | Jon I, A Game of Thrones
  5. Many-Faced Votary

    What was the biggest mistake/butterfly effect in ASOIAF history?

    Catelyn existing, according to half the members here.
  6. Many-Faced Votary

    What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

    A proper analysis of the two characters would perforce be in-depth and therefore time-consuming, so this post is just a very brief summary. I think it is accurate to say that, broadly, Robb and Jon are both mirrors and foils. They complement each other: in their similar upbringing, family ties, sense of duty and honor, physical attributes, and leadership. Yet these similarities serve to highlight their differences, and vice versa. At the risk of oversimplifying it, there is a dichotomy in their practical actions in spite of the similitude of their thoughts and motivations. As an external example, both are raised as Lord Eddard's sons, and he attempts to treat them both as well as society allows; but one being the firstborn son of a high lord and the other purportedly his bastard, there cannot be an equivalent childhood. Lady Catelyn cannot bring herself to mother or even tolerate Jon, which forces him to grow more quickly than Robb but with less idealism. Jon is raised to believe he is Robb's brother, but also that he stands to inherit nothing while Robb gains everything. It is important to note that our first glimpse of the two is through Bran's eyes, by which we are immediately introduced to this concept: Bran I, A Game of Thrones Contrasting their leadership provides the clearest explication, as this is the attribute that best suggests they act as foils. Both Robb and Jon are reasonably well-respected and appear fairly competent, but they are both given to emotional errors and tend to frame their thinking from their own perspectives. This is where their similarities lie, and the differences arise from them. Jon seems to be strategically impeccable: allying with the Free Folk and accepting Stannis's aid and therefore claim both appear necessary for the greater conflict with the Others, and pursuing leads for fighting them is critical. Yet he is tactically abhorrent: he refuses to share his plans meaningfully; he does not talk to his men or assuage their fears; and he is too prone to breaking tradition without justification (in the eyes of his brothers). Robb is the opposite. His tactics are extremely sound: he won every battle, and -- although I do not think he would have ultimately proved victorious against Tywin, as many people seem to -- he could have made life very difficult for the Lannister regime and significantly altered the current geopolitics of Westeros. Yet he completely lacked strategic foresight in politics, often disregarding Cat's counsel for more impetuous behavior. Robb won all his battles but lost the war; it seemed that he was unable to apprehend the big picture. Inversely, Jon seems to be losing most of his battles, but perhaps he will ultimately win the war, such as it is; nevertheless, he was mutinied against because he was overly obsessed with the big picture. For what it's worth, I tend to absorb details when reading for a more thorough enjoyment of the narrative, and have picked up on relatively subtle bisexual vibes from Jon's chapters. The easiest example is simply how often and consistently he considers Satin's appearance (and profession prior to his having joined the Night's Watch) even when it seems inappropriate, especially since it is often juxtaposed with his more practical thoughts about other people and with other characters' introspection in preceding or succeeding chapters. Perhaps I'm reading too much into things, and any potential hints are entirely unintentional on Mr. Martin's part; but he does choose his words and scenes carefully, so I am inclined to believe it is simply extra information for attentive readers. Granted, I'm certain Jon himself isn't aware that he is bisexual, if indeed this is the case -- particularly given that sexual orientation as we understand it today was not recognized as such until rather recently in our world, and definitely does not seem to be in his. Consequently, it has not affected the story thus far and probably will not do so at all, but a realistic and sensitive depiction of a diversity of characters is absolutely characteristic of Mr. Martin. In any case, although I do like Ygritte well enough, it is incontrovertible that Jon was essentially sexually abused ("raped" is too harsh a word considering the circumstances and point-of-view bias), as he was not able to properly provide consent and was -- in his mind -- indirectly bound by duty not to refuse. Any hypothetical relationship with a male wilding would probably have been initiated in a similarly distasteful capacity, regardless of whether or not he would be inclined to bed men.
  7. Many-Faced Votary

    House of the Dragon Series Order Announced

    "I followed the path of Aegon's war machine along the Trident, imagining his armies taking castle after castle; ancient blood on ancient iron. Strangely, before subduing the Vale, he struck north towards Winterfell. Perhaps because of the challenge it represented: the ancient world's greatest puzzle was there, a knot that couldn't be untied. Aegon cut it in two with Blackfyre. Lateral thinking, you see. Centuries ahead of his time."
  8. Many-Faced Votary

    Daenerys has always been a killer

    They did one better, subverting our expectations by driving the show even further underground to the extent that it stopped working at the most basic narrative level and made any sensible viewer want to subvert their own eyes continuing to receive countless well-deserved accolades for their nuanced, intelligently-crafted, and sensitively-portrayed Emmy-winning drama.
  9. Many-Faced Votary

    House of the Dragon Series Order Announced

    I take it we can count your heart amongst Aegon's many conquests?
  10. Many-Faced Votary

    New Forum Census (AKA Where Are You From?)

    Greetings from Washington State, United States of America!
  11. Sansa is an excellent example of the underlying sexism everywhere in Game of Thrones. I will write only briefly and will disregard many other sexist trends that aren't as clear with Sansa specifically, so it should be telling just how problematic the show is in this respect. It was clear from the beginning that the show completely misunderstood her character and did her no justice *, framing her traditional femininity as bad in contrast to Arya's tomboyish nature, and removing or modifying scenes that demonstrated her social intelligence and blameless indoctrination into the pervasive concept of what a "good girl" should be. She also served as essentially a background character for the most part -- except in GRRM's episodes, tellingly -- until they decided to begin her journey of empowerment™ in Season 5. They characterized her -- if the word can even be applied here -- extremely inconsistently, to the extent that she is more accurately a complex of intermittent sub-characters that randomly take turns manifesting; yet one thing tied the complex together, and it was misogyny: "femininity and traditionally feminine gender roles are bad" and "most women girls are weak" and "the passivity into which women are forced, or would be if it weren't for the patriarchy that magically disappears in D&D's Westeros when convenient, is something that needs to be 'fixed'" and "women become empowered™ if they are victimized by gendered crimes" and "women are catty and cannot form healthy relationships with each other" and "unfailing stoicism, psychopathy, and an active desire for brutal revenge are attributes of an empowered™ woman." * This is also true of other characters, especially other female characters who are strong in a more traditionally feminine way such as Catelyn, but at least they more closely resembled their book counterparts initially. That this is all true despite the fact that the source material from which the show was adapted is a rather nuanced and manifestly feminist work best tells the story.
  12. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    We don't truly know how much of Lady Catelyn is left in Lady Stoneheart or whether she can transcend her fixation, so there is little support for such a hypothesis. The biggest flaws with that theory are logistical. There is also the concern that such a deed might paint her former actions as completely in the wrong, as opposed to a reaction borne of certain aspects and complexities of the patriarchal feudal society, which specifically illustrates how highborn women and bastards are adversely affected. Nevertheless, it would be poetic if she were to ultimately sacrifice herself for the boy she believes to be her late husband's last son and her daughters' last brother, and this would be particularly profound if Arya were able to witness the pitfalls of revenge after coming across what she has become before that point. As for Jon, there is no evidence that the reports of Arya's supposed death would be sufficient to "flip his mind to the dark side." Not only are people much more complex than that even in death, but there was also an absurd coalescence of circumstances surrounding Cat's death that resulted in LSH rising as the ruthless, vengeful entity we have seen.
  13. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    My apologies! I have edited my post accordingly. Thank you for the information.
  14. The former would at least be understandable, if rather disappointing; the latter seems unforgivable.
  15. Many-Faced Votary

    Is Jon Already a King in the books? Aka What makes a King?

    The Wall being manned by the Faceless Men would make for an interesting tale!
  16. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    It is certainly a possibility, but I would respectfully disagree that it is one worth considering. Firstly, all evidence points to ice wights essentially being akin to the popular modern depiction of zombies: mindless creatures of the grave. Regardless of whether this is completely true, they do seem to have lost their sense of self and are objectively ensorceled by the Others. Transforming one of the main characters into such an entity would hardly make for a satisfying story; this is especially important because his overarching purpose appears far from complete. Furthermore, although a certain group of people might believe that awakening as a fire wight is akin to waking from a nap, this is not the case: fire wights (Lord Beric and Lady Stoneheart) have drastically changed physically and physiologically as well as mentally and emotionally. This is the most sensible approach with Jon, as it deals with consequences of resurrection while retaining a sufficient amount of Jon's humanity such that his story is still worth telling. Lastly, the "Song of Ice and Fire" has a great number of meanings, several of which relate specifically to Jon Snow. It would be quite fulfilling if the "fire" of his undead self kindled at the "ice" of the Wall in addition to the other interpretations, particularly if he is meant to be Azor Ahai reborn. As for the "how," presuming the above is true, we do not yet know. The most popular theories assume Melisandre will be the one to bring him back in some way, but there are also propositions such as LSH passing the flame onto Jon.
  17. If Mr. Martin can release The Winds of Winter within the next two or so years, he should be able to capitalize upon renewed interest in the series to his benefit, even if there will be people who have lost faith either in his ability or desire to complete it or in his intended ending. Having said that, I daresay the first part of the former group you cite (those who do not appreciate where the story is going) likely would not have appreciated the book series for what it is regardless. This is simply because such people might not realize the extent to which A Song of Ice and Fire differs from Game of Thrones: it is much better-written, naturally, but there are many inherent distinctions that will alter and enhance the story in important ways. The books possess a far greater scope, including characters and motivations that do not exist or are improperly used in the show, which can and will greatly change character arcs and plot points; retain extreme literary merit, including but not limited to thematic cohesion and symbolic significance; involve complex and realistic characters who act and react according to their surroundings and how they themselves have developed; will have an ultimate message of hope that lies in stark contrast to the unerring acedia and nihilism the show demonstrates; and are actually developed organically and connected satisfactorily. Perhaps certain broad strokes will ultimately remain very similar, but the journey matters at least as much as the destination, and there is far more to look forward to besides. It is past time to stop conflating the books with the show, particularly as far as the characters are concerned.
  18. Perhaps writing Varys has afforded him patience and insight into social engineering, to the extent that he was able to recognize they would somehow initially be able to adapt his works into a show that eventually would become a cultural phenomenon, which would gradually be ruined to the point that even the most superficial show-exclusive fans would desperately seek an alternative journey and ending, to the ultimate goal of multiplying his book sales manifold.
  19. Thank you for sharing! Beyond what you mentioned, I rather took to the following quotes: "We don’t know why [George R. R. Martin] trusted us with his life’s work." ~ David Benioff "[We wrote all the episodes by ourselves] because we didn't know better." "We really did not [listen to feedback]." ~ D.B. Weiss "No. We didn’t [attempt to boil the elements of the book down]. The scope was too big. It was about the scenes we were trying to depict and the show was about power."
  20. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    With all due respect, I think it is a little disingenuous to use that quote as evidence that Jon does not die. Consider the mutiny scene itself: Jon XII, A Dance with Dragons Also refer to this passage that occurs in the third paragraph of the very next chapter: The Queen's Hand, A Dance with Dragons We can contemplate and conclude the following: The chapter is written in such a way that Jon having been killed seems to be a foregone conclusion. The knife that "barely grazed" Jon's skin was written from Jon's perspective; it is more likely he simply didn't feel it, as evidenced by it "welling between his fingers." The telltale "blood came before the pain," as Barristan specifically notes is often true even with deep cuts. Jon has likely warged into Ghost. It has been established that all the Stark children are wargs who are able to control their direwolves. The Prologue in the same book is Varamyr Sixskins; the entire point of that chapter is to illustrate how powerful skinchangers can use their ability and what happens to them when they die. Thematically, it is a perfect setup. Importantly, Varamyr notes that skinchanging into a direwolf "would be a second life worthy of a king" after sensing that Jon is a powerful warg. Consequently, Jon might not have "died" in the sense that his consciousness is completely lost; but his true, human form is almost certainly currently dead. It is likeliest that Jon's spirit will somehow be restored to his body, thereby recovered from Ghost. That does mean that resurrection may not affect him as much as it affected Beric (certainly, it won't be at the level of LSH), but dying is still not akin to taking a nap, regardless of what the show might demonstrate. Furthermore, his time as Ghost will very probably make him more "wolfish" in some ways -- for a human, that generally connotes negative traits. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Jon might or might not remain a POV character, but given his character arc and importance to the story, he will certainly retain sufficient humanity and sense of himself that we will be able to continue observing his heart in conflict with itself upon his likely resurrection. He could well be more ruthless, more obsessive, more vengeful, more selfish, or any combination of these and other traits that death consistently seems to exaggerate.
  21. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    I would like to point out that Lady Stoneheart is a fire wight, because Lord Beric himself was a fire wight, as confirmed by GRRM himself in the interview through which he introduced this terminology, who "passed the flame of life" to Lady Catelyn's corpse. We can observe that, although fire wights are not seemingly mindless thralls as ice wights appear to be, they do change after death in various discernible ways. Although Lord Beric seems not to have been affected as much as Catelyn, each resurrection had stripped away more and more of his humanity -- as characterized by moral code and honor, desires, physiological functions, sense of self, and so forth -- and he was ultimately a mere shell of the person he once was. In particular, his single-minded focus on fulfilling Lord Eddard's task of bringing Gregor Clegane to justice reflects Lady Stoneheart's indefatigable hunger for vengeance. From the comparatively little we know of Lady Stoneheart, she furthermore seems to have completely lost empathy and any sense of justice; she has essentially become a different person, if we can even call such a fanatical entity a "person." Although it would be nonsensical to suggest that the conditions of Cat's death, the period between her death and resurrection (i.e., physical decay reflected by mental decay), and the unprecedented passing of the flame did not play a role in the type of wight she seems to have become, it would be even more ludicrous to posit that Cat might be so adversely affected but Jon wouldn't have changed significantly. Indeed, that resurrection changes people, and more generally that attempts to defy nature always go wrong, are established as major themes in A Song of Ice and Fire. It is unlikely that Jon will return to life as anything other than a fire wight, but however he might be resurrected, he will not be unaltered. At the very least, he will demonstrate obsessiveness with respect to the situation at the time of his death. Lastly, Jon's flawed resurrection would absolutely enhance the story as a whole, as well as his own character arc -- particularly if he is struggling to maintain his humanity or even to exhibit it in spite of other unnatural urges. If anything, only Jon fans blinded by their affection for the character seem to think that that the story could ever unfold otherwise, especially if the author wishes to maintain thematic and stylistic cohesion.
  22. Do you need a whetstone for that edge?
  23. Many-Faced Votary

    Why did the Freys torture Cat before her death, but not Robb?

    Although my German is admittedly lacking, I do enjoy and appreciate good songs. Does that count?
  24. Many-Faced Votary

    A New Husband for the Lady Donella Hornwood

    While you do raise good points, keep in mind that much of this had been framed by her good-brother Leobald Tallhart, who had a vested interest in proposing his younger son as heir to the Hornwood. In reality, pushing Beren Tallhart as the heir would have been likely to result in a dispute over succession. A bastard Larence Snow might have been, yet he was undeniably the direct descendant of Lord Halys through the male line; legitimizing him would have been clear and decisive. On the other hand, pursuing a claim through the female line had already resulted in disagreement among three different fairly noteworthy Houses, never mind the attempts the powerful Houses Bolton and Manderly had made due to the inherently tenuous nature of such claims, at least in wartime. Ideally, the female line should provide apparent heirs when necessary (given that Westeros mostly follows male-preference primogeniture in the first place), and Lady Donella herself should have a say in the future of her House. Unfortunately, this does not characterize Westerosi politics, as evidenced by this dispute, despite it having largely occurred in the background. Indeed the Lady Hornwood was. You are both correct, of course! I am aware; what I meant with my poorly-phrased sentence ("remarry another") was that Lady Donella did not seem in interested in marrying anyone aside from Ser Rodrik.
  25. Many-Faced Votary

    Game: You are Littlefinger, what do you do?

    Agreed! That is not to say that he doesn't have some manner of contingency should things not go his way, mind, but he most certainly will not be multiple steps ahead of her or anticipate her every move, as some people seem to believe.