dark sister

No kidding :) It's pretty obvious -- no offense meant!

I actually think House Frey is after the Norse Goddess Freya, the goddess of fertility. (Pretty sure it wasn't a god.)

I agree that Margaery is very like Ann Boleyn. Both were politically cunning, esp. when compared to the first queen (Cersei/Katherine of Aragon) and in AFFC Cersei says something about slicing through her "little neck" and having her "little head roll", while Ann Boleyn laughed when the guards said she was to be executed: something to the effect of "It will be fine, as I have such a thin little neck".

I see what you mean now, my lord :) I have never fully researched what does or doesn't constitute a straw man fallacy; the example I made up was drawn from what I had been taught in high school English writing class, more or less. So I suppose you're right! No, no, that's not what I mean by "purist" at all. Of course, translating one medium to the other in the way you described would be impossible, an exercise in futility, etc. BUT, let's say that compared to other people who seem very accepting of plot lines that weren't in the books, as well as omissions, I am a "purist", although I try to suppress it to a certain extent because I know how hard it is to include everything that's significant (one example of something important that couldn't be included in the first season was the information about Rhaegar, Lyanna, and Ned's recollections of the Tower of Joy. But I understood how hard it is to make a dream sequence seem coherent). However, certain aspects of the second season that do annoy me as a purist was the inclusion of Ros in so many pointless nudity scenes (and dialogue scenes) because...and let me say this delicately for fear of getting another warning point...I don't think it was necessary for her to be in the season as much as she was. Hint hint wink wink nudge nudge. Those are the politics of Hollywood that can make me a little pissed. Also, the execution of some of the modified plot lines, imho, left viewers very, very confused. Not just confused in the way one should be confused and anticipating when one reaches a cliffhanger, but just genuinely trying to figure out what the heck was going on. I watched the show with intelligent viewers who hadn't read the books, so I know that for a fact. So that's what I mean when I call myself a "purist". That's interesting, because while I noticed all the executive producers and directors (aside from the constant Benioff & Weiss) I never read about the interview with the CGI company and the effect it may have had on the series. I did notice how little Dany's dragons were shown in the second season. And also, there were decisions made concerning the dragons which I didn't understand -- why not just follow the book where Dany remembers what Viserys said about only men and dragons eating cooked meat, instead of calling him a "fool" countless times? Yes, he was vain and proud, but he actually DID know a lot about dragons. If she had even just said that line about dragons eating cooked meat, the confusion over whether they ate at all while crossing the red waste (and indeed, in Qarth) would have been solved. They wouldn't have even had to have shown the dragons. Well, I totally agree with that, I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. Haha, okay -- you see? It's really hard to read what someone's tone is when it's in print sometimes. (Other times it's all too obvious and very hostile!) Anyway, thanks for the explanations.

Can you explain to me why you call these people's comments straw man fallacies? Because here's what I consider a straw man fallacy: "If you don't think that assassinating bin Laden was a good thing, you're like a terrorist yourself who wants to support him". I don't understand what any of these people said that were straw men. (By the way, are you from the US or Britain? I ask b/c of the way you write -- and I mean no offense by that.) I just want to understand why you keep using that term where it doesn't really apply. Also, I consider myself a book-to-tv "purist", I suppose, but I realized a couple of episodes into season 2 that D&D would NOT be following the same course they did as in season one. The two seasons are so different from each other (imho) it's almost like two different sets of producers made them. So if you are one who considers the purity important, I totally empathize with you. But I do think you are being a little bit hostile towards people who are just asking you simple questions. And I understand. When I first came to this board, some comments or issues really inflamed me and I would be hostile myself -- but now I try to realize that the more civil a conversation between the users are, the more likely we are to accomplish the goal of getting our points across. People are much more likely to listen to us if we treat them respect, instead of chuckling at them contemptuously, y'know? (Or that's what the chuckle seemed like, at least -- I could be wrong.)

LOL Just...LOL LMFAO Xaro Xoan Duck Sauce :bowdown:

One little thing i wanted to mention that I forgot to in my other post: i love how Joffrey repeats, verbatim, how "I will love you [Marg] from this day, until my last day". He says the exact same thing to Sansa in the first season when he gives her that dumb lion necklace. I haven't read all the pages, so maybe someone else noticed that. If so, sorry, I just found it worth mentioning how false he is.

Man, you are just DEAD ON. You said so eloquently exactly what I was thinking. Kudos!!!

I haven't read the HBO website. I considered SSM to be a better source. I mean, if Martin says that her walking into the fire was a "one time deal" then HBO must be wrong. And it just doesn't make sense that a mortal being could be impervious to fire. That means that Daenerys is not human. Well, maybe she's not, and I'm sure you'd love it if she weren't (not mocking, I just know you really like her character and might think it cool if she were something extra special). However, I personally would think it a bad choice (to make her impervious to fire). I think it's only obvious to the book readers what happened, since we know the actual plot, not the modified one. Viewers being confused is one thing -- utterly befuddled is quite another. Of course, I haven't taken a poll or anything, but it seems to leave one not so much as "in suspense" but "in a bewildered state". If the Others do what the Others want, you can't say they're NOT just mindless killing machines. Because no one knows what their motives are. I'm just going by what was in the book. This is the book spoilers discussion, after all, and they did want to kill him. They might have had him just run with Grenn and Dolorous Edd, and then pan back to what was following behind them. That would have incurred more of a sense of terror, imho. No, we don't know. That wasn't my problem with the scene. My problem was with his choking her, and I don't recall his seeing things in the flames. When does he see visions in the book? I don't remember that. All I remember is Axell Florent claiming that he saw visions. And why do you sound so hostile in your post?

:bowdown: I died laughing.

Hey! Just wanted to let you know that this was a "possible future" of what would have happened, had Aerys allowed the pyromancers to light the caches that were hidden underneath the city (including the Red Keep). It was either snowing ashes (which can be white) or it was just plain snowing, like "Winter has truly arrived because of what has happened" -- somethin like that. She was staring at the handle of a sword that was affixed to the Iron Throne. Just one of the many hundreds of swords that were melted, this one had its hilt sticking out. She wanted to touch it, possibly to see what was underneath. Basically I think the whole idea was to tempt her to dust off the snow/ashes of the Iron Throne and see, finally, the object of her desire. When that didn't work, they sent her something closer to her heart -- Drogo and a dark haired, purple eyed baby. (I'm still wondering why they didn't get a blond baby, but oh well.) I had a different interpretation of her going through the Wall. There are many on the forum who are Dany/Jon shippers, hoping they'll get together, and there's that image in the HotU where a blue rose comes out of an ice wall, and its sweet smell fills the air...that might indicate Jon. And tweaking your theory, maybe it means that it is safe for her to be AT the Wall. With Jon. Somehow. Anyway, I think it just means that she'll end up on the Wall somehow, whether or not Jon is there. (Random thought: when Queen Alysanne rode Silverwing to the Wall, how did the dragon not burn away a huge part of ice? I guess because of all the magic that's locked within the Wall, as Melisandre says in book 5.) Totally agree about the dragons, their voices, everything you said. Spot-on! Jaqen H'ghar was absolutely incredible. They couldn't have picked a better actor. The only tiny part was when he said "please" to Arya when she had named him to kill himself. A man would never do such a thing. But still, I wish he were a main character, I love him so much! I think I'll write a letter to that actor, telling him what a magnificent job he did. We both should! Do you know where he's from? His accent sounds a tiny bit like Shae's. It seems you really liked the episode, so good on ya mate :)

If one looked closely, one could see that the wights were the clumsy, stumbling ones who still looked human but had the blue eyes, whereas anything on a dead horse was an Other, and was white all over. I wish they had put the armor on them -- why not? Would it really have been that expensive? And I thought that wights were slightly different from Others...Others are the original monsters, whereas wights are their thralls who used to be men but are not walking zombies, obedient to the Others' commands. It's hard to say since we know so little about them!

I think that your idea about Luwin and the heart tree is a very interesting one -- one that never occurred to me. Although he never mentions milk of the poppy in the book. Rickon just says "You CAN'T DIE! YOU CAN'T!" and Shaggydog mirrors his feelings. Luwin says "I'm an old man, I can die if I want to." What WAS interesting that happened in the book was the fact that despite his obviously painful wound, he dragged himself up to the heart tree. That makes me think that your point may have some validity to it. Ok, my opinion about the episode...it's a much more complex reaction than I've had to all the other episodes, and that's not because it was the finale. Overall, as one who has read the books, I understood everything that was going on, even with the major changes that the producers made. For instance -- Theon gives a rousing speech to the Ironborn men, then "Dagmer" knocks him out. (I put that name in quotes because he is not at all like the Dagmer Cleftjaw who was pretty much a foster father to Theon in the book.) So the question is, for not only the book readers but also especially the non-readers: how long had his men been plotting against him? Was it "Dagmer" who convinced the other men that it would be better to abandon their prince (an act of treason) and raze Winterfell to the ground? In other threads there have been discussions about just how much gold is in Winterfell, and the conclusions were: not nearly as much as places like Highgarden, Casterly Rock, or KL. Ok, I guess they could take the tapestries and other valuables, but then what? They become rogues, broken men? What happens when Balon and Asha hear about this? Or was "Dagmer" in some sort of plot with Ramsay? But that wouldn't be possible because they supposedly killed all the ravens. That part was confusing to me. My mother has gotten into the series, but refuses to read the books. I can understand why -- she's originally from Iran and although she can read just fine, she's always found fantasy a little confusing. Something about the fake names and places make it hard for her to "get it", I suppose. I keep encouraging her to read the books, but let me just tell you guys, from her perspective, what she found confusing (and she's a smart woman): First of all, THE OTHERS. I tried to explain to her that in the series, they hadn't really explained the difference between a wight and an Other. I then tried to explain it to her, and her befuddled expression spoke volumes. I explained again, and she kind of understood. As the army was passing by, she wondered why Sam wasn't killed by the Other who looked straight at him. I said that I had no idea, I was confused about that as well. Secondly, the Ironborn part, which I just brought up. I explained that they probably didn't respect Theon and was sick of him, so they decided to burn Winterfell and take the belongings. Thirdly, she didn't understand at all what was going on in the HotU. She didn't know why the throne room was in ashes and it was snowing. (At first I thought ALL of the white stuff was ashes, and hey, maybe it was?) So I had to explain to her something from the book, and the vision she had of her father -- him pacing up and down the throne room muttering "let him be king over ashes. Let him be king over charred bones and cooked meat." Then, Dany goes into the tent with Drogo and her son. (Little side note: those baby's eyes looked purple to me! Interesting that they made his hair dark, too.) I told her that this vision was NOT in the book, but that there were other ones that were far more important. I explained that there were other visions (and words) that were extremely important but hadn't been included in the episode. She was puzzled with their decision not to include those things. She was absolutely astounded by Jaqen's transformation into another man, and it was quite comical because she kept begging me to tell her how he did it. I said I couldn't give away secrets that I didn't have the answers to. I did tell her what valar morghulis means, though. She also wondered how the dragonfire didn't burn her but did burn Pyat Pree. That kind of niggled at me as well -- I mean, it was between her, but definitely close enough to cause AT LEAST second degree burns. I don't care how "immune" to fire is (which apparently she's not, if I'm not mistaken - her walking into the flames was a "one time deal"). When she confronted Drogo at the pit I don't think she even got scalded -- I wish Martin would make up his mind! She also didn't understand what Pyat Pree meant about his magic working now that dragons were born. Then there was the scene with Qhorin Halfhand. She was shocked that he killed him, so I had to explain how it was set up in the book. I told her the whole scene, about him asking if his blade was sharp, etc. etc. Ok, so why am I talking so much about my mother's reactions to the episode, instead of my own? The reason is because I think she represents a viewer with above-average intelligence who is absolutely confused by these scenes which they changed and distorted. To sum up my view, I enjoyed the episode, especially the part where Dany has her dragons burn PP while she's chained - a powerful image. Of course, I liked the Others bit (the horn was a great-sounding horn, too!) and I also pretty much enjoyed everything else. However, enjoying it isn't the same as not being confused with some of the decisions the producers made. I guess my big question would be this: why, why did they decide to put in that fake story in Qarth? PP and XXD conspiring to take her dragons, Irri dying, Doreah NOT being dead, Dany not getting her crown, not meeting Barristan Selmy and getting the ships...I think that putting the book storyline into the season, (with some trimming, of course) would have been the same level of complication as this new plot line they decided to go with. My reasoning is that they wanted to put in major suspense by having the dragons stolen, but they could have built up the same level of suspense many other ways: one way being Dany's realization that she is nothing but a rich beggar, threatened by greedy Qartheens, and trying to get a ship OUT of there. I think her getting a crown would have been a brilliant scene, really. They could have also put in Barristan Selmy following her - not just that one day at the docks, but throughout the season, trying to see what her personality was like. I feel like instead, they wasted a lot of screen time with excessive nudity and sex scenes, or dialogue scenes where people just mocked each other (one scene that comes instantly to mind is Bronn trimming his nails and Tyrion complaining about it -- what's the point?) I am not a prude by any means (in fact, when I go to the beach, I go to a nude one, and I'm from America, hehe), but I found it to be excessive. There wasn't even any "sexposition" most of the time. What do other people think? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. My main conclusion is that it was an entertaining episode and finale to watch, but that it also brought with it MUCH confusion - not just to me, but especially to the poor fans out there who haven't read the books. Methinks that quite a few more people will be picking up the books now and trolling through them because of this finale alone :eek: Could it be a sly marketing ploy? (No, no, not really...although one never knows, right?) Ok...The scene between Stannis and Melisandre was utterly ridiculous. The woman drank POISON and wasn't killed, and she reads her own future in the flames before anyone else's. For Stannis to choke her, and for her to be at his utter mercy, was soooooo unreal. When I say unreal, I literally mean, it couldn't have happened. It did not fit in with either of their characters -- esp Stannis supposedly seeming some bullshit in the flames. That really irked me. And, of course, this CANNOT be denied -- the nadir of the episode was Robb's marrying Lady Talisa Migasdidfsdfswtf her name is IN THE NAME OF THE SEVEN?! That left me speechless for a moment, literally, before I started to swear and curse about how false this was for Robb's character. Totally aside from that - that's just a little thing, although it's almost little the way a little piece of glass lodged in your lung is little - there's his selfishness in revoking his vow to the Freys and marrying her against his mother's wishes. What made the RW so tragic was that Robb was killed in a very similar way that Ned was -- he did it to shield a woman's honor. Ned tried to honor Cersei and her children, and Robb tried to honor Jeyne Westerling's virginity. And, of course, the circumstances are so important. He had just learned of his brothers' "deaths" and was deeply wounded. The storyline they made for Robb and Talisa was so close to a Twilight romance between Edward and Bella that you could slide a hair between the difference. So now, when the RW happens, people will be saying "well it was his fault. everyone warned him not to do it, but he did it anyway." Or if they don't have feelings quite that blunt, they'll still have that memory of it being his stubborn choice. Now I wonder that if they do the RW scene, will Talisa be there? Will it be ROBB who cannot bear to part from Talisa, and so she walks into her own death trap? Or will it play out pretty much like it did in the books? Ah, so many questions. And one more thing, I pray you, even though it's off topic - personally I (and probably others) believe Talisa is a spy for Tywin (or Jeyne Westerling, or whateverthefuck). Right after Arya reads that note about Robb, they go to a scene with her writing a message, calling herself a brilliant liar, saying she's writing the Lannisters about his movements etc. etc. But the interesting thing that I'm sure people caught was she was just holding the note whilst Robb was there. But when Catelyn comes to see them, she rolls up the note quickly. THAT'S because she knows she can keep Robb's attention by batting her big brown eyes at him, but she cannot do the same with Catelyn. And, fearing that Catelyn will ask to see the note, she pretty much flees right after introducing herself. I also think that her story, while it may be true, was used manipulatively, to play on Robb's sense of mercy, sense of honor, sympathy, etc. So a giggling, smiling Talisa may not have just been in love and eager to make love (as one poster said, after the episode aired) but in actuality a sly, giggle that she has him, now. And it's a short step from hot sex to a marriage of a young man. So, that's my complex reaction. Entertaining, confusing, let down (as always) and hopeful.

Hm, generally I liked this episode. At one point I thought "*finally*, things are getting interesting!" and then I realized it was the 8th episode of the season. When it takes 8 episodes to build up to tension-filled events like that, something's a bit off. Looking back on the preceding episodes, a lot of it comes through as characters dicking around, annoying each other with dialogue that has no bearing on the show, and adding scenes that don't build up to anything. I found that in the first season it was the exact opposite - every episode was full of tension and that building up feeling. I know that the books are different from each other, yet there is plenty of action all the same, perhaps more so than aGoT. Certainly a lot of shockers occur. Look, I don't really care that they changed Jeyne Westerling to some random lady from Volantis, but when you look at the plot structure, by doing this change it took many episodes to establish a rapport between her and Robb, areas of common interest, mutual attraction, etc. HOWEVER if they had just had him going to the Crag, capturing the castle, and learning of his brothers, with perhaps a scene about as long as the one in this episode, it would have saved so much more time for other areas that needed to filled out -- principally, imho, Tyrion's storyline as well as Arya's. (After all, in the books Robb was pretty much instantly attracted to Jeyne - why does it need to be "deeper" than that? In fact, it is the utter folly of his rash act that makes the following events even more tragic.) One thing that continually confuses me - why are they portraying Cersei as the wise tactician and Tyrion as the dummy who has no flare? It seems like they're presenting him as an over-horny courtier, who is good at intrigue but not much good at anything else. The Chain is a really important part of the upcoming battle, and yet we haven't seen or heard anything about it. If it suddenly starts rising from the water in episode 9, non-reading viewers will be confused, and probably think it was either Cersei's or Tywin's idea. I thought the execution of the infamous dinner with Cersei went off well, but I did SO want to see Tyrion twisting Cersei's arm and cowing her as well as her guards. I personally believed that was such a crucial moment in the book, when he "reached for his father's voice and found it; he sounded cold, uncaring." Instead, Cersei just sits there smiling and says "Get. Out." And so HE is routed! Why are they doing this role reversal? It just makes no sense. Cersei has her sexuality and low cunning, and Tyrion has superior wits. They're making poor Peter Dinklage look a bit like a fool. Out of the things they changed, nothing was too bad. I've finally gotten over the fact that they're not going to be as loyal to the second book as they were to the first in the beginning season, so I try to just think of it as something entirely different. For all I know, they may not have the Red Wedding, or the Purple One! My favorite scene was at the end when Maester Luwin spotted Osha going into the crypts, and as they talk about the farmer's boys Bran is awake and listening, and Osha says "the little lads have been through enough already". I felt that the line, while simple, was so eloquent about their situation -- as well as the general situation and tragedy of the Starks. All of them have been through so damn much. The music that began playing at that point was quite touching.

Every girl's first period is different. Some first "flowerings" are extremely heavy, and some aren't. It's as simple as that :)

I'm glad you asked that question. I couldn't give less of a crap that, after it's all done, ASOIAF was made into a tv series. I don't care how unpopular that opinion might be. Books are always better, and I'm not a huge TV fan. So there you go.

Come on, that's not really a good question. We all hoped that the second season would be as good as the first. Imo, it's not, so that's the problem. They are deviating from the books much more in this season for some reason. Why do that, when the books are gold? You ignored my point! Which is: they bit off more than they can chew. It's a very complex series, and tv isn't equipped to deal with it unless they give 2 hours for each episode.

Even though I am really happy that GOT was made into a series, I think that Benioff&Weiss have unfortunately bit off more than they could chew. Here's why: In season 1, there were less characters, and although there was still a lot of background that made the story complicated and perhaps a bit difficult to understand for non-readers, it worked. (Background info such as CotF, First Men, Andals, Targaryen history, the many gods in the series are what I am referring to.) What helped make season 1 more cohesive was the fact that Ned Stark was the center of the storm, so to speak. He was the loveable patriarch of a noble family and most of the events derived from him -- Robert's offering him the position of Hand, which meant that his queen and Jaime were in Winterfell, etc. etc. Ned's BEING THERE set off a bunch of chain reactions, and once he agreed to be Robert's Hand, all the plotting started. The only characters who were not really surrounding Ned Stark in the plot were Viserys and Dany. They were also separated geographically. However, the writers did a good job of explaining why they were in exile and what they were trying to accomplish. Once Ned was executed, all hell broke loose, and I mean that in a couple of ways. Firstly, people who hadn't read the books were shocked and pissed that the "main character" of the series had been killed. Secondly, it accelerated the War of the 5 Kings. Thirdly, and most importantly, I observed a splintering effect of the storyline - now, instead of a plot that is very textured/includes subplots, but is basically still about Ned and his family (as well as Dany) it became a hundred different storylines. One thing that struck me forcefully was how much each episode of season 2 skips around. In the first season, each episode seemed like it spent much more time on each character, and the cut from one scene to another was seamless and well-segued. This season, it runs sort of like this: two minutes with Theon hunting the boys - cut - one minute with Bran/Rickon/Osha/Hodor going towards a village - cut - Dany trying to find her dragons for two minutes - cut - Sansa talking with the Hound for 1 minute - cut - Arya and Tywin Lannister talking for 3 minutes (incredibly uncharacteristically, btw -- he even smiles a couple of times) - cut - Sansa gets her period and talks with Cersei for two minutes - cut - Jaime maunders on with a character - Alton?? - who wasn't in the books for four minutes, strangles him and a Karstark son, escapes - cut - Tyrion and Cersei have a heart-to-heart even though Tyrion has already delivered the infamous line of "your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth"....um, what? - cut - etc. etc. etc. I didn't want to generalize before I had seen more than half of series 2, but this fragmented style of filming book 2 is disorienting and annoying. I understand that this might seem natural because there are 5 kings in the land, so naturally everyone will be all over the place, but what happens when even more characters are added as the series progresses? Will we only see half a minute of each character, unable to savor the longer interactions we enjoyed in season 1? It appears that although the adaptation of the books to TV is well-intentioned, there might be an inevitable downward spiral of fragmentation because of the growing cast, the growing complexity of the plot, and the unnecessary scenes they add to the show. (Perfect example: why on earth did they steal Dany's dragons? If they hadn't made that decision, there would have been extra time to use for longer scenes with the characters.) Aside from that, my opinion of episode 7 is much like it has been for all the other episodes thus far -- I am left dissatisfied (unfortunately). The only high point for me was John & Ygritte's interactions. I love the actress playing her - she's got her character spot-on and even though in the book I always HATED it when she said "you know nothing, Jon Snow", I thought the way she delivered that line was absolutely fantastic. Grim, and not playful as I had always imagined.

Patience, grasshopper :) I'm sure the idea will occur to them (read: Bran). I really love the scene with Ygritte and John. I think that she is a wonderful actress! They have great chemistry together, too.

I noticed something when re-watching this episode. It may or may not be true, or intentional. Did anyone else notice the old woman with long white hair and blue eyes at the first torture scene, after Arya&co arrive at Harrenhal? She says, after she hears her son die by torture "He's dead. He was my son. My sister was three days ago. My husband the day before that." Gendry says "They take someone every day?" She doesn't answer, then Arya asks "Does anyone live?" The dead look in her eyes, the length of cloth wrapped around her head, and her hair, all reminded me of UnCat. Her husband died first, then Robb [along with the others], then Lysa. The order isn't exactly right, but it seemed like a foreshadowing, esp. when Arya asked if anyone lived, b/c as we know, she becomes intimately acquainted with the workings of life and death in the house of B&W. Just a little something I picked up on, and I'm not sure if it really is a foreshadowing, but interesting for discussion maybe.

He really looks 30 to you? Damn! I've seen him in this other show from the UK called Sirens, and he looks his true age there (24 or 25). He also looks way hotter on that show for some reason. Maybe it's because they don't make him as scruffy looking.

Haha I totally applaud Jack Gleeson. He's truly a gifted young actor. I've seen him in a couple of other roles, but I thought the scene in the throne room with Sansa was especially good -- near the end there was this way he pitched his voice louder and somehow crueler that was just terrifying.

I totally agree with the butterfly effect problem too and GRRM himself mentioned that it could be a problem. And his example for this was when Drogo slew Mago! That is such a small, small incident compared to other things they have changed or added. The biggest example that comes to mind is when LF acts totally out of character and taunts Cersei about her twincest, and she threatens to slit his throat. The best player of the Game would, firstly, never do something like that, and, secondly, never let her get away with it. We don't know if Cersei is going to eventually die (although a lot of ppl hope she will) but damn, with LF's skill I can't see her living past season 3 after THAT insult, which would create a problem once they get to Feast, b/c so much of that book is from her POV. Or at least, whenever I've read it it's always seemed that way to me. Sometimes I call it "the Cersei book" out of all the ASOIAF books. (Ned was Game, Tyrion was Clash, Arya/Jon was 3, Cersei was 4, Dany was 5...) Edit: About LF's taunting and Cersei's reaction. In the book, LF mentions to Sansa that if Cersei were to find her, he'd have to "remove her [Cersei] from the Game" before he had planned. This shows just how confident and likely capable he is of removing the Queen regent! And hey, I don't doubt it. Or, even if he overestimates himself and can't, that confidence and slyness is part of his character. So my problem with that particular scene is this: either the producers/writers are changing LF's character to one who would make a dumb move, be threatened/humiliated, and then not retaliate, or to one who would taunt her, be threatened, then kill her in retribution. Either way, they are severely changing his character -- all in one added scene. Cersei's reaction to his savage wit was totally in character for her, but it's so out of character for him that I believe it might confuse the viewer who hasn't read the books. In the first season, he is infinitely cunning and seems never to make a mistake at court; here, he is making a fool out of himself. I wish I could ask the writers what they were trying to set up/accomplish with that confrontation.

Yes, and I said that I was pretty sure I was missing some other added scenes. The Joffrey/whores scene -- and this is a big departure for me -- I actually thought was a good addition. Because this was not a gratuitous sex scene. There was torture going on, a la American Psycho (ever seen it?) I think they took an idea from the book where Tyrion wanted to take Joff to Chataya's (this was after he had Boros rip off Sansa's bodice and realized that part of why he ordered that to be done was b/c he wanted to see "a pair of teats"). So they took this idea that never got to happen in the book, and they implemented it into the episode, since they couldn't rip off Sophie Turner's dress (she's under 18) and also she wasn't hit with the flat of the blade nearly as much as in the books. It was only one hit, and then Tyrion entered. So I thought it was interesting how they showed that Joff's lust for sexual violence (or just violence) was not sated, and so he recreated the scene by having one whore hit the other with a MACE. For once, the addition of that scene seemed well done and relevant to canon. But what I meant - if I didn't express it clearly enough before - is that COMPARATIVELY, this episode had the least number of additions, more stuff that was almost verbatim from the books, and if there were additions, they were usually pretty similar to what actually happened IIRC. The Qaarth scene was the only major departure. And this is to everyone: is it just me, or are the episodes getting shorter? Or are they generally shorter than last season's episodes? Maybe it's just flying by, but my mother commented on it too.

Serious cognitive dissonance? Why do you have to verbally nasty? I felt that there were more scenes in this episode that actually stuck to the story, sometimes scenes taken verbatim (ex. Lancel and Tyrion's little midnight talk). I thought that the idea of Qarth being a closed city was kind of strange, and in the book I believe at least Jorah knew about Qarth, but it is a merchant city. They were eager to see her dragons. I'm not sure why they created conflict like that. Also, it's going to be more than passing strange if we see just that one shot of Drogon on Dany's shoulder for the rest of the season. Aside from that, things were much more true to the book than previous episodes, also a lot less adding in scenes which weren't in the books (I think the only one here was LF being in Renly's camp). How do you think they were 'connected better thematically'? It seems to me that one moment we're in KL, the next we're with the NW, the next we're with Dany, then Arya..with not much segue, if any, in between. I've noticed the episodes being like this pretty much from the start, although I've only watched each of them twice, so I could be wrong. But that was the distinct impression I got. Also, I couldn't hear what name the surgeon girl offered up. I have no clue why they would want to make her be from Volantis, when it makes much more sense (esp. for Robb's fate) for her to be a Westerling of the Crag. It was obvious Robb was interested in her, and/or respected her, but I couldn't recognize her as the actress playing Jeyne.. Maybe she was just lying about Volantis so he wouldn't know she's a Lannister bannerwoman, or whatever. I thought that was an important scene as well. I think that whore was using a mace, as well. It's clear to the audience now that he is a sadistic mutilator of women, and that his pent-up frustration with not being able to hurt Sansa was unfortunately taken out on these unsuspecting prostitutes. I wonder what the fallout with Tyrion will be when he finds out.