Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Arawni

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

327 profile views
  1. If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it swims like a duck... it usually is a duck. If many here feel that you are bein aggressive and picking up a fight, it's either they are all wrong and you should just stop hanging out with us ignorant fools or you might reconsider how you express yourself. Seriously, it's an ad hominem, not a straw man when one is calling other party with some names and uses that as an argument. Somebody pointed out this already. When does adaptation change into fan fiction? Who is the judge who gets to decide when there's too much change? You? I've enjoyed a lot of bad things. Granted, I've enjoyd them exactly for this reason, but still, not impossible. Secondly, you don't have to enjoy GoT. Don't. Hate it. Despise it. Bitch about it. Nobody cares. But as you demand not to be coersed to like the show because it's so "bad", what right do you have to call people liars because they think the show is good and they liked. You're making huge scene about how you should have a RIGHT to hate the show but refuse to grant same right to others. Well, of course we don't need that, we'll like it anyway, but it does seem hypocritical. You do like the word "straw man", do you?... Many here have suggested that if something causes you headache and acute anger and stress, you might want to avoid it. Since you clearly are not inclined to take the advice, I'm not going to repeat it. Quite the contrary, I wish you a lot of headache in the future if it means that this great master piece of a TV show continues to do it's wonderful work as it has done so far!
  2. I'm not very familiar with the religions in ASOAIF books, but this would've been the case in Europe before Christianity. People would pray to the god or gods they'd deem fit or useful depending on situation and locationg. It wasn't like today when a Christian is a Christian no matter where he is and him praying to other gods would be a deadly sin. Japan is actually still good example where people can marry in shinto temple and be buried according to Buddhist rituals while reading Konfutse during their lives and attending Christian seremonies. So if Westeros is like "pagan Europe" in religious sense, which is seems to be, it's totally believable that Robb would swear in the name of southern gods while being in south. It doesn't mean that he has changed his religion. It just seems that religion is not "pick one, never believe in anything else" choise for him as it is for people today. Of course it's possible that I've misunderstood ASOAIF in this matter but this is how I've understood religion works in it.
  3. If lord would've though that way, Robert would've never become a king. As said, I personally don't think Stannis would've made a good king and seemingly many lords of Westeros agree with me (not to mentions their own personal ambitions for power, of course). Well, you are defending Stannis – a murderer, a kinslayer, a fanatic. However, I am not actually defending Red Wedding because I think it was disgusting and appalling deed. Thing is that I think same way about Stannis’s actions. I find it hypocritical that some atrocities can be defended with “end justifies the means” –argument and some cannot depending on does one like or dislike the person who committed them. No, it is NOT right to murder a man and it is especially not right to murder one’s brother! I simply fail to understand why people are ok with Renly’s murder. So what that he was an “usurper”, so what that he was wrong according to inheritance rights in Westeros. Killing a man without trial is a MURDER. Killing one’s brother is KINSLAYING. Id doesn’t matter that Stannis didn’t kill Renly personally, he ordered/allowed Melisandre to do it and as such he is as accountable as she is. So our Stannis is now practical kinslayer. Good for him. You know, there was another way to save his soldiers if that was his main motivation. He could’ve just given up and join Renly. Yes, I know that Stannis is not a man to do so and I’m not saying he should’ve done so, but it was an option. The fact that he rather killed Renly and that he didn’t give damn if “thousands” would die at Blackwater, tell me that he doesn’t care about lives of his men. He just wants to be a king. I really haven't got any vibe from him that he wants to be king to save people or to make the land prosper or anything. He wants to be king because "it's miiiiiine!!" As said, I talk about Show Stannis. In the last episode he clearly acknowledges that he murdered Renly. And I agree with him. Oh but there already has been a precedent – it’s called “King Robert”. He not only proved there can be a king who is not Targaryen but also that throne can be seized through fighting. And that’s exactly what our kings in Westeros are trying to do now. It doesn’t matter that rebellion didn’t start as a way to destroy Targaryen regime, it’s the results that count. I wasn’t talking about legitimacy or rights. I wrote that Robert’s line is not secure which it clearly isn’t because as soon as he died, several people started fighting for the crown.
  4. But still far fewer suffered than if there would've have been yers of battles as it probably would've gone if Robb would've lived. So Tywin saved thousands lives with Red Wedding and as such, if saving lives is suitable excuse for Stannis, it should be for Tywin, too. For himself. As I said, his actions can be seen as practical but that doesn't make them any less dishonourable or disgusting. Same goes with Tywin. The mere fact that Stannis would not be as bad as a king as Aerys was doesn't meen that he would be a good king. Also, I'm not convinced he would be better king than Robert. Sure, his shortcomings are far different from Robert's but still there are many of them. Err... Not all lords have sworn to Stannis - if they had, there would be no war. Unless you mean Robert of course but as seen, it's not enough that lords swore to him. They'd need to swear to Stannis for him to be really a king. At the moment his kingship is disputed and as I said, one cannot be a king if one is not awknoledged as one. What I said about established line I meant somewhat longer dynasty, for example Targaryens. Robert's line is not secure exactly because he was usurper. Once he seized the throne it was obvious that such an act was possible it's his death and not his years as a king that will test true validity and ability of his line. And yeah, Robb for instance does not claim to be a king of Westeros, but if he had succeeded, there would've been no king of Seven kingdoms and so Roberts dynasty as a ruler for whole Westeros would've ended there.
  5. I am somewhat ambivalent about this. Technically this is true but on the other hand, Robert was usurper. His kingly line is not established and so even though Stannis is Robert's true heir, I don't complitely accept him as rightful king. From my point of view you need to have an established roayl line for that but there's none at the moment. Well, technically there's Dany but her father lost the throne so I don't see her as a rightful heir, either. Also, I do think that to be a king one needs to be RECOGNIZED as a king. It's not enough that one calls himself a king. If so any village idiot could be a king. At the moment Stannis is definitely not recognized as a king by most of the Westeros and so I don't personally consider him being one. And because of this I didn't even consider Renly to be usurper, just another claimant to the throne. But, as said, my personal opinion only.
  6. So... Assassinating your own brother via some shadow monster to avoid blood shed is not evil, but assassinating a leader of a rival house via deception to avoid blood shed is evil? If Stannis's actions can be justified by "choosing the lesser evil", that same reasoning should apply to Tywin's actions too, right? You can label me a troll, too, because I find these excuses for Stannis's actions almost appalling. I seriously don't mean that as a personal offence, I was just... well, surprised. I can see necessity of his actions and yes, they can be defended from the pragmatical point of view. Killing Renly DID prevent blood shed between Baratheon bannermen although I simply cannot believe anybody would do such a deed just because of the "duty" or just to save his soldiers. Actually latter is implausible also because Stannis felt no qualms during the Blackwater when he sent his troops to die (and win, yes, but he was prepared in "thousands" dying in the process). However, morally I cannot help but seeing his deed not only disgusting but also cowardly. Even if one considers Renly as an usurper, sending a shadow monster to kill him in secret is a dishonourable way to get rid of usurper. People who break the rules should be executed, not assassinated in the dark. That is not justice, that is cowardice. Practical, maybe, but also dishonourable and dishonest. Many here say that Stannis would be a good king but I don't really see it. This is not because he has burned people alive or because he assassinated his brother (or at least turned the blind eye when Melisandre did it). A man could be a good king even though he has done such things - a good king is not necessarily a good man. But there are other qualities in Stannis that do make me doubt his ability to be a good king and a leader. He's seemingly rather uncharismatic and not well liked. There must be a reason why is is not liked and not only do I think that reason might hinder his abolity to be a good king, also the mere fact that ruling effectively when your administrative layer (= lords who implement kings commands) dislikes you, is very, very difficult. It is even more difficult when a man is seemingly obsessed with duty and does not make compromises. No, I cannot see Stannis as a good king. People who place duty above everything and see world white and black are not usually good rulers. They are tyrants. Maybe, MAYBE, if Stannis got very good advisers who could influence him, his rule could be ok, but if he would take the sole command - well, I doubt I would want to live in his kingdom. I'm sure that Stannis means well but as they say, road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (I do point out, however, that my impressions of Stannis's character and personal traits concerns HBO Stannis ONLY.) P.S. One more thing... Even though I do think that Stannis would not be a good king, I do like the character and don't consider him to be evil. I don't like some things he has done, namely killing his brother and how it was done, but I do find him interesting and in many ways symphatetic, also. So this is not "I just don't like Stannis" rant by any means.
  7. Not badass, just stupid. Maybe it's just me but I don't see that acting stupid and irresponsibly endangering your army and attack by charging mindlessly to the most dangerous spot on a battlefield. In a way I do understand why they wanted to place Stannis in the front line as they made some characters fight without helmets (IRL would NEVER happen but in this case characters must be recognizeble to audience) but still I couldn't get that "he's the badass!!11" feeling from it. Well, it didn't ruin the apisode for me, though, not by a close. Episode was epic and I loved it from beginning to the end and most praising about characters, acting and such has already been made so I won't repeate everything. Just awesome episode and that's it.
  8. Wow. I never thought about marriage scenario with Asha, but you're spot on there, THAT would've been a killer move! And I do like show's Asha/Yara so it would've been great to see them interact as a married couple. I don't think Balon would have been happy because he seems like a guy he wants thing to be done HIS way even though result might be the same (having offspring as a king/queen). But having ironborn as a queen in the north and then her children as King/princes/princesses - that sounds awesome and like a dream come true for ironborns. And think if Asha would have fought with Robb instead of against him! Gaaah, missed opportunities!
  9. Ok. I'll say that I don't buy people's interpretation of the book-Robb's actions. Happy? I do think that Robb is doing major mistakes here and yes, he's also somewhat a hyppocrite. He wants to make war but doesn't want to face the consequenses of fighting. He's trying to live some kind of ideal that's not really possible but still he's requiring other people to back up his delusions. So he's far from being practical and efficient leader and it's no wonder he'll loosing support of his bannermen and he would've even without marrying the wrong the girl. He's actually little bit like Hannibal trying to beat Rome: he can win but he cannot ripe fruits of his winnings. He's very flawed, indeed and cannot even excuse himself as being almost a child. So basically he's humanbeing. Which is why I'm starting to like this guy. Pity he has to die but truth be told he is asking for it.
  10. Wow. It was actually strange to read that article you linked because those were exactly my thought about Robb and Talisa ending up having sex. As a non-reader I did not expect him to hear about Bran and Rickon and then fell into the arms of the first available woman. I actually felt for Robb in this episode. He goes on and on raving about how Theon betrayed him and then he felt that his mother betrayed him, too. So he's utterly ALONE - and here comes someone with whom he can connect, who listens to him. So he succumbs. I found it believable. I've read about Robb's marriage in the books and reasons behind it. However, I don't buy them. So Robb is this very honourable guy who wants to "do the right thing". How come rescuing a lady is more honorauble than keeping the word he has given to one of the lord and who has already done him a great favor? If Robb IS so very honourable, I simply cannot believe he would back from his word just because of one night's mistake. Actually I would've expected him to act like Ned and promise he'd raise the child if sex has lead to pregnancy. Only reason I can see an honourable Robb to break his promise is the one thing that makes even clever and apt people do stupid things: love. And while I'm not that invested in Robb/Talisa pairing, at least I find it believable that he falls in love and because of that breaks his promise to lord Frey.
  11. I agree with this. Come on, the whole GoT UNIVERSE is misogynistic! Are people going to complain if some character says "women are for fucking and bearing kids but nothing else"? Since Arya is a sort of a tomboy, I think that comment was spot on for her.
  12. Exactly. For some pople "more" is not better. I actually prefer less which is why I tend to dislike very long books, movies and series. On the other hadn, I love short stories, poems, fairytales etc. Of course there are exceptions but this is how it usually goes for me. So no, I will not love ASOIAF more than the show because it has "more" than the show. Actually odds are that I will like it less just because it has more.
  13. Yes, but they were nobility and I did mention that upper classes did marry younger that lower classes. So one cannot really take Juliet's mother as an example of average marriage age during that time especially because play was written by Shakespeare who lived in the 17th century England where average marriage age for women had decreased from the middle ages so actually women in Shakespeares times married younger than during the middle ages. Hey, it's so cool to meet people who think alike. :D I totally agree with you about Anna Karenina! I wanted to kill Tolstoy while reading it - or myself. :D
  14. I do like to read and I actually read a lot. But I am immensely selective. Nowadays I don't read fiction that much because I rarely find anything that would really interest me. I prefer to read popularized history, books about religions, biology, essays about society and such things + some guile pleasure stuff that is really BAD but I don't care. I also prefer short stories to long novels and this is not because I couldn't concentrate on a long story or something alike. To be honest I actually feel a bit against long stories because I haven't read ONE long novel that I would have liked as a whole. I've always felt that at least one third should've been cut away and it would have benefited the book greatly. And how long is ASOIAF? Five books now. 2-3 yet to come. I'm the person who would have chopped LOTR to pieces. I'm the person who hates Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky (though I do awcknolegde that the are good writers) and love Chekhov and Gogol. Are you really expecting me NOT to dislike huge porportions of thousands of pages? Not gonna happen. So all in all, it's quite possible that ASOIAF is better than GoT what comes to quality. As you said, since I haven't read the books I cannot make this judgement and I won't. But something being "better" does not necesseraly mean I'll like it more. So far, according to everything I've read about the books and based on my long experience with books and films, everything points to one direction: I like the show and characters in the show more. Yeah, I could prove it by reading the books but I'm not going to waste hours and hours to prove something that I know is most likely true. And hey, there seemingly are people who have read the books and yet peref TV-show like dab0neman. Shocking. :) I do get that people love these books and so they want everybody else to read them. But I know myself pretty well and I know what I like and what I don't like. Very, very rarely have I been wrong before some movie/book, usually I can tell before hand how I'll react to each one. All people were telling me how damn great Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment is, how I should absolutely read it ect. I knew I would hate that book and surprise, surprise, so I did. I wouldn't even have read it unless it hadn't been on the list of my Russian literature class... I'm not saying here that I would hate ASOIAF but as said, I'm around 95 % convinced that 1) I would still like show more and 2) it would mess my head with the characters. So, that's it. I'm used people complaining about my way to consume fiction because it seems to be rather unique, but it's ok, it works for me. I'm most like not going to read them and you think I'm an idiot because of that. I suppose we all can live with that. :)
  15. Well, duh. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? :D Yeah, I have a strong interest in the books but still not strong enough to actually read them. I prefer reading ABOUT them. How horrible am I! Besided, "spoiler" is just an empty word for me. I do understand it's meaning for other people but it'f basically impossible to spoil anything for me. You could tell me EVERYTHING that happens in the books and yet I'd happily read them if I wanted to. Actually I'm weird in this matter, too, because I usually read endings first. Why? Because I want to know whether I like the ending or not. If not, what's the point of wasting my time when outcome will not be satisfactory. If I like it, I'll be invested to know what happens before the ending. And usually the more I know the more I'm interested in reading/watching (unless I'm convinced I'm not going to like it).
  • Create New...