Jump to content

SFDanny

Members
  • Posts

    4,412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFDanny

  1. That we see things differently doesn't surprise me, LV. We have differing opinions on many things over the years, so why should this be different? I believe we need to look at this in the context of the history Martin has given us to evaluate if this decision by the show runners is a wise one, not important, or a huge plot hole and change created in contradiction to what Martin has given us. It doesn't have to be this last option - IF there is a backstory that creates a believable reason why the Royal Family would allow a Dornishman as one of their personal bodyguards. But without that backstory, we have to believe the Targaryens have become both lax concerning their personal safety and somewhere off screen some major changes in the politics of Targaryen/Martell relations have taken place that we don't see in Martin's history of the time. Perhaps it is a simple as the history of family Cole in service to House Dondarrion has proven young Criston's unquestioned loyalty to the royal family. I'd love to know what in that history justifies such trust. Great swordsmen can serve in many places and in many ways without putting them within a quick thrust of killing a member of the Targaryen family. All I'm asking is that the show runners show us the reason for this change.
  2. Thank you! The fact this comes from the show and not Martin's text explains a lot. While not ruling out the show runners created this backstory perhaps with Martin's consent, it does raise considerable need of explanation. A man of Dornish descent in the Kingsguard, and indeed who becomes the Lord Commander, is not something we would expect in this time period. The death of Rhaenys and the refusal of Dorne to accept Targaryen rule is too strong a backdrop to Martin's story to just accept Cole's Dornish heritage, to whatever extent it is, without some detailed explanation.
  3. Quick question. I was recently watching a video by someone previewing the upcoming HBO series, and was taken aback when he described Criston Cole as "Dornish." Did I miss something somewhere? House Cole gains power serving House Dondarrion, a Dornish Reaches House pledged to Storm's End. Enemies of Dorne. Cole himself serves in the Kingsguard at a time Dorne is outside and opposed to Targaryen overlordship of the seven kingdoms. Not a likely place for a Dornishmen to serve. Is this a mistake on the previewer's part, a change that the show runner is making, or something I missed in the text?
  4. Isn't it precisely the point that Biden is not, in fact, in charge of the Senate? Manchin and Sinema now hold the veto over the Biden agenda, and until that changes its pretty ridiculous to hold Biden responsible for not getting all of his economic package passed. Manchin played a phony game game all along to string his fellow democrats into negotiations in which he never had any intentions of reaching agreement. Sinema, likely has her own political ambitions, fanciful as they seem, for 2024 that motivates her actions. If we want real change we still need to change the makeup of the Senate, and, probably even harder, maintain a Democratic majority in the House. I agree with "It's Biden too" part of your argument, but Biden isn't responsible for not being able to persuade two Senators who clearly have put their own political agendas above the economic needs, and securing voting rights protection, abortion rights,, and a host of other reforms the US voters clearly support. For me, it's too easy to fall into the simplistic view of it all is Biden's fault that not every thing he campaigned for hasn't got passed into law yet. Not calling your post simplistic, but I am saying is that what the Right wing wants to make this election about is Biden's faults - real or imagined. Which doesn't mean progressives or liberals should not criticize Biden where he needs to be criticized, but it does mean we shouldn't help the right wing shape this election into a personal vote on Joe Biden. Criticism needs to specific, real, and with ways forward. Or at least I think so.
  5. As an aspiring completist of all things Elio and Linda, and of course that Martin fellow, I'm in. I loved Fire & Blood and will happily buy this new book for the artwork alone even if there is nothing else new.
  6. A lament about the San Francisco recall. Lots of money went into the effort to recall three school board members, and almost no effort was waged to stop this abuse of recall provisions in my city. A political fire was fed because of parents anger against distance learning, and it was aimed against three people who should never been attacked. Now it is being touted nationwide as some kind of shift in San Francisco politics and a harbinger of doom for progressives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our mayor has been a key factor in splitting the democratic coalition and stoking this anger. But the overreach of this autopsy of a tiny vote in a special election is amazing. edit: Here is a politico column also calling into questions some of the outrageous overreach
  7. Anyone see anything about when this might be published? Is it supposed to follow the 20th Anniversary of the publication of the original? Or is coming earlier? I keep looking to Beastly Books for information and I'm seeing nothing.
  8. Ran, can you be a little more specific in your criticism? What scenarios are you talking about? The militia movements are very real in this country. As is the so-called "2nd Amendment" gun nuts lobby (NRA and others) who would have open carry of any type of weapon legal in our streets. If you want more examples of this let me know, but I suspect a person as smart as yourself knows this background. So, my point is these organizations and the politics they espouse have everything to do with people like Rittenhouse showing up with weapons to political rallies they disagree with. It is a growing powder keg cheered on by people who openly support a second civil war in the US. The growth of political violence is extremely dangerous, and the results of the Rittenhouse verdict only makes it more so. As to the "facts of the case," let me just say the facts tell me Kyle Rittenhouse killed two unarmed people and almost killed another unarmed man with a gun he couldn't legally own. Those three people's right to life and to express themselves in political protest ended because, supposedly the well armed Rittenhouse felt "threatened." I don't believe him, and even if one person did make the threat Rittenhouse alleges, he did not have the right to kill him. He had every opportunity to go to the police nearby and report the threat, and they should have dealt with it, not young Kyle's itchy trigger finger. Ran, as to Nikole Hannah-Jones's tweets, I haven't read them. I will try to find them and respond to your criticism, but just let me say I'm flattered to be mentioned with her in your response. Which doesn't mean I agree with something she said that I have no knowledge of.
  9. I am well aware of that fact. Reread my post. It says nothing about the "race" or nationality of those who were shot by Rittenhouse. Only that we now invite more violence by those who are emboldened to carry weapons of war to demonstrations in order to confront those which they disagree with politically. Yell at little boys playing soldiers in their militia gear and they can kill in the name of "self-defense." A right-wing thug with a AR-15 can kill if they think anyone moves "aggressively" in their vicinity. Two systems of justice. One for supporters of police violence against people of color and another for those who protest against it.
  10. The Militia movement has new poster boy for carrying weapons of war on the streets of America. The message is you can gun down protesters as long as they do so against people arguing for social justice and against police abuse of people of color. One step closer to civil war. Next demonstration I go to, I will expect Kyle Rittenhouse wannabes trying to intimidate us with open carry of these weapons.
  11. link? I did see this on filibuster reform. Looks promising
  12. How is it misleading voters? Harris has to stand for election as Vice President, and everyone knows what the role of a Vice-President is in the case of a President resigning his office. If Biden runs in 2024 for reelection and doesn't discuss the possibility of Harris replacing him, then you might have an argument, but I doubt that will be the case given his age. As to the "too cute" charge around the timing of a possible Biden resignation, and all of this is just my speculation, the Constitution isn't a secret document and the effect of a retirement after the second anniversary of a inauguration is well known. LBJ had the same opportunity. He could have run in 1968, but chose not to do so. Perhaps my being old enough to remember his speech saying he wouldn't run again effects my view of things, but following the Constitution doesn't seem "too cute." Anyway, file my crazy predictions away for posterity. I'll buy you a drink if Harris is a ninth year President.
  13. From Biden's perspective, I think he looks to Harris as his chosen successor. A mid term retirement makes him directly responsible for Harris becoming the first woman President, and the second African American to hold the office. If he retires after the second anniversary of his inauguration, he also gives Harris a unique shot at becoming a 10 year President. Of course, the same would be true if he retires after completing two years of his current term. All of which I think Biden would see as part of a legacy of his Presidency. Wild speculation on my part.
  14. People (meaning Politico and others) just can't help themselves, but it is too damn early for such speculation. Biden's age and current poll numbers feed the absurdity, but for right now I will contribute to the absurd nature of a tout's favorites in 2024 sweepstakes and place my money (always a cheap bettor) on a rerun of Biden and Trump. Assuming Trump is not in jail. Of course Eugene Debs showed one can still run from behind bars. Wouldn't that be a race? A sound argument for going for a conviction on charges of insurrection and the Constitutional bar to Trump ever running again. As to Harris, my wild guess is she runs in 2028 as the incumbent President. Not a prediction of Biden's demise, but of him fulfilling his pledge to be a "transitional" President by retiring before the end of his second term. Sorry, DMC. I'll put my crystal ball away and shut up now.
  15. Lyanna is a girl of fourteen to sixteen years old when the events from the time of the Harrenhal tourney to her likely death at the Tower of Joy. She is member of an aristocratic family in which her role is rigidly defined. Yet the Lyanna we know is a young woman who rebels against that role time and time again. Think of her battle with the squires over their treatment of Howland Reed, the possibility she rides in the tourney as the Knight of the Laughing Tree, and her remarks about Robert's nature to Ned. Which is also consistent with the "wild" northern girl who rides like a centaur and trains in skills decidedly not approved by her father or much of Westerosi society. This is a portrait of a young woman fighting for her own way in her world, not just a tool of others. I call that "agency." That is even more so if, as I think is likely, Lyanna herself plays a role in her "kidnapping" or escape from an impending marriage to a man she wants no part of.
  16. While I think I agree with most of this, I think it is also worth taking a closer look at the usage of the word "kidnapping" in the Westerosi context. "Theft" might be the more appropriate term when used concerning Rhaegar's actions. Combined with "rebellion" by Lyanna and I think we get closer to the cause of the outrage that follows Rhaegar and Lyanna running off together. It not really a question of whether or not Lyanna is a victim in most people's eyes, but rather the damage done to her House, by both Lyanna and Rhaegar that is in question. The damage done to Lord Rickard's "rights," and Aerys's rights as well. Nor does Lyanna's age really much enter into it. We see many marriages by children younger than she was and no one bats an eye at them. Btw we don't know her age when the "kidnapping" takes place. Children become adults at sixteen, but they are not really free to marry whomever they wish afterwards. Perhaps in a strictly legal sense, but in every other way the custom dictates children follow the dictates of their fathers. The repercussion of not following those dictates range from Tyrion and Tysha's example at the worst, to fatherly acceptance depending on the individuals.
  17. I raised my kids on Star Wars. My adult son and I got hooked on this series from the start of season one. I'm pleased to say I think it only got better as it went along. This season's ending was great. This is how the extension of the Star Wars universe should be done. So much better than the last three movies. Now I just have to convince my daughter to give it a try.
  18. To the first bolded part, I would not call it madness. Unless you call love a form of madness. Rather I would call it desperation with little in the way of options available. I would say the same about Lyanna. She wants out of an arranged marriage for her father's political schemes and has no allies for her future outside what looks like to be her little brother. Along comes the Crown Prince who is willing to help her escape her fate. They both have their fathers against them, and running off together and hiding is the only way they can see a future that doesn't just mean following their fathers's wishes. I don't think that is madness. It is a clear eyed view of the options open to them. To the second bolded part, I think you are mistaken. Rhaegar thinks Aegon is the Prince who was promised, not a future child of Lyanna's. While Rhaegar believes he needs another child, because the dragon has three heads, he is not looking for a child with Lyanna as the heir to the throne or as the promised prince. What the role Rhaegar thought Rhaenys and Jon would play is very unclear. It is even unclear whether he thought he would have a son or a daughter with Lyanna. In fact, we don't even know if Rhaegar leaves Lyanna knowing she is pregnant. I would say Rhaegar's interest in Lyanna is much less about a future child, and much, much more about finding real love in a life in which he has so little.
  19. I've always considered the real reason Rhaenyra is not considered a Queen is simply that the politics of Westeros after the Dance was such that many of the Lords of the Realm's views on female monarchs didn't permit her inclusion as a monarch because of the rather important precedent it would set. Most of the male nobility don't want their preference for male inheritors of their power and prerogatives messed with. Can't have those scary women upsetting the "natural" order of things. Damn the reality that Rhaenyra was crowned and ruled from the Iron Throne. She can give birth to monarchs, but she can't be counted as one in her own right, or things might get out of control. Rhaenyra's descendants acquiesce to her posthumous slight is in exchange for real power.
  20. I've a question to the "completists" out there. Does anyone have a complete list of all the non-Martin story collections in which his short stories, novellas, etc. have been published? I'm particularly interested in the English language publications. The bibliography in Dreamsongs Vol.II is helpful as far as it goes, but I keep finding new anthologies that have Martin stories included in them that are not referenced there. Part of that is simply because of the publication date of Dreamsongs, but instead of trying to recreate that list myself it would be helpful to know if there is a easily accessible place for such information. Thanks Found it. All the information I needed is here
  21. You wanted a short answer, so I gave you mine. Want a discussion on the topic? Probably better to start a new thread or revive an old one than do it here.
  22. He should go to the Happy Port in Braavos. It's near the Ragman's harbor, and is just across from the Mummer's Ship. Ask for the Sailor's Wife or her daughter Lanna. Your mate might not make it out alive, but he will have his question answered.
  23. You're right that most of this is pure speculation, and as such we shouldn't put to much stock in believing one way or another. One thing we do know is that Yoren left the Wall long before Jon takes his vows. So he can't be the source of any news to Ned that Jon is a member of the Night's Watch. I don't think we have any evidence that Ned knows that fact before he dies. Which would make it extremely unlikely that his regret is because he knows he should have told him something before Jon takes his vows. Perhaps, his knowledge that Benjen is not there to stop Jon from doing so is a factor. I'd say his regrets around Jon most likely have to do with not having an opportunity to tell Jon who his mother was, and not knowing if Benjen will ever return to tell Jon in his stead. Again, the latter is based on my guess that Benjen knows that secret. That would be a reason to write a letter to Jon, but obviously the information in it might not be something he would want Varys to read. That's especially true if Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. Perhaps a message for Jon to seek out Howland Reed? Another guess. We obviously need more evidence here.
  24. Perhaps, but we don't even know if it was the plan to allow Jon to actually take the vows. Ned needed to get Jon out of Winterfell and away from the antagonism with Catelyn, and to someone he trusted as far away as he can from King's Landing. Being at the Wall with Benjen might just have been a temporary solution. Such a interpretation would mean Benjen is in on the plan. Unfortunately, Benjen goes missing, and Ned doesn't find out about until Yoren arrives in King's Landing. Or Ned just placed Jon's safety over any ephemeral claims he might have had to the Iron Throne. Doesn't mean he wouldn't have told Jon before he joins the Night's Watch, but just that he doesn't have any belief that there is a chance Jon could ever sit the Iron Throne. His promise most likely was to just keep him safe at all cost. Something we will have to wait and see if it is ever answered. One reason I think we just might see Benjen again.
  25. I would disagree. I think the larger lesson is that all perspectives and all accounts of events should be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, and bias. What Martin has done in the very structure of his novels is to give us different perspectives to view reality. If you have ever had the pleasure of seeing the classic film Rashōmon by Akira Kurosawa then you have a guide as to how to handle what is "true" and is to be "trusted." So, for instance, when we read Ned's innermost thoughts we should note that, unless Ned is delusional, those thoughts reflect his point of view of reality. Not reality itself. It is for the reader to judge what his bias does to how reality is interpreted. Yes, second hand accounts lack the perspective of someone who was on the scene. That does not mean they have no value. When we read Viserys's point of view, as told through the filter of Daenerys's memories, we need to note that Viserys was not present at the Trident, for instance, but it is very important to also note that he is likely to have been told his stories by other Targaryen partisans, including Rhaella and Ser Willem, who may well have reason to know things Viserys doesn't . The bias is important, but the stories are as well. If nothing else, Viserys's stories to his sister tell us what is likely the loyalist's view of history. Given that we get the rebel's view of history through almost everyone else's point of view it is extremely important not to just dismiss what Viserys says. So, yes, Viserys doesn't show a knowledge of the differences between Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister on the day of the sack of King's Landing, but his view, as told through Daenerys's perspective, of Rhaegar "dying for the woman he loved" tells important information that we don't get from all the rebel view points. The Targaryen story speaks of love, not of rape, brutality, and abduction in Rhaegar's motives and actions toward Lyanna. We would be foolish to dismiss that view for bias, just to accept the other biased viewpoints as told by Robert, Ned, and others. The lesson, it seems to me, is to evaluate all the evidence as distorted by perspective to some degree, and not assume bias from only one point of view.
×
×
  • Create New...