Parts of the Series You Have Trouble Taking Seriously

[Miss CS]

On March 26, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Max of the Magic Friends said:

2. All of their warriors are women, as only those who give life may take it. They are the greatest warriors in the world.

- OK George, that's perfectly reasonable. I'm with you so far.

3. All of the women pierce their cheeks with rubies and their nipples with iron rings.

- Yeah, that's a little weird. But hey, strange fashion is all the rage in plenty of places in the world. I can still dig it.

4. Women are constantly bare-chested, walking around and fighting hog-wild.

- Starting to strain the mind a little bit here. I sort of imagined that the greatest warriors in the world would want to wear armor, rather than running it dirty-style. Is there something you should be telling us, George?

5. 99 percent of all men in their societies are castrated.

- Alright George, you lost me. I am lost and cannot be found. This is a bit silly.

It's in world-building like this that you really get to see which writers have thought things through and which ones are… bonkers, to say the least. You know the great thing about having male armies is men are really quite expendable to a society, but women are not. Give the quoted society one war and they may win it, but how do they plan to replenish their numbers afterwards with so many women dead? They'd be wiped out in the second war for sure.

Playing with the demographics of of medieval societies is the best way to world-build. It's a shame Martin pretty much ignored it... or perhaps never realized it to begin with. I'm a writer. I created one Viking-like society which is very violent, plus the men go on raids to kidnap foreign women and bring back as concubines (and many men die in the process). The regular population ratio because of this is about 1 man for every 3 women (75% female). At times, though, after one major war it slipped right down to 95% female. Of course, because they have the good sense to keep their women off the front lines, they just opened a can of polygyny and re-built their population in a single generation. Female-warrior societies cannot do that and would be wiped out.

As you might also imagine, a high female ratio has really cool impacts on the society, too. It's obviously a very masculine society, war-like, violent, male-dominated, but consider the majority of the manual-labor force is female, or 90% of all food is produced by women, it really changes things. You get to consider how this might impact the culture. Martin just ignored all this stuff.

It's also a stretch to understand why so many women would want to be warriors. Does Martin really think culture can influence humans so heavily? It isn't natural.

The 5th point in the quote is appalling. This is truly an age of misandry. How would the readership respond to female castration en masse, I wonder? I cannot figure why Martin chooses to be so emasculating at times.

[A_Cornered_Wolf]

23 hours ago, Winter Rose Crown said:

Fighting isn't about strength, it is about technique. Trained women absolutely can and do best men. If it were all about strength, no one would ever need to learn any skills, just go to the gym and get muscle mass. So, this post is kind of silly.

Discounting size and strength is kind of silly too.  MMA weight classes span 10 pounds per class, and 15 at the heavier classes for a reason.  I believe the expression is 'Given relative levels of training, the bigger guy is usually going to win'.

 

That being said, I think this all originated with someone having a problem with Asha at the battle outside Deepwood Motte.  My recollection is that was against mountain clan warriors.  So peasant levies.  She's nobility, which means significantly better trained, healthier (as in a lifetime of better feeding and living conditions) and almost certainly better armed.  Trained nobility defeating multiple peasant levies is realistic, and I'm fairly sure Martin even describes the guy that takes her down as being significantly bigger than her (The Wull if I'm not mistaken).  So of the things to complain about in the series, I'm not board with that one.

 

Theon taking Winterfell and the whole set up that allows it to happen, on the other hand....

[DigUpHerBones]

Quote

If I recall correctly, he once said that when he wrote AGoT, his knowledge of dwarves was limited. Hence Tyrion doing silly stunts.

pretty sure the question and info you are referring to was asked at one of the recent Cons, and that was "what are his biggest regret of the series was thus far?"

he answered something like Tyrion making his entrance/debut doing a cartwheel, and making the Valyrians look like Tolkien elves (said he should have made their skin a different color) as his experience in either was limited to previous works from other authors.

or something like that..

Quote

Discounting size and strength is kind of silly too.  MMA weight classes span 10 pounds per class, and 15 at the heavier classes for a reason.  I believe the expression is 'Given relative levels of training, the bigger guy is usually going to win'.

bravo!

all anyone needs to do is look at the McGregor (technique) vs Diaz (size advantage) fight.

[Miss CS]

12 hours ago, A_Cornered_Wolf said:

I believe the expression is 'Given relative levels of training, the bigger guy is usually going to win'.

More like, all else being equal, the stronger guy always wins. Yeah.

[Winter Rose Crown]

All else isn't always equal in a battle. Almost never is, actually. Strength is only 1 of many, many factors. So saying women who fight men will end up "in a puddle of blood" is silly. Plenty of women can and do best men regardless of strength.

 

That was my point.

[Miss CS]

On April 13, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Winter Rose Crown said:

Fighting isn't about strength, it is about technique. Trained women absolutely can and do best men. If it were all about strength, no one would ever need to learn any skills, just go to the gym and get muscle mass. So, this post is kind of silly.

Do you care to back up that claim that trained women can and do best men? Because I've absolutely never seen it. Sure, there's going to be a female out there who can beat some men, but only small, weak, pathetic men who are completely untrained. The problem with Asha Grayjoy is, whilst a woman can realistically beat some men, she's going up against professional soldiers - alpha males. There's no way she'd still be alive. You don't find weaklings on a battlefield unless they're conscripts, and certainly not amongst Stannis's veterans or such. So, whilst some women can beat some men, they're still useless on the battle-field because the men fighting wars aren't those men...

Fighting is fully about strength, too. It's a very physical thing… haven't you noticed that part? I'm guessing you've never been in a proper fight or something. It was even more physical in the medieval times. Are you aware how much armor weighs? Do you know how taxing it is walking around in metal clothing, let alone fighting in it?! How do you propose to put an axe through a man's breastplate if you're not strong? Things like that. Yet all forms of striking and grappling rely on strength. Speed is also only possible with great strength, and stronger men are faster. Go look at the muscles on Olympic sprinters.

Modern media is full of feminist fantasy. Looking for real-life proof of women fighting men will shatter the delusion. Also bear in mind that females using steroids are injecting male hormones and are technically partially transsexual because of this - they don't represent what females are actually capable of (nor do roided men represent men, for that matter), even less so in a medieval pre-steroid environments.

There's a basic biological point that explains why this is true. It should be obvious, but… women are egg carries and control human reproduction because of this. Men have to be selected by females - absent of rape, of course - otherwise they don't reproduce. Due to this, the reproduction pressures on men are staggering in comparison to women. Most men fail to reproduce. Most children are sired by just 40% of men, compared to 80% of women. Male-male competition has subsequently forced men to evolve in a different direction than women, which is obvious in sex differences. Men have evolved to be better fighters, because their reproductive success depended on out-doing their rivals, often in combat, but men were also more relied on as hunters and such, or for any physical labor. Females are also attracted to physically imposing men - alpha males, good fighters, so on. Females having been choosing alpha males as preferred mates since before we were even homosapiens sapiens. The result is there to see for anybody who opens their eyes and looks at it.

[Winter Rose Crown]

12 minutes ago, Miss CS said:

Do you care to back up that claim that trained women can and do best men? Because I've absolutely never seen it. Sure, there's going to be a female out there who can beat some men, but only small, weak, pathetic men who are completely untrained. The problem with Asha Grayjoy is, whilst a woman can realistically beat some men, she's going up against professional soldiers - alpha males. There's no way she'd still be alive. You don't find weaklings on a battlefield unless they're conscripts, and certainly not amongst Stannis's veterans or such. So, whilst some women can beat some men, they're still useless on the battle-field because the men fighting wars aren't those men...

Fighting is fully about strength, too. It's a very physical thing… haven't you noticed that part? I'm guessing you've never been in a proper fight or something. It was even more physical in the medieval times. Are you aware how much armor weighs? Do you know how taxing it is walking around in metal clothing, let alone fighting in it?! How do you propose to put an axe through a man's breastplate if you're not strong? Things like that. Yet all forms of striking and grappling rely on strength. Speed is also only possible with great strength, and stronger men are faster. Go look at the muscles on Olympic sprinters.

Modern media is full of feminist fantasy. Looking for real-life proof of women fighting men will shatter the delusion. Also bear in mind that females using steroids are injecting male hormones and are technically partially transsexual because of this - they don't represent what females are actually capable of (nor do roided men represent men, for that matter), even less so in a medieval pre-steroid environments.

There's a basic biological point that explains why this is true. It should be obvious, but… women are egg carries and control human reproduction because of this. Men have to be selected by females - absent of rape, of course - otherwise they don't reproduce. Due to this, the reproduction pressures on men are staggering in comparison to women. Most men fail to reproduce. Most children are sired by just 40% of men, compared to 80% of women. Male-male competition has subsequently forced men to evolve in a different direction than women, which is obvious in sex differences. Men have evolved to be better fighters, because their reproductive success depended on out-doing their rivals, often in combat, but men were also more relied on as hunters and such, or for any physical labor. Females are also attracted to physically imposing men - alpha males, good fighters, so on. Females having been choosing alpha males as preferred mates since before we were even homosapiens sapiens. The result is there to see for anybody who opens their eyes and looks at it.

http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Wat-Meme-Tumblr-04.jpg

[Miss CS]

Ugh. Well done.

[Winter Rose Crown]

Sorry, don't know how to respond to that. It was too full of sexist crazy.

[Ser Gareth]

7 hours ago, 239JMFL34109 said:

When and what convinced them? the two other castles didn't see the dead body attack anyone, right? how many survivors were from the ranging made it back? How many ran away and if caught you would hear a crazy story about zombies? does mance rayder attacking prove the others are coming? does some king showing up to take down the wilding prove it? they probably been hearing stories from runaways for thousands of years about the others and they didn't believe in them at the beginning of the books. Now finally they hearing from wildling joining the watch about the others but how many think they are just foolish barbarian's beliefs? some people were saying rob was turning into a giant wolf to kill people during his war?. How many people believe that? should they have? 

Jon has got people in the watch who want to make the wilding defend on the other side of the wall which is SUPER dumb cause they would just be killed without being able to do anything. But hey send them to the other side cause i don't like them or believe them. 

But do you have proof from the books that the Night's Watch are sceptical that their Brother's are telling the truth?  Or is this just your theory?  What about those that haven't seen the Giants, Mammoth's etc.?  Do you think they believe their Brother's are lying about that too?

And are you saying that Bowen Marsh and Thorne don't believe in the stories?

[Miss CS]

11 hours ago, Winter Rose Crown said:

Sorry, don't know how to respond to that. It was too full of sexist crazy.

Pointing out facts isn't sexism. I'm not voicing an opinion, I'm stating the truth. Women cannot fight near as well as men, and that's largely because men have evolved to fight well whereas women have not, and that's just the plain obvious reality we live in. Open your damn eyes. You know full well you've never seen a woman thoroughly kick ass in real life. You're only lying to yourself, but it isn't helpful for everybody… not that my arguing against it will change anything! But whatever. The world is dumb and doomed to an eternity of stupidity.

[Tanngrisnir]

1 hour ago, Miss CS said:

Do you care to back up that claim that trained women can and do best men? Because I've absolutely never seen it. Sure, there's going to be a female out there who can beat some men, but only small, weak, pathetic men who are completely untrained. The problem with Asha Grayjoy is, whilst a woman can realistically beat some men, she's going up against professional soldiers - alpha males. There's no way she'd still be alive. You don't find weaklings on a battlefield unless they're conscripts, and certainly not amongst Stannis's veterans or such. So, whilst some women can beat some men, they're still useless on the battle-field because the men fighting wars aren't those men...

Fighting is fully about strength, too. It's a very physical thing… haven't you noticed that part? I'm guessing you've never been in a proper fight or something. It was even more physical in the medieval times. Are you aware how much armor weighs? Do you know how taxing it is walking around in metal clothing, let alone fighting in it?! How do you propose to put an axe through a man's breastplate if you're not strong? Things like that. Yet all forms of striking and grappling rely on strength. Speed is also only possible with great strength, and stronger men are faster. Go look at the muscles on Olympic sprinters.

Modern media is full of feminist fantasy. Looking for real-life proof of women fighting men will shatter the delusion. Also bear in mind that females using steroids are injecting male hormones and are technically partially transsexual because of this - they don't represent what females are actually capable of (nor do roided men represent men, for that matter), even less so in a medieval pre-steroid environments.

There's a basic biological point that explains why this is true. It should be obvious, but… women are egg carries and control human reproduction because of this. Men have to be selected by females - absent of rape, of course - otherwise they don't reproduce. Due to this, the reproduction pressures on men are staggering in comparison to women. Most men fail to reproduce. Most children are sired by just 40% of men, compared to 80% of women. Male-male competition has subsequently forced men to evolve in a different direction than women, which is obvious in sex differences. Men have evolved to be better fighters, because their reproductive success depended on out-doing their rivals, often in combat, but men were also more relied on as hunters and such, or for any physical labor. Females are also attracted to physically imposing men - alpha males, good fighters, so on. Females having been choosing alpha males as preferred mates since before we were even homosapiens sapiens. The result is there to see for anybody who opens their eyes and looks at it.

Of course you have never seen a battle with medieval weaponry between men and women fought to the death where a woman defeats a man. Where would you?

I find it very offensive that you call men that are not good at fighting weaklings and pathetic. 

For one thing, not all men on a battlefield would by hardy fighters. Many of them are just peasants that are drafted in case of a conflict. They often are neither well trained, nor well nourished and quite a few of them would not have good armour or weapons. 

Second, there is archeaological evidence that female fighters existed in quite a few old cultures. There were quite a few female viking skeletons excavated that were buried with weapons and where the bones showed  attrition that is typically found on warrior skeletons. Also, some of these women died at an old age, wich might mean, that they survived numeral battles. 
 

 

[Miss CS]

11 hours ago, Tanngrisnir said:

Of course you have never seen a battle with medieval weaponry between men and women fought to the death where a woman defeats a man. Where would you?

I find it very offensive that you call men that are not good at fighting weaklings and pathetic. 

For one thing, not all men on a battlefield would by hardy fighters. Many of them are just peasants that are drafted in case of a conflict. They often are neither well trained, nor well nourished and quite a few of them would not have good armour or weapons. 

Second, there is archeaological evidence that female fighters existed in quite a few old cultures. There were quite a few female viking skeletons excavated that were buried with weapons and where the bones showed  attrition that is typically found on warrior skeletons. Also, some of these women died at an old age, wich might mean, that they survived numeral battles.

I'm not just talking about medieval combat - there's no modern women fighting men and truly kicking ass, is there? I mean, this thing - a female fighter beating men - it doesn't even exist. Why should I believe in something I've never seen just because you say it's real? You have to prove it's real.

Some armies were conscripted, some were standing or volunteer. It's inconsequential. Try conscripting women and you're certain to lose your battle.

There's no credible evidence that female warriors really existed in old societies, either. I have looked into this. I've researched shield-maidens and such. If such a warrior ever existed, it was a scarce thing. If it happened in an organized fashion, it would've been better documented; and the supposed existence of such warriors doesn't explain how women are actually capable of fighting men in the first place, which with what we can tell from modern times doesn't appear realistically possible unless you do something like get a well above average woman fighting a way below average man.

Being buried with weapons doesn't mean anything, either. I recall a little Indian girl was exhumed armed to the teeth with obsidian weaponry. She was about 5. I somehow doubt she was a warrior. Perhaps her da was already dead and she was meant to give the weapons to him in the after-life? It could mean anything.

Sorry if I offended you by saying incapable men are pathetic, but. I do have a thing for masculine, virile men, so I might have a bit of prejudice there. Not to mind.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

9 minutes ago, Miss CS said:

I'm not just talking about medieval combat - there's no modern women fighting men and truly kicking ass, is there? I mean, this thing - a female fighter beating men - it doesn't even exist. Why should I believe in something I've never seen just because you say it's real? You have to prove it's real.

Some armies were conscripted, some were standing or volunteer. It's inconsequential. Try conscripting women and you're certain to lose your battle.

There's no credible evidence that female warriors really existed or contributed in old societies, either. I have looked into this. I've researched shield-maidens and such. If such a warrior ever existed, it was a scarce thing. If it happened in an organized fashion, it would've been better documented; and the supposed existence of such warriors doesn't explain how women are actually capable of fighting men in the first place, which with what we can tell from modern times doesn't appear realistically possible unless you do something like get a well above average woman fighting a way below average man.

Being buried with weapons doesn't mean anything, either. I recall a little Indian girl was exhumed armed to the teeth obsidian weaponry. She was about 5. I somehow doubt she was a warrior. Perhaps her da was already dead and she was meant to give the weapons to him in the after-life? It could mean anything.

Sorry if I offended you by saying incapable men are pathetic, but. I do have a thing for masculine, virile men, so I might have a bit of prejudice there. Not to mind.

The shield maiden stuff is debatable. I don't think there have been any studies on the bones of the women found buried with swords and spears to determine if they had marks or injuries caused by weapons.

But yeah, if they did exist they were probably quite rare. Otherwise they really ought to have been mentioned in the records of the various Christian kingdoms that were attacked, considering their views on the role of women in society. 

[Tanngrisnir]

2 minutes ago, Miss CS said:

I'm not just talking about medieval combat - there's no modern women fighting men and truly kicking ass, is there? I mean, this thing - a female fighter beating men - it doesn't even exist. Why should I believe in something I've never seen just because you say it's real? You have to prove it's real.

Some armies were conscripted, some were standing or volunteer. It's inconsequential. Try conscripting women and you're certain to lose your battle.

There's no credible evidence that female warriors really existed or contributed in old societies, either. I have looked into this. I've researched shield-maidens and such. If such a warrior ever existed, it was a scarce thing. If it happened in an organized fashion, it would've been better documented; and the supposed existence of such warriors doesn't explain how women are actually capable of fighting men in the first place, which with what we can tell from modern times doesn't appear realistically possible unless you do something like get a well above average woman fighting a way below average man.

Being buried with weapons doesn't mean anything, either. I recall a little Indian girl was exhumed armed to the teeth obsidian weaponry. She was about 5. I somehow doubt she was a warrior. Perhaps her da was already dead and she was meant to give the weapons to him in the after-life? It could mean anything.

Sorry if I offended you by saying incapable men are pathetic, but. I do have a thing for masculine, virile men, so I might have a bit of prejudice there. Not to mind.

As I pointed out in my post before, these women were not only found with weapons, but their bones showed evidence that they actually wielded them, which means that they must at least have trained with them. I can not now remember if those same bones also showed injuries that would point to them actually beeing in battles. 

LOL, how can I prove that women in viking societies actually faught in real battles? This is impossible, one can only point at findings and say that it is at least possible or likely that something like this happend. 

I'm not arguing that it happened in an organized fashion or that it was a common thing. We are talking about the likelyhood of one single woman like Asha actually existing. According to these archeological findings it is at least possible, maybe not very likely but possible. 

Sorry, but it offends me if iyou say that a man that is not physically very strong is incapable. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

38 minutes ago, Tanngrisnir said:

As I pointed out in my post before, these women were not only found with weapons, but their bones showed evidence that they actually wielded them, which means that they must at least have trained with them. I can not now remember if those same bones also showed injuries that would point to them actually beeing in battles. 

LOL, how can I prove that women in viking societies actually faught in real battles? This is impossible, one can only point at findings and say that it is at least possible or likely that something like this happend. 

I'm not arguing that it happened in an organized fashion or that it was a common thing. We are talking about the likelyhood of one single woman like Asha actually existing. According to these archeological findings it is at least possible, maybe not very likely but possible. 

Sorry, but it offends me if iyou say that a man that is not physically very strong is incapable. 

Source on the bolded part? 

Anyway the big issue here is not the Iron Islands or Westeros, since female warriors there are exceptional individuals that are few and far between which is likely how it was if they existed in real life. The Dornish/Rhoynar on the other hand, along with a number of other peoples listed in the World Book, are stated to have large parts of their armies made up of them. Which comes off as pretty unrealistic. 

[Miss CS]

11 hours ago, Tanngrisnir said:

As I pointed out in my post before, these women were not only found with weapons, but their bones showed evidence that they actually wielded them, which means that they must at least have trained with them. I can not now remember if those same bones also showed injuries that would point to them actually beeing in battles. 

LOL, how can I prove that women in viking societies actually faught in real battles? This is impossible, one can only point at findings and say that it is at least possible or likely that something like this happend. 

I'm not arguing that it happened in an organized fashion or that it was a common thing. We are talking about the likelyhood of one single woman like Asha actually existing. According to these archeological findings it is at least possible, maybe not very likely but possible. 

Sorry, but it offends me if iyou say that a man that is not physically very strong is incapable. 

How do bones show evidence that a person partook in combat?! Seriously. Wouldn't any physical stress evident in the bones likely just be caused by manual labor? If a person had a wound, like a cleft likely caused by sword or axe, then it'd still be difficult to asses. A woman might've just been slaughtered when her village was raided. If the wound had healed, it's also sort of difficult. I mean, maybe she just mis-swung her axe when splitting firewood, or such?

I could agree that Asha is possible, but still very limited. I mean, in a scrap or such, yeah, she could be quick with her hands and axe and kill quite a few men that way. Yet in a proper duel, if she had to fight a trained soldier in his armor with a sword and shield and even if he was only an average man, she'd be toast.

I do like female warrior-types and I'm in love with shield-maiden fantasy - I'm writing my own novel where the protagonist is a shield-maiden, but my take on it is her goal is to survive war (which means fleeing and hiding during battles), but she's still uber hard-core with her hunting knife and spear. Martin, though, just sort of treats men and women as physical equals. It's almost as if the only thing holding women back is choice, which really bugs me. He's not a very athletic man, though. He appears to have bought the technique can overcome strength misconception - something that might be true, but fails to absorb the reality that strong, athletic men usually have awesome technique, too, plus all their strength to boot, and even huge guys like Gregor Clegane train hard technique. When writers rely on anything but first-hand experience, mistakes get made. Martin isn't a fighter nor athlete, so you can't really blame him for unrealistic combat.

Oh, and you cannot prove everything that did happen, but it's fair to say that when concrete evidence for something doesn't exist, such as shield-maidens, and the existence of shield-maidens as popularized is unlikely due to what we know about the differences in male-female combat ability in modern times, then they just probably didn't exist.

[The Drunkard]

15 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

But that's my point.  The messages wouldn't be vague.  Aemon would have been responsible for sending the messages out once the threat was known.  The messages would be very specific.

And whilst the Night's Watch may be regarded as a bit of a joke I still highly doubt EVERYONE in the realm would simply laugh them off and ignore repeated warnings from them.

I don't think Aemon's ravens mentioned the Others. I did a quick look and found this:

Maester Aemon had sent a lot of birds . . . not to one king, but to four. Wildlings at the gate, the message ran. The realm in danger. Send all the help you can to Castle Black. Even as far as Oldtown and the Citadel the ravens flew, and to half a hundred mighty lords in their castles. The northern lords offered their best hope, so to them Aemon had sent two birds. To the Umbers and the Boltons, to Castle Cerwyn and Torrhen's Square, Karhold and Deepwood Motte, to Bear Island, Oldcastle, Widow's Watch, White Harbor, Barrowton, and the Rills, to the mountain fastnesses of the Liddles, the Burleys, the Norreys, the Harclays, and the Wulls, the black birds brought their plea. Wildlings at the gate. The north in danger. Come with all your strength.

And this is the first part of what's in the letter Davos reads to Stannis:

To the five kings. The King beyond the Wall comes south. He leads a vast host of wildlings. Lord Mormont sent a raven from the Haunted Forest. He is under attack. Other birds have come since, with no words. We fear Mormont slain with all his strength. 

We don't see the end of it, but Alester reacts as if it only mentioned the wildlings, as does the Small Council when Varys brings up the letters.

I would guess that Aemon only mentioned the wildlings because they were the most pressing threat and adding in stuff about mythological demons would only muddy the waters, and at the time they weren't particularly clear on what had happened at the Fist. 

[Tytus33]

On 4/11/2016 at 6:27 AM, Alaynsa Starne said:

Inter-kingdom roads?

And I find the Greyjoys to be unbelievably preposterous. There's a lot of things about this series that are unrealistic and quirky and too weird to be believed, but that's ok because it's fantasy. Well, Balon Greyjoy was one fucking step too far. 

Could you elaborate on both points (Balon and GJ in general)? I find your statement intriguing.

[Miss CS]

11 hours ago, Tytus33 said:

Could you elaborate on both points (Balon and GJ in general)? I find your statement intriguing.

I find his statement silly. Balon Greyjoy unrealistic? Hm. Well, I'd like to hear why, too, I suppose. Yet I don't think he's unrealistic… just a massive douche-bag. His treatment of Theon was really low, especially when he was the one to blame for losing the boy in the first place. Whatever came of Theon's decade with the Starks, Balon needed to take responsibility for it.

Anyhow, the seasons are unrealistic, no? LOL

Oh, and the Wall. Ice is technically fluid - it does move, and glaciers are just slow-moving rivers - so the Wall would buckle and tumble within months. They'd need iron rods inside the ice to hold it up, but there's no mention of anything like that; and also if they were there they would've rusted through by now (so they're not there, obviously).