Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. A compilation of memes mostly summing up stuff that was never adressed in the last season, and a couple others
  3. Cas Stark

    Moral of each characters story?

    Honor is dumb and gets you killed: Ned, Robb, Jon Revenge is sweet: Arya, Hound, Cersei People don't change their circumstances or selves: Jamie, Cersei, Jon, Dany, Arya Become like your enemy: Sansa, Dany Obsession is bad: Dany, Hound, Tywin, Cersei There is no justice: everyone Falling up works if you're already up there: Tyrion
  4. I don't think that is the intent. But we cannot argue that the signs that Dany would end up destroying King's Landing were never given us. At this point I am left wondering if it really SHOULD have surprised any of us Ignoring the concept of abuse and its role in perceived mental illness (the flip of a coin in regards to Targaryen's going mad) Dany grew up in a world where might makes right and she had a tremendous amount of might. She also grew up in a time were mercy was seen as a sign of weakness and her showing mercy had brought tremendously bad consequences - one could argue Drogo, the Stockholm Syndrome love of her life, died because of her mercy. Her negotiations that allowed the fighting pits created an attempt on her life. Meanwhile history, as it is remembered in Westeros, notes Aegon the conqueror brought in relative stability through conquest and destruction. The only thing that seems "out of place" is the entire breaking the wheel speech she gave which was supposed to show us how far her descent into madness had gone. In her world the destruction of Kings Landing was simply an effective means of showing Westeros what would happen if they did not rise up and support her.
  5. A Horse Named Stranger

    UK Politics: The End of May

    I bet you wish.
  6. Ultimately it comes down to belief in the person, to be an effective ruler and revolutionary you need to be convinced your actions are correct. I believe Danys actions were mostly correct and worth following(not to mention the other obvious reasons to follow her). Every form of government has the flaw that who ever is running it could be wrong. You could argue the lesser each persons power the more limited in scope their influence and thus averaging out across the population. But this isn't the case in the show, the peasants are still mostly irrelevant and power limited to a few. It also supposes the majority is right which is not always the case.
  7. Ser Scot A Ellison

    Rothfuss XV: Move along, nothing to see here

    That’s interesting. So, are you saying that Kote isn’t fully Kvothe hence he seems kinder and more grounded. More thoughtful about consequences and potential fallout?
  8. Apoplexy

    Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

    And there are people who aren't abused, have power and don't misuse it (or do). Looking at a person's actions through the prism of their abuse reduces them to mere victims. We will look at everything in the show through modern eyes because the show is meant for a modern audience and not a medieval audience. And as for Jon being distraught about the destruction of KL, well yes. He killed Dany after seeing it. And people with power not caring about those that don't have power, it's not a surprise as it happens till date.
  9. The Marquis de Leech

    Scott Lynch's Thorn of Emberlain is Completed

    Lynch deserves special credit here for the fact that he's produced the work in the teeth of depression. I will be certainly buying it when it comes out. I hated Republic of Thieves. So many opportunities for real political shenanigans, gone to waste...
  10. RFL

    Moral of each characters story?

    The main character of the story, told from the POV of many characters, is the wheel itself. The moral: The wheel never fully stops turning.
  11. But isn't that the danger of what Tyrion warned about. The most dangerous people are those who are convinced they are correct. Self assurance of knowing what is best for everyone and incredible power are dangerous things. I think that is why, for instance, Brann was the worst possible choice. Not only is he incredibly self assured in his abilities apparently (and without evidence it seems) so is everyone else. Brann: We must destroy Dorne, root and stem, or war will overtake the seven kingdoms again. The small council: My Lord, Dorne is a large area and inaccessible. Even with our armies that would be nearly impossible Brann: I have found a way to raise an army of undead zombies AND I can control Drogon. We must destroy it The council: Wonderful. We are blessed to have you as our ruler. We made a great choice naming you king.
  12. CrypticWeirwood

    Moral of each characters story?

    The story of Walder Frey was really that of the Rat Cook, who because of the Red Wedding was guilty of violating guest right, the sacred laws of hospitality. The gods, angry with this terrible crime, turned him into a rat and forced him to eat his own young. If you look at how the Freys were portrayed visually, you'll see how much like rodents their faces were meant to appear. That's why this all happened.
  13. I don't think they were governed by it. There are people who are abused, have power, and don't misuse it. But to argue that the signs of Dany abusing power were not there would be mistaken. I think what we should really be discussing is how different Jon Snow was than basically all the other nobles in that he was genuinely impacted by the destruction of Kings Landing. I mean the Lannister army was burnt by the Aegon? the Conqueror. Harrenhall was burned. The iron throne that they all knelt before had been borne out of conquest and those swords were the swords of armies defeated in conflict. No Stark thrones in the throne because by the time they got to the North it was obvious they couldn't win and fighting would just rain fire and destruction down. We keep looking at the sack of Kings Landing through modern eyes and we were shown it through the eyes of the characters it impacted the most. But Arya and Jon were also the least like the rest of the nobility of the seven kingdoms. As others noted much earlier no one really cared.
  14. Apoplexy


    If there were to be a sequel (the horror!), most of them would likely marry someone for producing heirs, if nothing else. They had other pressing issues to deal with during the course of the show.
  15. I'm not debating if some would perceive her as one, I'm making the case it doesn't matter as long as her ideals were correct. This argument is even stronger when considering if it wasn't to be her it would likely be another who would be worse.
  16. But an argument of hypocrisy is a fallacy. It does not actually debate the premise that Dany was a tyrant. It simply points out many other people where. If we consider that this book was really a book about the wheel (and the wheel won) the existence of near infinite tyrants, all checked only by the extent of their power, we may have a good idea of what Martin was aiming for. But its hard to make a story with the wheel being a central character. The POV chapters would have been a bit boring Chapter one, the wheel: Rolling, with Baratheon at the top Later on, the wheel: Looks likes its going to be Stark for awhile Later on, the wheel: Wow, little bit of a curve there. Lannister Later on: Ohh, Stark is making a play Later: Back to Lannister, thought it looks like Baelish might be making a play Later: Oh, little bit of infighting. We might have to divide the Lannisters into seperate factions Later: SURPRISE COMEBACK by last milleniums champions: The TARGARYENS. Later: Oh.. that was short. Back to Stark Beginning, middle, and end: that wheel still rolls and that is the story. Just can't write the wheel directly as a protagonist or antagonist it seems.
  17. Apoplexy

    Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

    I don't think it helps to compare and contrast who suffered worse. Looking at it that way reduces Dany and Sansa to mere victims. They were more than that. All their actions do not have to be (and were not) governed by the abuse they endured.
  18. Precisely. It is lazy writing: they had been going for shock value instead of character motivations and personality. It seems obvious now that D&D had never really cared to try and understand character motivations and personalities. Stannis is portrayed as a power-hungry warlord in his quest for the Throne, when that couldn't be further from truth. Jon Snow gets portrayed as a shallow yes-man. All characters had had their personalities and motivations dumbed down. And it is not a new problem: it had been happening since Season 1, but it became much worse once show outran the books.
  19. Apoplexy

    Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

    I'm not so sure about that. Had Sansa behaved as messianic as Dany, Jon probably wouldve killed her.
  20. RFL

    Tyrion and Sansa...

    The threat of Yara to Jon Snow is virtually none. The Iron Born were probably never well received by the mainlands that they raided anyways. The Iron Born's assault on Winterfell and taking of it did not sit well with the North to begin with. Even Ramsey Bolton had no problem getting enough backing to easily overwhelm and take it. What are they going to do - attack the Nights Watch (and castle black is not on the sea - Eastwatch is) or the wildings wherever Jon decides to be at the moment? That's assuming they can even figure out where Jon is at any given time. Pretty easy to lose track of someone in Westeros. Even the Lannisters were not able to hunt down Sansa or Arya and they were pretty powerful at the time.
  21. Heartofice

    Football: pool in to the Final Spur of the season

    Yeah it’s a good point, that money will still exist somewhere and will be spent on things that give bigger clubs an edge somewhere. I do think that football is a good reflection of Capitalism in general. The free market nature of the premier league has led to a system where you get a small group of clubs dominating and using their wealth to prevent newcomers breaking them up. Only extreme incompetence can cause on club to fail long term. With not enough powerful regulation you end up with a lot of monopolies and little change.
  22. That's how rulers operate and the stronger their position the less they compromise. She may be bad at negotiation but ultimately all interactions come down to a threat of force. Would it be different if she instead asked for more knowing she would accept less?(which she already did to some extent). Ultimately anyone willing to enforce their ideals is a tyrant to someone, it says nothing if they are right or not only that it's immoral to act without a consensus which I fundamentally disagree with(and all rulers felt the same way, how many did you see asking for peasants opinions in the series?)
  23. Heartofice

    UK Politics: The End of May

    It probably has more to do with him being too divisive a figure. While he’s pretty popular with brexiteers, a lot of people are going to see a Beano looking toff with some pretty out of touch views on social issues and run screaming. I do wish people would drop this stuff about hedge funds and secret personal wealth etc, it really doesn’t look good.
  24. Aldarion

    Mourning Dany

    Precisely. One problem is that showrunners had been taking too many liberties with the show, even back when they had been following books. They had removed Aegon / Young Griff from the books, they removed many of Daenerys' more morally ambigious moments, they turned Stannis into a monster he never was while making Renly seem lot nicer. This had huge impact on how last seasons had played out. Second problem is that they had never relly understood the characters. ASoIaF is a character-driven story, it is all about characters, their actions, reactions, interactions. But showrunners never took time to understand characters. Show versions of characters are, in many cases (Jon Snow, Stannis, even Daenerys) two-dimensional, shallow carricatures of their book counterparts. It was tolerable while they had raw material to take from GRRM. Once that ran out, their approach had them listing endpoints Martin told them, and then ticking off checkboxes required to reach that endstate. But in the process, they ignored the characters, turning them from actors in a Game to merely puppets serving the plots; from plot-makers to plot-followers.
  25. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    Politics is the subtext, political revolution is not. In interviews GRRM has gone to lengths pointing out the flaws in other fantasy writers of not understanding what these societies were like. Change takes decades, maybe longer. The series so far has taken place over three years, there is not likely to be more than 5 years in the last two books. The nobles of Westeros are not going to change their stance on their society in that time. GRRM has already shown just this in Essos with Astapor reverting back to a slave city shortly after Dany has left. Obviously GRRM does not think slavery is acceptable, but he's also not whitewashing the problem by having it solved so quickly. Westeros is not changing its culture and values in the space of the series. No one is forcing you to reply. A cripple who can't have children, a cripple who is still likely to be under 15 by the end of the series, thus in need of a regent and a cripple from a different religion to the vast majority of Westeros is not going to happen. Dude, don't be that guy, making ad hominem attacks because others don't agree with you. We are allowed to disagree, no need to call people ignorant or disingenuous over it.
  1. Load more activity