Fishslap

In a sense you could say that Rollo died I suppose. At least the one who was Ragnar's brother. Well this is the wrong show for them then. Just the fact that Lindisfarne was attacked in 793 and the siege of Paris took place in 845 should have driven purists away a long time ago. Unless of course we pretend that Ragnar and Rollo were in their late 60s while attacking Paris. Well there is also of course the historical fact that Rollo, or Gange-Rolf as he became known, was effectively the first Duke of Normandy and that his great great great grandson was William the Conqueror. Rollo had to win the battle so he could reproduce at least.

No obviously Jon is weak. But that's the point I was trying to make: It's fine for male characters to be weak you see. It's fine for them to be anything, which is perhaps why 99,99% of all rapists, serial killers, murderers and child abusers in TV entertainment are men. Whatever you want to write as an author you can always trust a male character to be depraved enough to do it, and no one will think it weird or inappropriate. I almost wish Martin had written Ramsay as a female character just to challenge this stale stuff. The problem comes when it is forbidden to make a female character weak, or really to have negative qualities at all, because it upsets people. I'm speaking generally of course, and this isn't the case on GoT or I wouldn't be watching it. But this is really what bothers me with a lot of TV these days, which is why I watch very little TV. If you write a female child abuser it becomes sensitive almost automatically so writers apparently shy away from it. What I want, as someone who is genuinely interested in story telling rather than people's genitals, is for female characters to have a much wider range of behaviors and qualities than either strong or unacceptable and male chauvinist, gender stereotype-reinforcing yada yada, which seems to be the only two available categories presently. Insisting that they must be strong is therefore the opposite of facilitating good female characters to me. I think what needs to happen is that people have to take the good with the bad. If feminists want strong, invincible female characters then they must also accept female child abusers, female sadists, female cowards and female idiots. You can't have one without the other without it becoming very boring very quickly. But you said it better than I have above anyway. Any character needs to be more complex for a story to be gripping: weak at times, strong at times etc, while having a core personality, or at least appearance/function, to give it a sense of direction..And that needs to apply regardless of gender is all I'm saying. So to me both the Mountain and Brienne could be off the show and I would be very happy about it. I consider them the two most one dimensional characters on GoT by quite a margin.

Well quite, and no I don't find strong women boring, although what makes someone strong, regardless of genitals, can be debated. What I find boring is to misguidedly force strong female characters into stories just cuz feminism, because it makes all the female characters one dimensional. I feel I was very clear about this above so please stop projecting things on me. As I said, it's like demanding that all male characters in a story be sly, sadistic, effeminate, stupid, weak etc. And no one would read such a story because it would have one dimensional characters. If it's a natural part of the story for a woman to be strong then it's fine. It is with Cercei but it's certainly not with Brienne, who has been turned into a caricature.

It's not a big deal historically and anecdotes tend to be skipped by serious historians these days, which is of course why they are so insufferably dull and boring. But on Wikipedia's page for the Battle of Falkirk it says "the knights were ordered to retreat and the longbowmen brought forward". This is allegedly when Ol' Ed simply had them fire into everyone indiscriminately. I must confess that my non-Gibson source for that is from a contemporary historian who wrote about the battle afterwards, and I can't find it right now, or indeed remember his name. Regardless, some people hated him and some people loved him so that needs to be taken into account with things like this. You never really know what is true and not in history when it comes to details like this because people lie and propagandize and they always have. All we really know is that he won the battle and that some people died fighting over a field. If he had lost I wouldn't be surprised if the stories about him had been even worse than they are now. But if you press me I will give you the point. Like I said though, it might not be a huge deal whether he actually said it or did it. Far worse has been done than shooting down a few of your own men in a battle. In general though, militarily it is what is known as a gambit and is very common. It works in chess too. Some forces are sacrificed to draw the enemy out of a favorable position, to confuse him or make him chase. One might argue than Ramsay did all three, and would have succeeded if not for LF and Sansa. In all such cases the losses are deemed acceptable as long as the enemy is hurt more by it than you are. This is basically what Churchill's various early continental landings were in WWII. For example, by throwing thousands of Canadians into the fire at Dieppe the Germans were successfully misled regarding the planned actual landing site for the allied invasion in Normandy. Like I said, it looks bad on TV but it's very common. There might be a reason why Hollywood has shied away from Dieppe as it makes for a very uninspiring tale. And it is so common that it might be the reason why historians usually skip even mentioning it. So it seems safest to blame Hollywood, as it usually does in my experience. You almost never see friendly fire in Hollywood movies, but it is a major source of casualties in any war, whether it is intentional or not. Regarding Gibson though he mangles the source material deliberately in order to make people realize that he is being allegorical, which is a point his many, and loud, critics, seem to have missed entirely. He's not really, or at least not primarily, talking about Wallace, Christ and the Mayans but about political power and oligarchy vs freedom and truth. To inform us of this he blends Aztec and Mayan culture and places it in the wrong time period, focuses more on the truth telling of Christ than his divinity and turns Wallace into a cartoon character. He's trying to be helpful with this but apparently he's still too subtle for some people. I mention this just in case this is another Gibson bashing intro. I'm not his greatest fan but the dude knows how to tell a story as more than a simple narrative. And I respect that.

They made it pretty clear early on that he is obsessed only with power. And whether she likes it or not, he has now saved Sansa with the forces he controls, not she. People who are backing Sansa in a confrontation with LF are in for a rude awakening I believe. Wiser she may be but she has little to no real power as long as LF controls the Vale, which he does. Maybe she can change that but it doesn't seem very probable to me based on everything that has happened. He's supposed to be a master schemer. it would be awful writing to have a master schemer outschemed by a girl.

There's always a way. If everyone else is dead, who will stop him? The Lannisters are down to Mr and Mrs Incest and their soon to be dead son, the Baratheons are already extinct, excepting Robert's bastards, and the Starks are down to two girls, a cripple and an undead bastard, neither of whom seems very likely to rule anything for long. Anyway, I never said he'd sit there long. It's just that you need a villain on the throne when Daenerys arrives in KL. Otherwise you'll have her killing Tommen, who is after all an innocent in all this and fairly likable compared to most of the rest of the cast. Clearly it can not be Dany vs Tommen. That's like Stalin vs Dan Quayle.

It's what's known as a historical anecdote I believe, and is based on accounts from that battle. Obviously though there weren't any microphones present to record him saying it, so it's not like there's iron clad evidence. But as far as I know Braveheart lifted that quote from real life. And it's beyond question that he did in fact order his archers to fire into a melee at least once,. It was one of the things he became so infamous for in Britain even while he was still alive.

Well, it depends on what he wanted, which I'm pretty sure is the throne. The question now is who will sit on that when Daenerys finally manages to find a boat, and my money is on LF. Unless the show has a complete change of character I rather suspect that Sansa will be dead before that happens. Then you'll have Mr Doofus in the north and the Mother of Titles in the south against the loyalists in the middle perhaps. And since he's probably her nephew anyway they can then marry in violation of the laws of nature and fight the walkers together. The end! Needless to say I'm approaching the moment when I will start cheering for the walkers. I can smell the perverse happy ending coming here.

I keep telling you you're underestimating LF. This has been his war from the start; the Lannisters, Starks and Baratheons just puppets on his strings since season one.

This is based on Edward Longshanks in his war against Scotland. He ordered his archers to fire volleys into the melee then and when someone pointed out that they would hit their own men he supposedly said "Yes, but we'll hit theirs as well." It looks bad on TV obviously but it wasn't unheard of in Medieval warfare.

But season one wasn't an adaptation. It was almost word for word like the book it was based on. If you have seen the TV show season 1, reading book 1 would be the most boring activity ever, because nearly everything is the same. GoT only became an adaptation later when they decided to make some warped feminist statement with Brienne, and even that didn't derail until after she got Jaime to KL. But the rest of the show quickly deteriorated after that decision: dead Stannis killed by someone who should be dead, Sansa marrying Bolton to make another feminist statement, no Stoneheart and Berric still alive instead, Dorne a very embarrassing sideshow, Blackfish killed off when we know he's alive and so on.. Once you've taken a dump on the story you're telling it gets easier to do it again, and in worse ways. I'm not going to apologize for not liking it. And it started with Brienne. I mean back to the Incredible Feminist Hulk: Jaime is most definitely not in love with her in the books. He simply pities her and probably admires her honor while at the same time finding it utterly contemptible. The whole waving at each other thing was like the last scene in ET here.

Corrupt people like Pycelle, Cercei and Tywin Lannister have been saying that, which was the point Tommen made. It's bad enough that we have to suffer with Zombie Greg now if people can't counter Cercei's cheating by banning trial by combat.

Personally I have stopped expecting adherence to the books the show claims to be based on. And of all the warped caricatures available on this decomposing TV show you can't get worse than Super-Brienne; the magical woman who has no weaknesses of any kind, quite unlike Brienne in the books. I'm still waiting for her to have half her face bitten off before she and Pod are hanged, so naturally I wasn't expecting much when it came to offing Blackfish. Why not have him run over by a lorry while we're at it? Never mind that they have no cars, who cares about plot !?! Oh well, I'm sure that was just an accident when the author wrote all those things in the books. Let's just up and make Brienne like the Invincible Hulk why not! I DEMAND GREEN PAINT FOR BRIENNE! sigh...

Right. Well some of these fateful episodes are painfully obvious, and if we are confused it's simply because we haven't figured out the purpose of a character. Personally I was stunned when Sean Bean was offed in season 1, not having ready the books at that point and believing him to be the main character of the show. But I realize now that he died simply because he was done as a literary character. Through his oafish stupidity and honesty he helped cause the war and nearly destroy his own family and country. There was really nothing more he could do at this point, short of telling Jon about his heritage. But if he had done that Jon Snow would not have gone to the wall and might even have claimed the Iron Throne, making him what Robb became and then some; and probably just as dead. Jon's ignorance was essential to the entire story at the Wall, so Ned really was done even though he took that secret with him to the grave. And Stannis is basically the same, as unhappy as I was about his final scene. He had burned his followers, lost a major battle due to his own pride and finally burned his own daughter so his army deserted him and his wife hanged herself. It is not possible to be more done as a literary character than Stannis was, so you kill him off. As for the obvious things, as soon as Mel was moved along with Stannis to the wall I knew that someone would die and be resurrected by her. What else was the Beric Dondarrion episode in season 2 about, if not to foreshadow this? First I though it might be Stannis who was brought back, but as season 5 unfolded I became more and more convinced it would be Jon, which it was. And this was completely predictable right away with Mel at the Wall. And the Hound now is the same thing. The only two obvious things about him are that he will kill the Mountain, now as a champion of the Sparrows and the Seven, and that he will be burned to death, probably by the fire people or even dragons. There is too much buildup of both things, not just on the show but in the books, for this to not take place in some way. The only question is how they take place.

This is literature, not reality, just in case there's any confusion. The reason Oberyn failed is that the Hound is the one who kills the Mountain in this work of fiction. I repeat that point just so it's nice and clear.

This is on the TV show though. Book Sansa was not the slightest bit nice to Tyrion.

I have thought that the Hound was alive all along because he's not done. He has to kill the Mountain. The Brotherhood are following the Lord of Light, so consequently the Septon who was hanged in this episode was considered a heretic for worshiping the Seven. They were not "free folk" but essentially Sparrows building a congregation. There are three religions and two groups of intolerant religious fanatics here, the Sparrows in KL and the Brotherhood and the red priests in the Riverlands and on the Wall.. Anyway I expect that the Hound will now show up and fight his brother in Cercei's trial by combat, as the champion of the Seven. He has obviously found God in some way here and is no longer the same guy. This sets him up nicely for being burned at the stake by the red priests of course, which is cruel but makes sense literary. The only thing he's afraid of is fire, so obviously that's how he will die.

Everything of importance this character has done so far wouldn't fill half an episode. I'm so tired of her not-Mongolian rants that I very nearly skip over her scenes now. Nothing remotely interesting has really happened on the eastern continent since she hatched the eggs, and obviously nothing will until she gets to Westeros. If Martin had known how this part of the TV show would end up I feel pretty sure he would have kept Viserys alive, just to give Daenerys some meaningful antagonist, which she really hasn't had since he was killed off. For two and a half seasons we've had spoiled, entitled girl with white hair vs amorphous social institution. It's just never going to work on TV. Hell it barely works in the books.

I like the HS. He's the long overdue reaction to all the filth that has been going on for five seasons and change. As for zealotry, isn't it just as much zealotry to insist that everyone likes the same things as you do? Aristotle once wrote that tolerance was the death of culture, meaning that a loss of moral guidelines leads to weakness, decadence and collapse. History seems to be more on his side than yours I think.

So the same people who said when asked last year that Jon Snow was not going to be resurrected told you so and you believe it? They are not going to spill the beans on upcoming episodes and plot developments now either, and we therefore have to rely on the large, glandular organ between our ears.

It's always hard to move something from one medium to another though. Sansa is supposed to be like...13 at this point. Meanwhile Sophie Turner is 20 and about 6'3. So it all felt a little weird when this huge woman was acting like a little girl in season 1 and 2. And it feels weird whenever you accidentally remember the age of the character that a 13 year old girl is acting like a grown woman. Turner really can't win here between the book readers and the people who compulsively pay attention to detail. It's just all off somehow, whichever angle you approach it from. Personally I am taking the same approach I tried to take with the Lord of the Rings movies. Just close my eyes and hope they don't give Orlando Bloom more dialogue than absolutely necessary. I really liked Legolas and the elves in the books, but waited in vain for six movies for him to die to a stray arrow when he was moved on screen. All those orcs and not one of them managed to hit him... Anyway, and if possible, just forget you ever read the books while watching the show. If you can do that it is possible to enjoy GoT I find. To me personally it is a great help that nothing has thus far been bungled as badly as Parth Galen was bungled by Peter Jackson. Compared to that, all is well with the world.

No that's true. But sociopaths often simulate emotions, and they do often believe in these simulations. And I'm not so sure LF actually is a sociopath so much as he is driven by vengeance. His affection and empathy was killed along with his attempt to marry Kat and now he hates the world. The only thing left for him is power. Anyway, whether his emotions are real or not, loving Kat and hating the Starks is his self-narrative and what motivates him. LF's relationship with Sansa can't be understood in a vaccum here, not least because this is fiction. And his motives have been spelled out in detail throughout the show so you'd think the writers would stick to that. To him Sansa is Kat. Or rather, he hopes, the woman Kat would have been if she had never married Ned and become a Stark. If she becomes something else, Sansa will be just one more enemy to be destroyed I think. And a Stark enemy at that.

His main motivation is hatred of the Starks though. The only way his recent actions make sense to me is if sending Sansa to Ramsay was his reenactment of Kat's wedding to the hated Ned; a young Riverlands girl sent to languish with the smelly barbarians. He may have wanted to make her hate Winterfell, the north, her own Stark heritage and to see her father, the Lord of Winterfell, in Ramsay. The more sadistic and reprobate Ramsay behaved towards her, therefore, the better. Then he can "rescue" her from "Ned" and she can become the Tully princess LF has been longing for his whole life. His lifelong love for Kat will then be vindicated by Sansa's hatred of the north, and obviously he can then also use her to control the north, which he has to if he wants to rule Westeros. If she rebels against his manipulation and becomes his enemy though he will destroy her, which is the silent threat from him during their encounter in episode 5. He has the only intact army in Westeros under his command and can back Sansa against Ramsay or the other way round, as he sees fit. If she chooses to be a Stark that is precisely what I think he will do. He hates the Starks, including her if she makes the wrong choice. Everything LF does is subtle on this show. Blink and you miss it.

It's a misleading show is the thing. It wants you to invest in characters that are, obviously, doomed because of the WWs and the Layer of Eggs. Nothing in Westeros is as it seems and nothing really matters, regardless of who comes out on top. Despite this, most of the story has been set in Westeros, a soon to be graveyard. So at its core the show misleads the viewers about what is important. When you think about it the show made us believe for about four and a half seasons that the Lannisters were just the worst villains ever. Everyone on the show blamed them for everything; killing Jon Arryn, poisoning Robert, pushing Bran from the window, executing Ned, getting Robb and Catelyn murdered. Just anything bad and it was the Lannisters, and no one ever said otherwise. Then we find out that it was Lisa Arryn and LF who killed Jon. And the reason he did that was to get Ned Stark to KL so he could be set up and killed to start the war LF needed to take power. And then you have to ask whether it was also LF who leaked information about the Lannister incest to Jon, so this material would be in KL as bait for Ned when he got there. And consequently all three families have been nothing but witless pawns in LF's schemes for going on six seasons, including the Lannisters, who are now in second place among families who have lost the most out of all this. The Barathions are extinct and take first place while the Starks at least have a few living members of reproductive age left and take third place. Once Tommen and Lansel go, which they will, the Lannisters will be finished as well. And it's all because of LF, by all accounts a minor character for most of the show. Presently he is Lord of the Vale, the deciding factor in wars between north and south, and the key to him seizing the north and then the Iron Throne. He has used the Tyrells to kill Joffre, which will obviously lead to the Tyrells and what remains of Lannisters destroying each other once this dawns on Cercei. I even suspect him of setting off the High Sparrow in KL before he left. At least the Sparrows appeared in KL the second LF left town, which is suspicious all in itself. The only people who have ever found LF out are Catelyn, who is dead, and Varys, who is exiled. It is possible that Sansa is getting close now, but the question is whether she will kill him or he will kill her. My money is on Balysh all day long. He might even ally with the Boltons this season if Sansa refuses to be his tool. And she will. The mistake is becoming attached to anyone or anything on this show. That is bound to end in disappointment and cynicism.

I don't think it changes the curious fact that a lot of people seem more upset over animals dying than people. I don't think the DWs are any more beautiful than any other animals, or people for that matter. And they are not meaningful characters on the TV show was my point with saying that they have no lines. They're like amateur Tolkien eagles, occasionally swooping in to rescue some hopeless situation, but otherwise not contributing anything of note to the story. Apart from symbolism that is, which is why they are dying in the first place. Personally I barely notice them, except when I come here and then remember that there were dogs on the show I just watched because people are so upset that one of them died again.