WearyTraveler

True, but as an avid reader since I was 4 (I have never been without a book since I learned to read), I don't feel these stories and legends are too far removed from the truth. I don't know how to explain it. It may be the fact that we have the same story spoken by different characters, or that the story is recalled by several characters at different times in the novels or the context where the story is mentioned. It has the ring of truth, like I can strip some of the more mythical aspects and still see the kernel that originated it. Why would the people of Essos, where the Red religion originated, who have never seen a WW, been under their threat or experienced a long winter be aware of the Long Night and basically fear the same threat that the Westerosi lore has? I get it that some people think it would be more surprising if the Others were not a big evil menace, and that they would love t if the usual trope about epic battles between good and evil were completely subverted here; but honestly, if this whole thing is a misunderstanding because men violated some pact made 8,000 years ago, this would feel un-earned to me. There has been absolutely no indication in the past 5 books that would lead to this conclusion. It's convoluted and it would necessitate a long expository explanation in books 6 and 7 to inform the reader. Nothing in the books is building to this, whereas, everything in the books is building to the generally held belief that the Others are bad news. If we look at the theory that R+L=J, that feels earned. There are clues sprinkled throughout, some more obvious than others, but it's there. I can't see anything of the sort in support of this theory. Tropes are tropes for a reason. They work. I may know where something is going, but that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the story. Furthermore, I don't think it's good writing to suddenly spring on the reader this 180 turn where the Others are just defending their territory because of some misunderstanding related to a pact signed 8,000 years ago of which not a single character is aware. That would be a surprising development for the sake of the surprise, for the shock value. It would not be organic, given the text of the first 5 books. But, off course, that's only my humble opinion. I reserve the right to be wrong :D

Why do you think was the original post edited? That post doesn't mention anything about

Well, I'm excited about

There are a few problems with this theory. The man was already a Lord Commander before he married the woman with white skin and blue eyes. The books say he pursued her, so she wasn't just given to him as a wife to seal a pact. The Wall had already been up for a while, as he was the 13th Lord Commander. If The Wall had been erected by The Others as part of an agreement with the King of the North, then why would Brandon the Breaker have gone after the Night's King (who according to old Nan was Brandon's actual brother)? Brandon and Joramun, The King Beyond the Wall, were the ones that defeated the Night's King, so, there was a King Beyond the Wall even back then, which wouldn't jive with the theory that the Others are coming south because there are men (Wildlings) north of the Wall. After the Night's King was defeated, it was discovered that he had been sacrificing babies to the Others, why would he need to do that if they had an alliance? Cold Hands had to have Sam open the weirwood door for him because the magic in The Wall was keeping him out. If The Others build The Wall, why wouldn't they or their wights be able to pass through it?

As someone who watched Lost from beginning to end and watched all of the episodes of this show the first season, I think the two shows couldn't be any more different. As for getting answers, while I will agree that Lost promised them and the ones they delivered might have been disappointing for some, the source material for this doesn't give any answers, so, I'm not sure it's fair to ask the show to do so. I view this show as an exploration of the human condition, sometimes more successfully than others, but I'm not expecting answers. I'm perfectly fine with never knowing why 2% of the world's population disappeared.

There are several advantages of a face-to-face scene, among which is the fact that Jaime would have a reason to verbalize his internal monologues from the books. It would certainly make more sense for the show to do it that way.

Not sure why you quoted me here on the "Dani didn't have many choices when it came to Drogon" comment because I have been agreeing with those who say that. If you quoted me for the book reference, I remember it being very clear in the books that Drogon came drawn by the noise and the blood. I'll dust off the chapter in my Kindle and search for the text, but, in the meantime, here's the summary from AWOIAF: Whatever else these guys are, they are precise about the details of the written work. That's the way I remember it happening. _______________________________________ Moving on to other topics being discussed here. As to why people suspect Hizdahr, it didn't sit well with me that he was so insistent on Dany trying the fried insects (crickets or locusts, I forget) and refused to have any himself. That's when I started suspecting that he was fishy. But, maybe that was misdirection. I suppose we'll know for sure Martin's intent with the character once TWOW is published.

Maybe this town will be happier because no one disappeared?

That tweet from Linda is believed to be a fake.

Well without spoiling too much info for you, I'll tell you how the theory goes, but, be aware that some book details will be included in the explanation I personally don't like this theory and would be disappointed if that's how it happens. I want Jon

Thank you, the link worked now. Maybe it's wonky stuff on my side. Also, for those interested in the explanation of the photoshop picture, here's the how and here is a gif that actually shows how hilarious the photoshop is: http://i.4cdn.org/tv/1434074149144.gif

Here is a direct link to all 4 pictures According to the discussion on 4Chan the picture of Jon is photo shopped. It's the same shot of Jon they point out in the discussion the specific things that confirm it's a fake. The other three are real. I always thought Jon was the combination of both (Fire from Rhaegar, Ice from Lyanna) The link leads to a 404 error: Page not found. It has obviously been taken down. What did she spoil? Can you tell us and wrap it in spoiler tags?

True, but it's the stuff they didn't show that made me like her on the show more. For example, on the show, she doesn't rat out her own father to Cersei. Reading her thoughts on that chapter elicited a lot of "OMG! How much more stupid can you be?!"

I think Ellaria and the Sand Snakes stole the necklace. As to how / why Jamie will break up with Cersei, perhaps he confronts her about the charges the FM made against her and she cops to sleeping with Lancel. Knowing TV Cersei, she snaps when she's under pressure (like when she told Tywin about her relationship with Jamie), so, maybe, out of spite, she'll tell Jamie that she's slept with plenty of others too, even if that's not true on the show, and that's when he'll refuse to be her champion in her trial by combat. It would mirror Jaimie's state of mind in the books, where his break with Cersei is mainly fueled by Tyrion's words "even Moonboy, for all I know". I have been wondering if perhaps D&D will have Jaimie's Riverlands story happen next season. It would make sense on the show that a disappointed Jamie (if my above speculation happens this season) would turn to setting the Riverlands straight. And perhaps that would be a better transition to whatever storyline is in store for Jamie in WoW, after his showdown with LS.

I too believe that LF made it so she would be more agreeable to his suggestion. Bringing her all the way to Mt. Cailin was manipulative. Sansa being so close to her home was bound to play with her emotions, add to that his speech about revenge and yes, he had more chances of Sansa accepting his proposal. I was sad that Sansa had to go through the whole ordeal with Ramsey, and would have preferred if they gave her some of Manderly's role in sabotaging the Boltons from within, but I wasn't outraged or angry about the change. It's just a deviation from the books. Sad and painful, but well, such is life in Westeros. I'm hoping that Sansa can pull through. And she's not even one of my favorite characters. To be honest I always thought book Sansa was an idiot with her naive fantasies about knights and princes and, for me, she didn't learn fast enough in the books. I remember always thinking "when are you going to open your eyes, you idiot?" a lot while reading her chapters. I think TV Sansa has fared better with me. Edited because ypou is not a word! :D

I imagine that to the Dothraki, Dany will look like the ultimate rider because instead of a horse she rides a freaking dragon. The Dothraki respect people who ride a horse; I suppose they'll respect a dragon rider even more. My guess is that she has Drogon burn the Khal (because they will try to fight / kill / take her) and the rest will fall to her feet calling her Khaleesi. Then they will follow the dragon all the way to Mereen where Victarion's ships will be waiting (in the books, at least).

The length of a contract doesn't mean what we usually think it means. It doesn't guarantee that the actor will have work in the series for seven years, it just guarantees that the series can make use of the actor for those seven years. For example Lost signed its season 1 regulars to multi-year contracts, but some of the characters they played died before the contracts were up, and so, the actors were then released from said contracts. The way it works, in general (because agents can negotiate these points based on an actor's demand) is that if you're a regular on a show you get paid a certain amount per episode, even if you have no lines, or don't appear in the episode at all. This guarantees the showrunners creative freedom because they know your character is and will be available to them as long as the contract stands. And it guarantees the actor a paycheck, so he/she doesn't go out looking for other projects. But, all these contracts have a clause that basically says that if the creators think the best thing for the plot is to kill your character off, then they can do it, even if you have a few months or years left in the contract. They are not obligated to pay you after that. Usually, showrunners tell actors these things as soon as they are sure they will kill the character, as a courtesy, so the actor can go and find other work before his/her character's demise. In short, the length of Kit's contract is not an indicator of how long Jon Snow will be an active character in the show. But, the fact that there will be set reports, pictures and all the other information we get while the show is shooting is an indicator, and if they leave Jon's fate a cliffhanger, we won't have to wait too long to find out.

And some of us love you for it! Well, she didn't burn Mance, though. It was all a trick. That said, I think that more than "King's" blood, she needs "Leader's" blood, or maybe Targaryen blood. Edric had Baratheon blood, and we all know that the Baratheons have a pinch of Targ in there. Also, when Melisandre burns other people she always says they are a sacrifice to R'hllor, too. She just specifies that sacrificing someone with "King's" blood is much more effective. R'hllor is either a very blood thirsty god, or Mel is wrong about this too.

In the books, when Jon first reaches the Wall, they say that there are only 1,000 men, in total, in the NW. I think that by the time we get to DwD, they are down to around half that number, but I'm not completely sure. The show is vague on this number. When the Wildlings were coming to attack Castle Black, they made it seem as if their numbers were seriously down, but in the last episode there were a lot of extras dressed all in black in the background. I guess they are vague because it's convenient to have less crows during a dire battle, and more when it comes to mutiny.

I think the show might only use the NW distate for Jon's decision to make peace with the Wildlings as a trigger for the stabbing, and nothing more

Well, I think that Drogon had taken care of plenty of the Sons of the Harpy with his fire, not to mention the ones that ran away as soon as they saw him burst through the fireball in the sky. Also, some people might have called in re-inforcements to come to the arena, after the SotH attacked. I foresee more unsullied going in, breaking through the doors that the SotH locked and coming to the rescue. They don't even need to be called in. Once they saw the dragon and heard the terrified screams they would have rushed in, I believe. Then there is the little issue of this being Dany's first flight. I don't think she's supposed to be able to control this weapon enough to use to everyone's advantage. She has never been on Drogon's back before, how is she supposed to invite people to join her? I'm sorry but thats just very Harry Potter. This is a savage beast that has been running free and unchecked. Dany doesn't have a manual, she needs to learn how to control and direct Drogon, and until she does, there's no guarantee that he will listen to her instead of just frying everything in sight. Now, the scene is slightly different in the books, because Drogon doesn't come to save Dany, he comes because he smells the blood and he starts eating people. Dany has to face him down, and she rides him mainly to save the people in the stadium.

All I can ask is that you try. :-D

I'm sorry! Please forgive me because this might sound incredibly pompous, but it's driving me up the wall because I keep seeing it in post after post. The names are spelled as follows: - Myrcella, not Marcella - Kevan, not Kevin - Trystane, not Trystin - Oberyn, not Oberon - Brienne, not Brie (she's not a piece of French cheese) - Westeros, not Westerous Thank you, and sorry, sorry, sorry!!! My head screams every time I see these spelled wrong.

Well, yes we should care, but I feel there are a couple of things that bug me a little in this article. 1) Is that Stannis, as awful and unforgivable as he is, is not doing this solely because of ambition. That may play a part, but the character in the book is more complex than that. He believes firmly that he's the savior of the 7 Kingdoms and that if he doesn't do this, the WW will take it all. So, it's not that simple. Not that I support burning (or flaying, for that matter) anyone at the stake, much less a child. It's just that it seems this view that Stannis' drive is solely propelled by ambition feels overly simplistic to me. 2) They make it seem as if Tywin was pushed into a corner: "Red Wedding or years upon years of war" and that he cared about the lives that would be lost on that war or the suffering of the smallfolk, when nothing is further from the truth. If Tywin so wanted to avoid a full on war, he could have surrendered. Robb was Ned's son, he wan't going to kill an enemy that had already surrendered. Plus, on the show, Tywin never expressed, before or after the RW any interest on the plights of the regular Westerosi chums. In the books, he even So, no, this wasn't an incredible moral dilemma Tywin was wrestling with. He ordered the slaughter for many reasons, but not a single one of those reasons had anything to do with the possible future suffering of the subjects of his grandson, Joffrey.

Maybe Stannis just told her that when he needed her help the guards would come and get her and that she should go with them. It doesn't really matther, though, does it? Whatever he said, it wasn't "You want to help? Great! Tomorrow morning at first light we'll burn you in a great pyre, so the Lord of Light will help us get Winterfell. Be ready!!!" I thought one of the most heart wrenching things was that up until the last image we got of Shireen, when she was tied to the pole, she was clutching the stag Davos carved for her in her right hand.... (sniff!!! Davos is going to be very, very angry, I think)