S05.E07: The Gift

[wayne67]

Well as long as we're talking about objectionable stuff. I think this show glorifies vengeance and violence to an extreme level. There is just so much murder. Even babies turn into mass murderers on this show (craster babies turning into White Walkers) and or murdered. Not that I have a problem with that happening in a pseudo historical fashion but this show seems to suffer from excess in three areas; characters, violence(sexual and otherwise) and gratuitous nudity alone.

 

What I'd like to see more of in the show going forward is some plot progression.

 

In this episode there was an attempted rape, a convoluted kidnapping attempt ending with female nudity and an antidote to a poison and a bunch of slaves were pitted against each other in a death match that made no sense and an unappealing sex scene with Sam and Gilly and it all comes over as sort of overwrought nonsense.

 

ETA Jorah just presented Tyrion as a slave fighting to the death? maybe this will spark something interesting happening in 3x08 in mereen.

Edited May 30, 2015 by wayne67

[Rocket]

There is no problem being happy about a good king winning in a pre Enlightenment society like in Game of Thrones. Without the Enlightenment it is unlikely for anyone to even consider having a democracy over the size of a city state as a good thing. So with democracy not being an option a good king is the only option. In Lord of the Rings there is no democratic government in history and especially in earlier periods actual gods to ask questions of, Gandolf's real form is of a minor god given a mortal shell,  the elf had a Kings so in that story their really is a divine right of kings, in real history after the horrible failure of democracy in Athens against Sparta in war democracy had a black eye finished off by corruption in Rome's republic so that even peasant revolts only tried to remove a corrupt nobel or official in the government not replace the king. 

 

The US founders actually believed that all governments gain the right to govern from the will of the people so a monarch that had the support of the people was fine. The founders just preferred democracy because good kings die and get replaced by bad rulers that lose the will of the people. I sometime toy with the idea I  might as well become a monarchist as due to the competition from democracy the actual royal line of Europe and many Moslem monarchies take advantage of the fact a monarch is for life and can get way more done than a democracy. The kings of Jordan and Morocco both died with popularity ratings in the 80's something democracies can't do. I'm still not switched over as the replacement problem still looms. 

 

Christianity, known by theologians sometimes not by believers, believes that this world is just an illusion not real compared to heaven, a concept that other religions have. And with no reincarnation you only get one test in what conceptional is a life simulator. So any evil you do is cleared on death, victims having no horrible memory of the events, they might remember but just as a non bothering fact like losing a game. So there is no evil karma or left over from the illusionary world in the real world after death. Catholics were iffy on this so came up with purgatory to pay off your sins sort of after world pay for your sins sort of like Hindu and other karma faiths. Purgatory can be avoid though so go back the illusionary nature of life to explain the get out of jail card. This is relevant here as the 7 gods clearly a one life type religion so have the same nothing really counts if you ask for forgiveness in life. 

 

The considered a masterpiece by  anime critics, politicians in Japan like to quote it on nature of democracy, Legends of the Galactic Hero's shows the quandary of what is better a The Great level king on one side who is clearly the better leader for the common man or a corrupt democracy that is oppressive. Note legends has few women with power and very few black or asian characters (no Japanese and this is a Japanese anime) there is a horrible historical point being made you learn. 

Edited May 30, 2015 by Rocket

[paigow]

There can be more penises as well, for those who want them. Breasts and penises for everyone.

A scene of Tyrion measuring himself against the entire inventory of a cock merchant would have satisfied any penophiles.... 

[DigitalCount]

Can't say I have special knowledge in that regard, but one would think that the detachment would be a downer.

[Jaded Sapphire]

I just don't believe that's true. To me, it's like saying, "But if only there were good slave owners..."

I understand that idea. I don't make that comparison for a number of reasons but specifically here because, even in an ideal world, slavery isn't meant to benefit slaves. Governments on the other hand (again, in an ideal world) are supposed to be mutually beneficial; People given power with the express purpose of using it to better those they have power over. Throw in some rules about 'succession' (popular elections, birthright, etc) and away you go.

 

You were clear...

Maybe lol. I figured I'd clarify since I don't want to give the impression I'm okay with the historical subjugation, misogyny, tyranny, squalor, etc which have come with monarchies. In real life, I'd only be okay with a monarchy that didn't have those (which, again, is probably only truly possible in fiction). And, lest I expect a character to start the GOT Enlightenment on their own, I can only support a character who seeks to minimize those problems.

ETA: Or more or less what Rocket said about the US founders and the will of the people.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Jaded Sapphire

[madam magpie]

I don't see how an unelected monarch gains the right to rule by the will of the people. By definition, a monarchy is something rulers are born into, thereby elevating one person over another simply by birthright. The monarch being a good ruler is just luck of the draw, in fiction or in life. If you just mean that it's possible for someone to take power and not be an asshole, sure...I agree with that.

I'd also argue that there have been plenty of slave holders throughout history who absolutely believed slavery to be a benevolent system that benefited slaves, wherein those born into privilege took care of those born without. That's also a primary premise of the noblesse oblige idea. as for the founding fathers, sure, I'd say their system of govt was better than the English monarchy, but it remained a racist, patriarchal system. So I wouldn't hold it up as a utopian democracy either. It was never a true democracy; they set up an elitist sustem of govt in which a group of haves created a govt for the have nots. Even today, we don't live in a true democracy since we don't elect leaders or create laws by popular vote. Everything is an evolution, but I don't believe that just because a slave master or monarch happens to be benevolent (like Dany, for the most part), his/her system of govt is inherently good. But you know, to each his/her own.

Edited May 30, 2015 by madam magpie

[MrWhyt]

I don't see how an unelected monarch gains the right to rule by the will of the people.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[Ambrosefolly]

Me too. I have a problem with ANYONE thinking they have a right to the Iron Throne just because their dad/brother/whomever ruled before them. I think she's so popular because, of all the people with their sights set on the Iron Throne, she's the least objectionable and the most "for the people" of the lot. The Lannisters are a fucking disaster and Stannis is swayed by his sexy religious advisor.

 

I feel a little bad for the residents of Mereen though...they are her training wheels...

The other side of the right to Iron Throne (or any region for that matter) is taking it by right of conquest, like Dany's ancestors did, and as this world made very clear, getting the Iron Throne is very different from ruling.

[Lady S.]

I have to say the Sand Snakes were more like Sand Caterpillars. Fluffy and slow and no threat to anyone.

Or Dornish Mutant Ninja Turtles, complete with a sewer meeting with Ellaria.

 

Re: the argument that GOT would steer clear of killing a child: in Season 1 several of Robert's young bastard children were killed, including an infant murdered in her mother's arms.

Don't forget Theon's crispy kiddie corpses! Or the son of a butcher, Micah, who was butchered by the Hound. Or that annoying blond kid Lommy who got avenged by Arya. Difference is none of those kids were developed onscreen as adorable characters for the audience to become invested in. It's a sad fact but it's much easier for us to get over violence done to strangers. No one cares that Theon got 50+ men flayed to death at Moat Cailin by convincing them to surrender to Ramsay, or that he stood by and watched Rams and Randa hunt a girl and feed her alive to dogs the same way he watched Sansa's deflowering, but failing to go along with an a desperate and risky escape plan makes him suddenly an irredeemable monster and not a virtual slave with the agency of a toddler who's been sexually abused more than anyone else in the 7k.

But that happened before any of the main characters were even born (Aemon was Dany's Great-Grandfather). Sam, the bookish one, didn't know before it was revealed to him, why should we assume Stannis and Mel did?

How do we know what Sam knew about him? It was Jon we saw it revealed to in s1, Sam wasn't at all surprised when he and Aemon first talked about the subject in 4.09, Aemon's exact words there were "Do you know who I was before I came here? What I could have been if I'd only said the word? Of course you do." The easier answer for not sacrificing Aemon is because he's not Stannis's to take or kill, no reason to cause conflict with Jon and the NW by kidnapping their maester when Mel believes she can get Stan's blessing to give up the kingsblood source who does belong to them. Which I believe will more likely be their breaking point, but that thought doesn't seem to have occurred to Mel. Carice van Houten said in a post ep interview that she believes this was a back-up plan of last resort and that Melly's been waiting for such desperate straits to actually put this kingsblood sacrifice option on the table once again.

Why is GRRM "colour-blind" about religion? Dude stated he's a "lapsed Catholic", so I presume he understands faith extremely well.

Having been raised Methodist, I can't claim to be expert on Catholic terminology, but Evil Santa didn't just stop going to church, he identifies as a flat-out atheist. Yes, he was raised as a Catholic though, so he does know shit about the Church, I'd assume, and I'd say that most followers of the Seven have been portrayed pretty positively. See Septa Mordane telling Sansa to run right before nobly facing her own death, Sansa leading the ladies of the court in a hymm to the Mother when Cersei abandoned them during Blackwater, the farmer who hosted Arya and Sandor making them pray before supper and Arya then telling off the Hound for robbing the poor man, etc. etc. I actually kinda loved the worldbuilding of the High Sparrow explaining that Baelor's Sept was built over an ancient modest chapel.

On the subject of Evil Santa, the show is never going to go completely off book like True Blood, he's already revealed his endgame to D&D, though he hasn't gotten around to putting it on paper. They still submit their season outlines for his input even if he's only an adviser with no real veto power over their adaptation choices. I'm sure they'd love to have him still writing an episode if he didn't need to get his ass in gear about finishing the next book. And he's still appearing in those bts vids released every week and is still credited as a producer on the show.

I think Daario now has more influence because pretty much all Dany's other advisors/true loyalists are either dead, banished (back!), or grievously wounded so out of it for a while.

There's still Missandei, but as her advice last ep was basically "trust your gut, you know what you're doing" I'm not sure her input is really that much better. It's kinda like how Cersei's only friend is Qyburn, except Dany actually does want helpful feedback.

[paigow]

I don't see how an unelected monarch gains the right to rule by the will of the people.

Renly seemed to think that being popular and charismatic with the masses would make up for usurping the Iron Throne. So it's more like continue to rule after ("legitmately" or otherwise) coming to power...

[Lady S.]

I don't see how an unelected monarch gains the right to rule by the will of the people. By definition, a monarchy is something rulers are born into, thereby elevating one person over another simply by birthright. The monarch being a good ruler is just luck of the draw, in fiction or in life. If you just mean that it's possible for someone to take power and not be an asshole, sure...I agree with that.

Well, in a limited sense, they rule by the people's willingness not to rise up and murder them. The Mad King was taken out by one of his own men, and if he hadn't provoked Jaime with his wildfire insanity and the order to kill Tywin, he would have been taken out by Tywin's army anyway or the rebels following Robert. Joffrey could have been killed during the riot in s2, and later was murdered in a preemptive strike based on his sorry record with his ex-gf. Caligula-like rulers can't really stay in power indefinitely. That is the two way nature of noblisse oblige, that rulers who so spectacularly fail their side of the bargain are putting their own power and lives in danger. That's a lesson the "good" slaveowners of Meereen learned when Grey Worm snuck in to give his pep talk to incite the slaves into revolt, and one I can only hope the Boltons and Freys will learn before the series is over.

I don't think we can judge the characters in modern terms in the sense of expecting them to think of their own society the way we do, which is why I don't think we can judge any noble's "entitledness". But I do absolutely think we're meant to see the many flaws endemic in bastard feudalism and judge their world critically. If we were actually viewing this through a lens of purely medieval laws and mores then why is Good King Joffrey seen as a villain from the very start? Micah had no right to play with the offspring of the King's Hand even if it was Arya's idea, yet somehow we recognize him as the victim both when Joffers first tries to teach him a lesson and when he is later legally executed on royal orders. And then Ned was executed for a crime he confessed to when Joff had no reason to doubt his own paternity and his right to sit the throne. At a certain point not having been told you're not allowed to do something stops being an excuse for us, doesn't it? I don't think it's overly naive to say that the most basic human decency should be more natural than cruelty and sadism, when even the brutal warlord Drogo is presented as capable of such decency after he and Dany got to know each other. (And I think Dany falling for him is believable when you consider that she was an orphan whose primary caregiver was her abusive and unstable brother and that if said brother hadn't been desperate enough to sell her for an army, she probably would have been his wife--likely meaning battered spouse and sex slave--in the grand family tradition. A husband who provides her with guards to whip her brother and who later kills her brother and a would-be assassin to protect her would feel like a pretty good alternative to a life of terror in thrall to Viserys.) My real problem with the moral relativism thinking is that it only seems to apply to what the men have been raised to believe and it's not as often used to see the women's patriarchy brains taken into account. For instance, how can Sansa be both a non-person with limited marital rights and capable of making a fully informed choice not to escape Ramsay on her own initiative like a 21st century feminist badass? If we accept that women cannot expect any real say in who they marry and are raised to submit to and obey their lord husbands then it seems to me that the important part of a wedding ceremony is not the wedding vows but who gives the bride away. Sansa was first given away by the bastard usurper who ordered her father's beheading, and was next given away by her dear headless dad's former ward who publicly claimed to have murdered two of her brothers and who has been gelded and tortured both physically and mentally by her new husband to the point that he is "a new man, well, a new person anyway", one who is in all practicality a slave to her husband. It's hard for me to accept either wedding as normal when those particular men are filling in for the very key role of father of the bride.

 

I take it that Roose Bolton is not going to "call the banners" to fight Stannis, since everybody knows he betrayed his fellow north men at the Red Wedding. 

 

Did most of the Bolton army survive?

 

Is Roose relying on Littlefinger to bring an army from the Vale to help him?  I just can't imagine Lord Royce, et al, traveling north in the winter to fight Stannis.

I think we can safely assume Roose didn't off his own men during the RW, and his in-laws at the Twins still have their army if he decides to call on them. But then the Late Lord Frey is not known for being fast and reliable, and I don't think Roose has any illusions about Littlefinger's reliability either, hence the reading of Baelish's mail. Holding Winterfell is a huge defensive advantage, but in a prolonged siege Ramsay is likely to run into the Caligula problem and get himself and his father murdered. So both Roose and Stannis have reason to want to meet on the open field, or at least Roose has a need to send Ramsay out leading a force while he and Walda hunker down inside Winterfell.

 

Renly seemed to think that being popular and charismatic with the masses would make up for usurping the Iron Throne. So it's more like continue to rule after ("legitmately" or otherwise) coming to power...

Renly was full of shit with his faux populism, since he was getting ready to do battle with Stannis before he met his deserved doom from shadow Stan Jr. If Stannis's superior claim wasn't a threat to him, why not leave for King's Landing right after their farce of a parley? No one forced him to stay and battle his brother before dealing with Cersei and co., but if he had defeated Stannis with his numerically superior army then he would be the rightful Baratheon heir. And he was 4th in line to the throne to begin with, I'm sure he didn't believe the Tyrells would have crowned just any old charming rebel lord.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Lady S.

[Ambrosefolly]

Here is the thing, except for Stannis being in the thrall of the Lord of Light, his way of ruling isn't bad, and would serve the realm better than being popular. There is something to be said to having a dispassionate way of dispensing justice and being honest. He promoted a commoner to knight and then Hand of the King, which if it got out to the small folk, would boast his popularity.

[paigow]

There is something to be said to having a dispassionate way of dispensing justice and being honest. He promoted a commoner to knight and then Hand of the King, 

If he ever takes KL, Stannis must order Qyburn to build Davos an indestructible prosthetic hand - then reward Qyburn with a bonfire upon delivery!

 

 

Well, in a limited sense, they rule by the people's willingness not to rise up and murder them. 

 

Renly was full of shit with his faux populism,  No one forced him to stay and battle his brother before dealing with Cersei and co.,

 

Stannis forced the issue by demanding Renly surrender ...Highlander mode engaged.   

[gwhh]

Does anyone else think it was a bad idea for Cersei to go anywhere with her guards, even to see a holy man?

[Hecate7]

Re: the argument that GOT would steer clear of killing a child: in Season 1 several of Robert's young bastard children were killed, including an infant murdered in her mother's arms.

Yep. Ned Stark avoided killing children, but lots of children have been killed on this show.

The Hound killed Micah, the butcher's boy.

At least a dozen, maybe more of Robert's bastards, all of whom were children, were killed.

We are told that Tywin ordered the murder of Elia and her children.

Jojen Reed was killed by a wight.

Theon killed two orphan boys to substitute for Bran and Rickon

Arya killed a stableboy no older than she was.

Polliver killed Lommy.

So no, being a child doesn't automatically mean the show won't kill you. Plenty of children have already died on the show, and I'm sure they won't be the last.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Hecate7

[CletusMusashi]

Pop Quiz ...You reach a fork in the road and encounter 2 insanely hot Red Priestesses. One path leads to an ambush, the other to safety, but your old maester rambled on so much that you can't remember his advice. The only thing you do remember is that one priestess always lies and the other always tells the truth...Think of the single question that will save your life... 

Oh, that's easy!

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

In addition to the grayscale being more important than I thought, I have absolutely no doubt that the warm relationship we have seen between Davos and Shireen is critical to what is going to happen. There is no way in the Seven Hells that Davos -- who would not let Mel kill Gendry -- will let Shireen become a blood sacrifice.

Yeah, but he might die saving her. Or trying to save her.

[madam magpie]

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Where? When? In what example? Throughout history, supreme executive power has most often derived from intimidation, control, bloodline, and what particular group happens to be the ruling class in that moment in time.

 

I don't think we can judge the characters in modern terms in the sense of expecting them to think of their own society the way we do, which is why I don't think we can judge any noble's "entitledness". But I do absolutely think we're meant to see the many flaws endemic in bastard feudalism and judge their world critically.

 

I completely agree with this. The idea of monarchies came up (in this thread anyway) in the context of questioning why much of the audience is so horrified by the treatement of women, but not by the monarchical structure of the society. I think we absolutely want to judge critically and condemn things we see as wrong, but the notion that this show is inherently misoginistic because it shows a lot of rape makes no more sense to me than saying it's inherently holding up monarchies as the ideal form of government. But now I'm just repeating myself and so should shush.

Edited May 31, 2015 by madam magpie

[One Tough Cookie]

Yeah, but he might die saving her. Or trying to save her.

 

 

Yeah, I've had that feeling this was going to happen for a while now.

[Constantinople]

I don't see how an unelected monarch gains the right to rule by the will of the people.

 

 

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

 

 

Where? When? In what example? Throughout history, supreme executive power has most often derived from intimidation, control, bloodline, and what particular group happens to be the ruling class in that moment in time.

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but MrWhyt was quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Or, to paraphrase Dennis, "You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some fiery tart threw a flaming sword at you!"

[MrWhyt]

Or, to paraphrase Dennis, "You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some fiery tart threw a flaming sword at you!"

I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened enflamed bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Edited May 31, 2015 by MrWhyt

[CletusMusashi]

I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened enflamed bint had lobbed a Shadowbaby at Renly, they'd put me away!

Fixed a few typos for you.

[Conan Troutman]

How do we know what Sam knew about him? It was Jon we saw it revealed to in s1, Sam wasn't at all surprised when he and Aemon first talked about the subject in 4.09, Aemon's exact words there were "Do you know who I was before I came here? What I could have been if I'd only said the word? Of course you do."

 

So Sam probably DID know, thanks. Still weird that Jon didn't, you'd guess the Starks would know a thing or two about the NW, since they have rather close ties with them compared to the other noble houses - both because of the spatial proximity and the fact that it's somewhat of a tradition for Starks not in line to inherit to join them. Maybe he didn't get educated because of his bastard status?

 

I still doubt that Stannis would run into much trouble from the NW if he had insisted on taking him, but you guys have convinced me that Aemon was probably not a suitable sacrificial lamb. Either because he was of the wrong family or the LoL wouldn't be very impressed by the sacrifice of an old, blind man - maybe Stannis could get a cold for Roose and an ingrown toenail for Ramsey out of it, but nothing really helpful.

[Jaded Sapphire]

I apologize because the disappointment I've had with these last few episodes means I'm not checking the GOT thread as often (Hardhome may change that), I did mean to reply sooner. I do agree that we're kind of talking in circles and I know I'm repeating myself so I won't comment further.

I don't see how an unelected monarch gains the right to rule by the will of the people. By definition, a monarchy is something rulers are born into, thereby elevating one person over another simply by birthright. The monarch being a good ruler is just luck of the draw, in fiction or in life. If you just mean that it's possible for someone to take power and not be an asshole, sure...I agree with that.

 

Well, in a limited sense, they rule by the people's willingness not to rise up and murder them.

Not just that but think of anything a ruler wants to do that requires the support of the masses. Ned Stark (and by extension Rob) could call their people to defend themselves and their family because they had a history of treating them well. Compare that to Stannis or even the Boltons who have to fend for themselves in what would otherwise be a minor territory dispute because the North, the people they want to rule and technically do rule respectively, told them both to kick rocks.
 
 

I'd also argue that there have been plenty of slave holders throughout history who absolutely believed slavery to be a benevolent system that benefited slaves, wherein those born into privilege took care of those born without. That's also a primary premise of the noblesse oblige idea.

 
Believing it's benevolent and it actually being benevolent are not the same thing. As I've said, maybe only in fiction, but the basic concept of a monarchy could be executed benevolently. One thing it would have to get rid of is noblesse oblige, simply treating 'birth order' as any other arbitrary rule of succession.
 
 

as for the founding fathers, sure, I'd say their system of govt was better than the English monarchy, but it remained a racist, patriarchal system. So I wouldn't hold it up as a utopian democracy either.

 
I don't believe it's utopian, that's exactly why I used democracy as a counter-point in my very first post. The Democratic-Republic of the US is a racist, patriarchal system but if I understand your logic then I should believe that any and all democracies would be.
 
 

Everything is an evolution, but I don't believe that just because a slave master or monarch happens to be benevolent (like Dany, for the most part), his/her system of govt is inherently good. But you know, to each his/her own.

 
I do not think monarchies are inherently good. I've said as much:
 

I don't want to give the impression I'm okay with the historical subjugation, misogyny, tyranny, squalor, etc which have come with monarchies. In real life, I'd only be okay with a monarchy that didn't have those.

 
In fact I'm making the opposite point: I don't believe that just because a monarch or elected official is terrible (be it a tyrannical monarch or racist and patriarchal representatives) his/her system of govt is inherently bad.
 

The idea of monarchies came up (in this thread anyway) in the context of questioning why much of the audience is so horrified by the treatement of women, but not by the monarchical structure of the society. I think we absolutely want to judge critically and condemn things we see as wrong, but the notion that this show is inherently misoginistic because it shows a lot of rape makes no more sense to me than saying it's inherently holding up monarchies as the ideal form of government. But now I'm just repeating myself and so should shush.

Which is a really long-winded way of saying that I'm seeing people support characters on the show who seek to minimize the problems inherent in this society, including the misogyny. Nobody is ignoring it in the context of the overall show. Not to mention, a way of life is very different then a specific kind of violence (usually) targeted at women and the writers have power over when and how it's shown. Choosing to use sexual violence casually and (arguably) excessively is misogynistic.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Jaded Sapphire

[Anela]

No you really don't want to know.  I don't really want to know.

 

This show has gotten so dark and depressing.  From the attempted rape of Gilly, to Sansa's continued rape, to talk of spilling Shireen's "King's blood" to help Stannis, to the flayed elderly woman's body...I don't really know  if I can deal with this show at this point.

 

I am going back to my marathon watching of "Mad Men."

I've been catching up with the show, over the past week, and this is why I stopped watching before: too depressing, and they just seem to keep trying to top their own shocking scenes. Not only is it awful to watch, it's boring to me. 

[The Companion]

On 5/25/2015 at 2:31 AM, Conan Troutman said:

- RIP Maester Aemon. His record of oldest man in Westeros will probably stand for a long, long time. Nice to finally see someone die of old age, a certain friend of Sansa's sadly won't get that luxury. Ramsey's death really needs to special, a simple Joffrey-style poisoning's not going to cut it, period. Speaking of: Sam's was pretty effective when getting in on the action before -  do I see a plot point coming? Too bad they already named the first one Sam jr...

 

This one hit me harder than I expected. Perhaps he got the easiest death of any we have seen, but it was still heartbreaking to see him talk to his long dead brother, and say that he had a dream that he was old. 

On 5/25/2015 at 4:39 AM, candall said:

Cersei putting herself into this bad spot is just delicious.  She systematically eliminated everyone with enough sense to stick a hand up Tommen's little puppet butt and get her out of there.  Baelish, Juan Peron and Mrs. Peel are the only brains left walking around in King's Landing. 

 

And this is Cersei's problem, without a doubt. She wants to be the one and only thing in her kid's life and the most important thing in the room. It is immensely satisfying to see it blow up in her face.

On 5/25/2015 at 6:31 AM, wayne67 said:

 

I'm not sure Cersei's schooling is the issue. Even chess teaches a player to think more than one move ahead and she has relied on the Lannister name without having much else to recommend her. In a way all the Lannisters rely very heavily on their reputation rather than on their own skills. Tywin died because he expected Tyrion to back down because he theoretically was in power forgetting that a man who has nothing to lose is extremely dangerous to provoke. Jamie lost his hand for being a smug self satisfied git because he assumed his family name would protect him. Joffrey expected being King to excuse all his many failings, it didn't. Cersei acts out of pettiness more often than not. She armed religious zealots because she didn't like her Daughter in Law gaining power and influence over her son and Kings Landing, she kicked Selmy to the curb because she wanted to install someone in her pocket, she had Ned executed because he found out her dirty little secret, she conspired to have Robert killed without dealing with the loose end of Lancel.

 

Cersei reacts, she doesn't plan ahead so that she can deal with the consequences of her actions, hence Myrcella in Dorne, Joffrey dead, Jamie maimed and that serving girl thrashed.

 

Jamie is equally an idiot who doesn't appreciate consequences but at least he's not so PETTY which is the most irritating thing about Cersei. All of her schemes and power plays are so shallow and poorly thought out which undermines how awesome a ruthless character she could have been. Instead we merely laugh as her chickens come home to roost...

I know I have posted a lot about Cersei, so it will come as no surprise that I find her unbearable, but I think you have nailed it on the head. She is petty and reactive. She doesn't have the brains or the patience to truly get revenge. She grabs for the lowest hanging fruit and consequences be damned.

This episode also drove home that she does not love her kids, she loves herself and she loves the attention from her kids. She just can't stand for her kids to care about anyone other than her. When she went on about how she would kill for her kids, but she can't sacrifice her own happiness for theirs. Not to mention she had the nerve to lecture her son about how he wouldn't truly understand how she felt until he had kids after getting the potential mother of his kids (and possibly, though we have no reason to believe it to be so, his unborn child) in prison. That is not love. 

[candall]

3 hours ago, The Companion said:

This one hit me harder than I expected. Perhaps he got the easiest death of any we have seen, but it was still heartbreaking to see him talk to his long dead brother, and say that he had a dream that he was old. 

Hi Companion, re-watch or catching up?  I'm jealous if you have all those juicy episodes left ahead of you to see for the first time.  I'm at the point of measuring the time left in finite minutes and feeling cranky if they draw out something insignificant for a few unnecessary moments.

Enjoy!

[The Companion]

3 hours ago, candall said:

Hi Companion, re-watch or catching up?  I'm jealous if you have all those juicy episodes left ahead of you to see for the first time.  I'm at the point of measuring the time left in finite minutes and feeling cranky if they draw out something insignificant for a few unnecessary moments.

Enjoy!

First time! We didn't have HBO until last year when my husband was talked into an upgrade and then we got hooked on Westworld. We have been watching it at an insane pace. We watched the first episode of the first season on the night of the season premiere of this season and we just finished season 5. I think I am going to regret catching up and having to wait a week between each episode. On the other hand, it will be nice to have people to talk to in the forums. I am so far behind that I guess I am really just leaving my thoughts for posterity. 

[candall]

Same-same.  I binge-watched the first two seasons on my new HBO in 24 hours, then felt very impatient for the next installment.  The ten-month hiatus after last season was brutal.

 

31 minutes ago, The Companion said:

I am so far behind that I guess I am really just leaving my thoughts for posterity. 

Maester Aemon's dream of being old sounds so poignant and I don't remember it at all, so the fresh remark you left on this dusty page did not go unappreciated.