S06.E02: Home

[OhOkayWhat]

11 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

....I could see someone who wanted all the Starks wiped out siding with Ramsey over Roose (who wanted to use the Starks to legitimize his rule).

A more interesting notion with that too is that the Karstarks could see siding with Ramsey as a means of getting him to do their dirty work.....

I agree with this and in my opinion, this is the reason that the narrative about the new Lord Karstark decisions makes sense. He wants to use the mad-dog-ness of Ramsey as a weapon. He suspect Ramsey will feel safe within his reign of terror. And he thinks it gives him an advantage, this advantage disappears if Roose is alive to notice a future plot against the Boltons.

Edited May 8, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Hecate7]

On 5/6/2016 at 8:27 AM, benteen said:

You know, I never thought about that but you're right.  Tyrion and Tywin would still be related no matter what.

Taking it to the Tyrion thread.

[Oscirus]

Quote

As for the Karstarks, their support of Ramsey, and the Boltons in general makes zero sense from a political perspective. With no publicly remaining Starks the Karstarks, as a branch of the Stark family could claim the North themselves with the support of noble and commoner alike. This is just a way to keep Ramsey's terrible acts shocking viewers for a while longer.

It makes some sense. If they don't want the starks in charge and they don't want responsible for the North the easiest way to do so is to back another house targeting the Starks. It doesn't hurt that from the Karstark's prospective the fact that he's a conspirator with Ramsay hence  he's in a position to share the spoils. Now the Umbers and Manderlays on the other hand ...

Quote

I've always hated the idea that the only way a woman or girl can refuse to be an object or chattel is by being a tomboy.... That the only supposed refusal if these things is by being a male, or loving male things, because of course the only possible refusal of the female arts of design, seamstress and embroideress is by embracing the martial arts and refusing to wear a dress. Really?

Normally I'd think the writers were incapable of writing better characters but the existence of the Tyrell women who have clearly found a way around such roles without  having to be tomboys shows me that they're just lazy. Hell, the casting call for Lyanna sounded lazy.

Quote

I refer here to BookSansa, as show Sansa has become a bit if a vehicle for rape porn.

I disagree. I'd say that Sansa is an example of a character who keeps getting back up after she gets knocked down. I don't know if any of the main characters have had as much bad stuff rained down on them as Sansa. Yet, she never stopped fighting even if it was in a way that we as the audience aren't normally accustomed to.

[GrailKing]

16 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

Ah, another L'Engle fan. So fun!

Now, to all of this talk of Lyanna's beauty and spirit and her and Arya's refusal of feminine roles as chattel by way if being a tom boy. I've always hated the idea that the only way a woman or girl can refuse to be an object or chattel is by being a tomboy.... That the only supposed refusal if these things is by being a male, or loving male things, because of course the only possible refusal of the female arts of design, seamstress and embroideress is by embracing the martial arts and refusing to wear a dress. Really? And I like Arya, but the construction of her character is a complete cliche. BookSansa could end up being the most interesting character with the biggest arc if Martin can manage the writing. Sansa started as an overly romantic young girl who didn't even see the game of thrones being played around her and her unwitting betrayal helped her father's coup attempt fail. She is now an apprentice at Littlefinger's academy of politics and power and Sansa, of all the remaining Stark children could end up knowing the most and holding the most power that she earned herself. I'm talking before Jon Snow gets awarded thrones (possibly) for being a special, prophesied snowflake. Even Jon's election as Lord Commander wouldn't have happened in normal times. Jon still needed experience and seasoning and in the usual way of things would have served another Commander in increasing positions of responsibility. Jon is marked as exceptional and is exceptional but it's been his snowflake status and crisis that have put him ahead rather than earning it over time. 

Sansa on the other hand, is learning and in much more realistic ways. I refer here to BookSansa, as show Sansa has become a bit if a vehicle for rape porn. Sansa, if the rest of her arc is handled right could vend up being a genuinely feminist character and could be holding more earned and understood power in the game than either Jon or Arya. Poor Arya at this point seems to be gearing up to be a plot twist wearing a face not her own. 

I just hate the tomboy, the only way to not be a stupid girlie is by loving all things boy. I'm sorry they did this to Lyanna too. The only woman in history I can think of loved for her personality was Cleopatra. Her legendary beauty was just that. She was known for speaking many languages, being a brilliant conversationalist and knowledgeable about everything from agriculture to war and everything in between. These are the things that bewitched Caesar and Antony. 

And yes, the young actress playing Lyanna had impossible expectations to fill. I just hope they do something more interesting with her than seems likely. I sometimes think that Sansa became such an interesting character in the books almost by accident. Most interesting of all, she is far from safe. She could still be killed or lose everything if Little finger has setbacks. Sansa is doing what women have always had todo, e.g. survive and thrive within the boundaries of patriarchy. The whole tomboy trope used with Arya and now Lyanna accepts the premise that femininity and all things female are bad by definition and defines the characters with that unconscious assumption. 

I don't really think this is true, maybe seeing a truly vulnerable girl, that they knew has a wide fan base and people care for they saw a quick way of really pulling our emotional strings.

They may have seen Sansa's Alayne chapter were she is starting to mature but it didn't have enough tension or emotions for it let alone meat for Sophie to do much with so they moved her to Jeynes roll, not seeing the firestorm that could result.

As I said before in here there is plenty of evidence of men and women who survived this and other atrocities and came out strong and were able to forge ahead with life.

[AuntieMame]

36 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

It makes some sense. If they don't want the starks in charge and they don't want responsible for the North the easiest way to do so is to back another house targeting the Starks. It doesn't hurt that from the Karstark's prospective the fact that he's a conspirator with Ramsay hence  he's in a position to share the spoils. Now the Umbers and Manderlays on the other hand ...

Normally I'd think the writers were incapable of writing better characters but the existence of the Tyrell women who have clearly found a way around such roles without  having to be tomboys shows me that they're just lazy. Hell, the casting call for Lyanna sounded lazy.

I disagree. I'd say that Sansa is an example of a character who keeps getting back up after she gets knocked down. I don't know if any of the main characters have had as much bad stuff rained down on them as Sansa. Yet, she never stopped fighting even if it was in a way that we as the audience aren't normally accustomed to.

OK, I'll buy that. My issue isn't with Sansa per se, who got under my skin and became one of my favorite characters all unawares. My issue is with the general salaciousness of the sadism and not just with Sansa. I know a lot of it is coming directly from the source material, but somehow the sniggering, adolescent tone of it and the seeming ambition to top each new horror is annoying me. I don't mean to be sanctimonious and I can enjoy morally ambiguous content. I also realize that human beings actually do these things to each other and that most if us are capable of killing in defense of ourselves, or our loved ones, or in service of a cause or idea. I sadly believe this to be true of myself, though it has never been tested. Or to remove those who like killing and hurting for their own sake. I know that things like this are going on in our world as i write this in my incredible privilege of safety. I know I'm not even the only person on this board to contemplate the total mind fuck of how we live versus how people facing this kind of violence live. The thing is though that these are important and difficult moral questions and we have the luxury of actually contemplating them through our art. Instead we get rape and weiners, ha ha look at the symbolically chopped sausage and a mother and newborn gummed down by dogs. 

Thank you for reminding me if the Tyrells! I love the Queen of Thorns. I know she isn't a paragon of virtue, but she doesn't believe in screwing people for the sake of it. There would at least be a reason or a payoff and she is more than open to deals that are mutually beneficial when they are on the table. And it shows, as you point out that the writers are capable of more than the tomboy cliche. Come to think of it, just why is a physical woman boyish anyway? I've known plenty of strong, energetic women who loved the use of their bodies. A friend of mine skated competitively and she spoke of the blend of body and mind when she was skating almost spiritually.

It's like another popular show, the little show about zombies. The characters in that have to kill to survive and the show does a good job showing the toll that takes on individual psyches. However, the writers have superficially raised the idea of nonviolence. The problem is that the characters even examining the idea of not killing each other are made to look like the most naïve of fools. And Im not saying this is easy. 

Many others have already drawn the parallel between the world of Game of Thrones and our own world. Fighting wars for power and ego while winter and environmental degradation are coming. It doesn't take a seer to feel that we are about to bathe the earth in blood once again and this time, I'm not certain it's going to go that well for anybody because heretofore the planet has always cooperated by yielding up her resources to be turned into war materiel and ultimately wasted and had stable and predictable weather. Imagine two Navies facing off somewhere and one of these crazy strength hurricanes comes through. And after, the original battle still has to be fought. Or sea levels actually rise even the tiniest bit and floods of refugees pour across borders? Instead those of us who have the luxury of actually trying to grasp a corner of these overwhelming questions and problems, and stories are one of the big ways we do this, are getting violence as titillation. To be fair, I don't think that's what Martin intended even taking into account some of the fair criticisms of his books. All writers are moralists whether good, bad or indifferent because every created world has an underlying moral philosophy, usually mostly unconscious.

OK, climbing off soapbox. And let me state that I'm in possession of as conflicted a human heart as the next person. I just get so frustrated and overwhelmed and feel so powerless to do anything as we all careen madly over the cliff. I'm not expecting our writers and artists to have answers, I just wish they were forming the questions in better ways. Show me a Ramsey, not to sit back and judge, but that I actually empathize why he did such a horrible things and I feel both the moral horror and the understanding simultaneously? That might put us in a place we would understand ourselves better. 

Question... Why wouldn't the Karstarks want the North? They haven't exactly been staying at home quietly? And what dirty work is there left for Ramsey to do? I never got the impression in either the books or show that the people of the North would refuse any reasonable leadership. I think they'd welcome it given that they know winter is coming and would be the most likely of any of the seven kingdoms to believe that the Others are back. I doubt that Old Nan was the only one telling the old tales. The Night's Watch should be sending more ravens and possibly messengers. 

[Clanstarling]

For me personally, having been a tomboy back in the day before it was a cliché, and having learned the "game of thrones" by listening and observing my father's soldier peers, I very much like Arya and relate to her. I too rejected most things feminine - I hated sewing, despised makeup, and was offended by all the limitations our (much more flexible society than GoT) had for women. Books had very few tomboy characters who achieved anything other than scolding (there were exceptions, of course). When I played pretend, I inserted Arya type characters into all the action film plots we were playing - I never wanted to be the princess waiting to be rescued.

So she doesn't feel like a cliché to me - she's a reminder of who I was at a given time in my life. I don't see her as less complex than the other women in the show, but on simply on a path that is harder to grasp (for me in any case) because there isn't anything particularly analogous in our world - at least not that I'm aware of.

[Dev F]

2 hours ago, Oscirus said:

It makes some sense. If they don't want the starks in charge and they don't want responsible for the North the easiest way to do so is to back another house targeting the Starks.

But, again, then why not just ally yourself with Roose? What does Ramsay bring to the table that his father doesn't? And it can't be that Ramsay's going to take a harder line on wiping out the remaining Starks, because until like twelve hours ago he was married to one.

And why on earth would the Karstarks have some sort of Stark murder boner anyway? They objected to Robb's decisions, but those aren't hereditary. They'd been serving the Starks loyally for centuries, but one Stark sucks and suddenly the entire family line must be extinguished?

The whole point of the vassal system is to provide stability to a realm that would otherwise descend into infighting and chaos. The reason the Boltons were able to seize power is because they could argue that they rather than the Starks could provide that stability. A powerful lord is not going to give all that up out of some vague desire for revenge, because the end result is that the realm goes to shit and the powerful lord is left with nothing.

Unless, of course, the powerful lord is a psycho who cares more about revenge than holding onto power, and the series does not seem to be suggesting that Karstark is anything of the kind. To the contrary -- the writers seem aware that introducing yet another bloodthirsty psycho to ally with Ramsay would be boring, so they tried to invent a reasonable explanation for why a non-psycho would support someone like the Bastard of Bolton, but did a really crappy job.

Quote

It doesn't hurt that from the Karstark's prospective the fact that he's a conspirator with Ramsay hence  he's in a position to share the spoils.

Or in a position to be bumped off for knowing too much. Karstark would have to be deeply, deeply naive to think that Ramsay feels some obligation toward his coconspirators when he clearly feels no obligation toward his own father whom he just murdered.

And, again, you could certainly tell a coherent story about a lord who is an ignorant moron, but nothing in Karstark's portrayal suggests that this is what the writers are going for. And such a story might be coherent, but it would also be super boring, if the villains triumph not because they are shrewd political manipulators but because everyone around them is a complete imbecile.

[Oscirus]

Quote

 

But, again, then why not just ally yourself with Roose? What does Ramsay bring to the table that his father doesn't? And it can't be that Ramsay's going to take a harder line on wiping out the remaining Starks, because until like twelve hours ago he was married to one.

And why on earth would the Karstarks have some sort of Stark murder boner anyway? They objected to Robb's decisions, but those aren't hereditary. They'd been serving the Starks loyally for centuries, but one Stark sucks and suddenly the entire family line must be extinguished?

 

Karstark is with Ramsey because he was willing to attack the wall to get Sansa back and Roose wasn't.

From the way he sees it, his father was executed despite loyally serving the king for not having the same values as the Starks. Does he want revenge against the Starks? Definitely.  That being said, I don't think the he wants to exterminate the Stark family line as much as he doesn't want them in power anymore. He'll put up with Sansa being around as a birthing vessel but he doesn't want the male heirs around to claim their birth right.

Quote

Unless, of course, the powerful lord is a psycho who cares more about revenge than holding onto power, and the series does not seem to be suggesting that Karstark is anything of the kind.

Seems to be an ongoing theme in this series that revenge ultimately dooms us all. It causes us to do things we wouldn't normally do regardless of the consequences.  It's what happened at the wall, it happened in Dorne and now it seems to be happening here.
 

Quote

 

Or in a position to be bumped off for knowing too much. Karstark would have to be deeply, deeply naive to think that Ramsay feels some obligation toward his coconspirators when he clearly feels no obligation toward his own father whom he just murdered.

 

He's clearly not thinking it through. He should be safe for a while because Ramsey needs him. But you're right, there's nothing stopping Ramsay from bumping him off once that need disappears.
 

Quote

 

Question... Why wouldn't the Karstarks want the North? They haven't exactly been staying at home quietly? And what dirty work is there left for Ramsey to do?

 

I'd imagine that they just don't want the headache that comes with it. Let someone else lead the North if they so desire, as long as it's not the starks.

[Chris24601]

3 hours ago, Dev F said:

But, again, then why not just ally yourself with Roose? What does Ramsay bring to the table that his father doesn't? And it can't be that Ramsay's going to take a harder line on wiping out the remaining Starks, because until like twelve hours ago he was married to one.

And why on earth would the Karstarks have some sort of Stark murder boner anyway? They objected to Robb's decisions, but those aren't hereditary. They'd been serving the Starks loyally for centuries, but one Stark sucks and suddenly the entire family line must be extinguished?

I think it's easier to understand the motivation to go with Ramsey over Roose if you;

A) don't look at Ramsey as the Karstark's endgame, but as an intermediate step in a larger plan.
-and-
B) remember that King Robert actually did NOT use "Right of Conquest" alone to justify his rule.
-and-
C) remember that the Karstarks are an offshoot of House Stark, just as King Robert's line has blood ties to House Targaryan in its past.

I think the actual endgame of Karstark's plans are, Lord Karstark becomes King in the North by blood right.

Step One is to eliminate all the remaining Starks. Just as Viserys and Dany were a threat to King Robert's rule (because he was using blood right via his Targ ancestor and not just right of conquest), any surviving Starks would be a threat to the legitimacy of any claim to Winterfell by House Karstark.

Roose was an obstacle to this because Roose insisted on using Sansa and Ramsey to produce a half-Stark heir and legitimize his claim to the North through it. Ramsey, by contrast might very well kill Sansa with his depravity before she could produce an heir. Roose was also an obstacle because he didn't wish to go after Jon Snow at Castle Black because doing so would upset the North, whereas Ramsey wouldn't care and by killing Jon and Sansa you remove the last blood-descendants of Ned Stark that the Karstarks are aware of (all but a select few believe Arya, Bran and Rickon to be as dead as their brother Robb).

Step Two would be that once the last of the Starks have been wiped out to then rally the North against the abuses of House Bolton. Roose works against that by being a pretty pragmatic Lord. He's ruthless, but he's not the overt sadist that Ramsey is and understands that he needs to win allies among the North not terrorize them into submission as Ramsey would. Between Ramsey's excesses and being able to claim that Ramsey murdered the last of House Stark it would pretty easy to do what Jon and Sansa will be doing this season, which is organize the North against the monster Ramsey. By leading the charge to remove him, they could also use Ramsey's own deceitful nature against him by discrediting his claims that the Karstarks were in on the murder of Roose and the rest of the Starks as feeble lies made against those with the courage to oppose him.

Step Three is that once Ramsey has been deposed, appeal to bloodright (the closest relations to the Starks) and tradition ("there must ALWAYS be a Stark at Winterfell") to get the other Northern houses to agree to let the head of House Karstark to become the new Lord Stark and Lord of Winterfell.

Its still not a great plan, it relies way too much on Jon and Sansa being killed and fails to account for the continued survival of Bran, Rickon and Arya, but at least its somewhat comprehensible; they want to set up and then win a smaller scale version of Robert's Rebellion (with themselves as a mix of House Baratheon and Lannister in that conflict, Ramsey as Mad King Aerys and a bunch of dead Starks [Robb, Sansa, Jon] as, well, another bunch of dead Starks [Rickard, Lyanna, Brandon]).

[OhOkayWhat]

4 hours ago, Dev F said:

But, again, then why not just ally yourself with Roose? What does Ramsay bring to the table that his father doesn't? And it can't be that Ramsay's going to take a harder line on wiping out the remaining Starks, because until like twelve hours ago he was married to one.

And why on earth would the Karstarks have some sort of Stark murder boner anyway? They objected to Robb's decisions, but those aren't hereditary. They'd been serving the Starks loyally for centuries, but one Stark sucks and suddenly the entire family line must be extinguished?

The whole point of the vassal system is to provide stability to a realm that would otherwise descend into infighting and chaos. The reason the Boltons were able to seize power is because they could argue that they rather than the Starks could provide that stability. A powerful lord is not going to give all that up out of some vague desire for revenge, because the end result is that the realm goes to shit and the powerful lord is left with nothing.

Unless, of course, the powerful lord is a psycho who cares more about revenge than holding onto power, and the series does not seem to be suggesting that Karstark is anything of the kind. To the contrary -- the writers seem aware that introducing yet another bloodthirsty psycho to ally with Ramsay would be boring, so they tried to invent a reasonable explanation for why a non-psycho would support someone like the Bastard of Bolton, but did a really crappy job.

Or in a position to be bumped off for knowing too much. Karstark would have to be deeply, deeply naive to think that Ramsay feels some obligation toward his coconspirators when he clearly feels no obligation toward his own father whom he just murdered.

And, again, you could certainly tell a coherent story about a lord who is an ignorant moron, but nothing in Karstark's portrayal suggests that this is what the writers are going for. And such a story might be coherent, but it would also be super boring, if the villains triumph not because they are shrewd political manipulators but because everyone around them is a complete imbecile.

Karstark does not want to ally with Roose because Roose wants to create a new Bolton-Stark lineage. The deal with Ramsey was probably made after they lost Sansa. Also, probably,  Roose is a bigger obstacle for his own plans than Ramsey.

I think it is not about an ancient desire of vengeance against the Stark, it is about the ambition of the new Lord Karstark and him finding an opportunity to eliminate the people loyal to the Starks and the Stark (in my opinion, the decimation of them it is the main reason that allowed the Bolton to seize the power) and to replace that lineage with his own.

He probably knows that eventually, Ramsey will betray him. The question is: will he be loyal with Ramsey?

[Nanrad]

On May 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Avaleigh said:

With Shireen's death, she isn't anywhere near Jon, it happens days before, and it just carries over even though Mel was trying for something totally different?  

Shireen's death is horribly tragic, wrong, and sucks either way but the idea that Shireen's death paid for Jon's life makes it seem like it was somehow 'necessary' in the grand scheme of things and I guess I just don't like the idea that Melisandre was 'right' that Shireen needed to die for the greater good. I think it's stronger and even more chilling than it already is if it turns out that there is no 'upside' to Shireen's death. I don't want Mel let off of the hook for burning a child alive because of the idea that she's selflessly trying to save the universe.

Honestly, even if Mel's prophecies are correct, I don't think it lets her off of the hook because her reasons for sacrificing Shireen wasn't the real reason why Shireen had to die. Her interpretation was wrong and she didn't feel guilty about this until AFTER what she believed was going to happen, didn't happen. She wasn't sympathetic to Shireen being led to her death or her screams because she thought it was for the greater good, but regardless, she should still feel remorse for that child, hell, even her mother did--how fucked up is that considering that relationship. I don't even think Mel's motives were completely unselfish. I think she liked the idea of having a connection to the Red God (or whatever the name is) and got off on it and Shireen's death supposedly amounting to nothing not only humbled her, but broke her too.

On May 3, 2016 at 4:34 PM, nksarmi said:

6. The show has also implied heavily that Lyanna might have run off with Rhaegar - making the idea of them having a love child more plausible. I am almost certain that when Oberyn talked about what Rhaeghar did to his sister, he positioned it as "running off with some girl" as opposed to "kidnapping and raping" some girl. Just last season when Sansa was talking about the story in the WF crypts - Littlefinger insinuates that he had heard a different version of the story than Lyanna being kidnapped - leaving open the possibility that the girl ran away with the Prince voluntarily. And the show kept some of Barrister's characterizations of Rhaeghar which suggests that he isn't the awful man Robert B always said he was.

Obviously the show doesn't have Ned's repeated memory of "Promise me Ned" as he faces death in season one to really hammer it home - but it won't be totally out of left field when it comes.

I think the truth is far more complex than either Lyanna being kidnapped and her running off with Rhaeger and, depending on the person/family who tells it, it differs and with reason. I think she may have ran away with the Prince voluntarily, but that she might have been raped by Rhaeger. Since there are conflicting accounts, it could've gone like this: Lyanna being a free spirit, brave, and shit ran off with Rhaeger to feel in control of her life, but once the rush went away and Rhaeger told her about the prophecy, she didn't want to fulfill that role, which Rhaeger made her. 

On May 4, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Macbeth said:

My understanding of Ghost sleeping by Jon is that it was a very long day.  He had been on edge ready for an attack for hours.  Things were resolved - time for him to to get some shut eye.  I just don't buy the warging. If Jon was really in  Ghost's body, the time to come back to life was when his loyal comrades, and Davos, were about to be slaughtered.  But don't let me spoil the party.

This was eventually touched on, but one or two posters verbalized their feelings on the matter as well: if Jon did Warg, his body would still be dead. So that other explanation that if there was warging involved, Mel brought the body back to life and Jon was able to return. Other than that, I'm inclined to believe he didn't warg.

On May 4, 2016 at 0:44 AM, Oscirus said:

Hell, even the scene this week went out of its way to show us that anybody who is a friend to Dany can  do what Tyrion did if hey had the guts.

Actually, that was only Tyrion's rationale. We haven't seen anyone else attempt to prove his theory and he was the only one to succeed because others are afraid to try.

On May 4, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Avaleigh said:

I disagree that Tywin becomes at all sympathetic if it turns out that he was right in his suspicions that Tyrion isn't his biological child. He's a raging asshole either way. Just because the explanation makes his behavior more understandable doesn't mean that his hatred of Tyrion is right or sympathetic. 

I agree. Although I have come to like Catelyn, I still disagree with how she treated Jon which was my basis for disliking her in the first place. Whether or not the theory is true, whether or not his behavior is understandable, it doesn't make him sympathetic for me. Both men had bastard (regardless of if Tyrion isn't a bastard) complexes, which was due to how parental figures treated them, which has nothing to do with them personally and everything to do with the person either not being the parent or suspecting they aren't. But, either way, I do believe Tywin thought he was the father and just hated his son for Joanna dying in child birth. If that theory turns out to be true, it's irrelevant to Tywin's motivation. 

Mods, I don't know if my last two quotes broke the warning, bt I'm not trying to literally discuss Tyrion's actual parentage, but rather character reasoning and logic. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Nanrad
clarifying the implication of Shireen's death

[GrailKing]

7 hours ago, clanstarling said:

For me personally, having been a tomboy back in the day before it was a cliché, and having learned the "game of thrones" by listening and observing my father's soldier peers, I very much like Arya and relate to her. I too rejected most things feminine - I hated sewing, despised makeup, and was offended by all the limitations our (much more flexible society than GoT) had for women. Books had very few tomboy characters who achieved anything other than scolding (there were exceptions, of course). When I played pretend, I inserted Arya type characters into all the action film plots we were playing - I never wanted to be the princess waiting to be rescued.

So she doesn't feel like a cliché to me - she's a reminder of who I was at a given time in my life. I don't see her as less complex than the other women in the show, but on simply on a path that is harder to grasp (for me in any case) because there isn't anything particularly analogous in our world - at least not that I'm aware of.

My daughter is a girl y girl LOL, but not once have I or my wife see her back down or submit to anyone, she down right usually wins everything with words and debate yet she is fashion minded,loves makeup yet still face backlash from people who want her to be more confrontational and act like a guy.

Doesn't matter the gender the prejudiced is the same 50% hate you 50% will accept you; as she keeps telling friends and  family "I like me and that's all that matters"

Go Girl :>)

[Clanstarling]

15 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

My daughter is a girl y girl LOL, but not once have I or my wife see her back down or submit to anyone, she down right usually wins everything with words and debate yet she is fashion minded,loves makeup yet still face backlash from people who want her to be more confrontational and act like a guy.

Doesn't matter the gender the prejudiced is the same 50% hate you 50% will accept you; as she keeps telling friends and  family "I like me and that's all that matters"

Go Girl :>)

Go Girl, absolutely! One of the things I like about this series is that the women find their power in many different ways - just like in real life (though hopefully with less of a head count).

[GrailKing]

16 minutes ago, clanstarling said:

Go Girl, absolutely! One of the things I like about this series is that the women find their power in many different ways - just like in real life (though hopefully with less of a head count).

:>)

Don't know about head count from news the past few weeks starting to match GOT :>{

[Hecate7]

On 5/5/2016 at 9:31 AM, stillshimpy said:

As for the whole "You may not have my name, but you have my blood" again, not really a definitive "no way is he Ned's son" deal.  Now within something like two chapters of starting the book, I was astounded by how overt the books really are about that.

Yes, but the nature of speculation is that something is NOT definitively proved. Once it's definitive, it's no longer speculation anyway. Just because you and most of your friends did not see that particular line of reasoning as valid, does NOT mean that it required the books to get there. I got there by the end of episode one. My friend got there in the crypt scene on her first viewing, no books or websites involved AT ALL. She was more unsullied than you or your friends on the unsullied threads, even, because she lacked any real interest in the show OR the books, as it turned out. Most people don't, but two people I know for a fact were unsullied, did get there. It's really unfair on them to keep insisting that only a bookwalker would have had those thoughts. The scenes were in fact written to hint at those very thoughts.

I was completely unsullied until AFTER episode 5, when my speculations got me tossed out because they were too close. Someone assumed that only a bookwalker could possibly have these thoughts, but I didn't even have access to the books at that time.  I assumed that Ned and Kat both would die eventually because of the big fat dead wolf center screen in Episode 1, and that symbolism around the wolves and the Starks. I expected a neat 1-1 correspondence, that if a wolf died a corresponding Stark would also die. I also assumed that there would have to be something more complicated happening around Jon Snow than the surface story--we were being shown a surface with something lurking underneath it, throughout the first episode. Speculation isn't about facts, it's about imagination and what the show so far has hinted at. Given the closeups on Lyanna's statue, Ned's uncomfortable grunting about the subject, and Cat's virulent hatred of Jon Snow, it seemed an interesting possibility on first viewing, and kind of obvious on second viewing because of the "you have my blood" line. I was floored when my friend got there so much faster than I had, but even at that time, I couldn't say "yes, you're right," because at that time it was still only speculation. The show hadn't confirmed it, and the books btw still haven't, although IMO they've made it pretty anvillicious.

[VetusItinera]

It was amazing seeing some of the locations in reality. My wife and I took the GoT tour of Croatia, visited Split, Dubrovnik, Šibenik, Trogir, Klis... it was amazing.
Croatia has a lot of historical places they used for filming. 

[The Companion]

Yes!!! Jon is alive! Tyrion met the dragons! This may have been my favorite episode so far.

[John Potts]

Wow - Bran, you are an ass. "What's wrong?" Dude! You were there when her brother died to get you to your new hangout.

Wun-Wun! That's how to make an entrance.

OK, how did Robert Strong/Cersei know what that guy said?

King Tommen at last is actually acting (maybe not wisely, but at least he's doing something). "I wanted to pull down the Sept on their heads." Now that's your parents' son talking!

Theon actually has a clearer vision of just how guilty he is than Sansa

I guess Show!Aeron is a lot more open minded than his book counterpart ("No woman may sit on the Seastone Chair!" I seem to recall him saying once or fifty times).

Great acting by Kit! (Well, until he woke up). Though how the hell did he get that crescent shaped scar (the one between his pecs)?

Even though I knew it didn't end that way, I was thinking, "I hope this isn't Quentyn's plot..." when Tyrion approached the dragons(Love "Quentyn the Crysp", @Stillshimpy!).

Shouldn't Mel have kissed Jon (a literal kiss of life) - it's what Thoros did?

Lastly, where are all the GIFs of Hodor going, "What you talkin' about, Willas?" (or maybe I'm just old)!

On ‎02‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 3:06 AM, scarynikki12 said:

Moving on, I love the hint of pleasure on Sansa's face when Brienne told her that Arya was not only still alive but not dressed like a lady.  Still keeping my fingers crossed for a Stark ladies reunion!

So nice to see a Stark happy for once!

On ‎02‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 3:33 AM, stillshimpy said:

Karstark must certainly be rethinking his personal bargains too.  At least, one would hope.  "Fuck that Robb Stark for cutting off my father's head! Not an ounce of loy...say, wasn't the guy you just kebab'd your dad?

Yeah, not a good day for happy families...