Poll
Question:
Which claimant to the Iron Throne do you support (third season status)?
Option 1: Daenerys Stormborn
votes: 21
Option 2: Joffrey Baratheon-Lannister
votes: 2
Option 3: Stannis Baratheon
votes: 11
Option 4: Other
votes: 10
Based on the state of affairs at the beginning of the third season, who do you support?
I'm for independence. Seven kingdoms. Seven kings.
[spoiler]Bran Stark, KING IN THE NORTH![/spoiler]
Littlefinger
As of season three?
Robb Stark! King in the North!
The King by right, Stannis Baratheon.
[spoiler]Jon Targaryen[/spoiler] true heir to the Iron Throne
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2013, 02:32:08 AM
As of season three?
Robb Stark! King in the North!
He has never been a claimant to the Iron Throne.
Stannis. With Jon-Dani as his heir and an independent north (well. Assuming there will be a north when everything finishes)
White walkers!
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:36:08 AM
[spoiler]Jon Targaryen[/spoiler] true heir to the Iron Throne
Pffft. The true heir is [spoiler]Aegon VI Targaryen[/spoiler]
But since we did not know that yet I was in Dany's camp at the beginning of season III.
Danaerys. she's hot and has dragons.
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:36:08 AM
[spoiler]Jon Targaryen[/spoiler] true heir to the Iron Throne
Do you mean Jon Snow? If so, he is a bastard. Or do you mean some other character that is known at the beginning of season 3. :huh:
Targaryans are known polygamists.
Um Marty that spoilers tag is there for a reason. I think that could be inferred if you obsessively paid attention to detail in Book 2 but...I don't think anything has been hinted like that in the show.
Stannis.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 07:03:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:36:08 AM
[spoiler]Jon Targaryen[/spoiler] true heir to the Iron Throne
Pffft. The true heir is [spoiler]Aegon VI Targaryen[/spoiler]
But since we did not know that yet I was in Dany's camp at the beginning of season III.
[spoiler]There are all sorts of hints in the books that that boy is a pretender and whoreborn.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2013, 08:16:22 AM
[spoiler]There are all sorts of hunts in the books that that boy is a pretender and whoreborn.[/spoiler]
LIES!
Nerds. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 08:16:58 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2013, 08:16:22 AM
[spoiler]There are all sorts of hunts in the books that that boy is a pretender and whoreborn.[/spoiler]
LIES!
Damn hunts.
Stannis :w00t:
Daenerys Stormborn. The One True Queen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
Stannis :w00t:
What is it with you and your boner for older male religious conservatives? :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
Stannis :w00t:
What is it with you and your boner for older male religious conservatives? :P
Could it be possible that people make determinations that are NOT based on their sexual feelings towards the options?
Or, to put it another way, not everyone just picks whoever they want to fuck the most.
I support the House of Heisenberg.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
Stannis :w00t:
What is it with you and your boner for older male religious conservatives? :P
Could it be possible that people make determinations that are NOT based on their sexual feelings towards the options?
Or, to put it another way, not everyone just picks whoever they want to fuck the most.
I don't want to fuck Daenerys.
Incidentally, Sheilbh has been displaying this tendency consistently so it is more of a running joke between us. How about you let him respond rather than white-knighting about something you have no idea about.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
Stannis :w00t:
What is it with you and your boner for older male religious conservatives? :P
Could it be possible that people make determinations that are NOT based on their sexual feelings towards the options?
Or, to put it another way, not everyone just picks whoever they want to fuck the most.
Really? This is a fantasy thread about fantasy monarch in a fantasy movie based on a fantasy book.. I'm going with who I want to fuck the most. Hence Danaerys.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:30:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:54:57 AM
Stannis :w00t:
What is it with you and your boner for older male religious conservatives? :P
Could it be possible that people make determinations that are NOT based on their sexual feelings towards the options?
Or, to put it another way, not everyone just picks whoever they want to fuck the most.
I don't want to fuck Daenerys.
Incidentally, Sheilbh has been displaying this tendency consistently so it is more of a running joke between us. How about you let him respond rather than white-knighting about something you have no idea about.
Yeah, but your opposition to Stannis is well known to be 100% driven by him killing the guy you do want to fuck. I know exactly what this is all about.
My opposition to Stannis is he is generally dull and seems completely unwilling to play the political game that successful monarchs should.
My opposition to Stannis is based on the fact that he is a religious fanatic who views ruling in terms of some bizarre morality play. Joffrey may be a psychopathic monster, but I would much more like to see the realm ruled by some other Lannister (Tywin, for example) than by Stannis.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:55:10 AM
My opposition to Stannis is based on the fact that he is a religious fanatic who views ruling in terms of some bizarre morality play. Joffrey may be a psychopathic monster, but I would much more like to see the realm ruled by some other Lannister (Tywin, for example) than by Stannis.
BS he is not a religious fanatic. His wife is though.
They all seem a poor choice.
There is no one left to be a proper ruler. The Populace must Rise!
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 07:03:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:36:08 AM
[spoiler]Jon Targaryen[/spoiler] true heir to the Iron Throne
Pffft. The true heir is [spoiler]Aegon VI Targaryen[/spoiler]
But since we did not know that yet I was in Dany's camp at the beginning of season III.
Pfft!! That [spoiler]Mummers Dragon[/spoiler] is a dyed [spoiler]Griffon[/spoiler] in disguise! Remember the [spoiler]House of the Undying[/spoiler] and the [spoiler]prophecy with the mummers dragon[/spoiler] in the [spoiler]house of the undying[/spoiler]!
He isn't [spoiler]Jon Connington's son[/spoiler]. He's actually a [spoiler]secret Blackfyre pretender[/spoiler].
Anyway, I support the mannis.
I love how Stannis and Danny seem to be tied for the most part of this poll, and they outrank everybody else by a mile.
I support the institution of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, in which each inhabitant takes turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but with all decisions of that officer to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
Joffrey's losing because he's the one the audience knows for a fact has no claim.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 02, 2013, 11:43:37 AM
He isn't [spoiler]Jon Connington's son[/spoiler]. He's actually a [spoiler]secret Blackfyre pretender[/spoiler].
Anyway, I support the mannis.
we think... the only thing we do know is that he is[spoiler]Connington's adopted son[/spoiler]
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 02, 2013, 11:53:44 AM
Joffrey's losing because he's the one the audience knows for a fact has no claim.
I would guess that it is because he's insufferable. If say he was benevolent, I don't see why there wouldn't be viewers supporting him, despite the fact that he has no real claim.
That said, yeah given the options, I'm not sure why Marti "loves" the current results.
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 11:38:46 AM
Pfft!! That [spoiler]Mummers Dragon[/spoiler] is a dyed [spoiler]Griffon[/spoiler] in disguise! Remember the [spoiler]House of the Undying[/spoiler] and the [spoiler]prophecy with the mummers dragon[/spoiler] in the [spoiler]house of the undying[/spoiler]!
Well what about the other part in the [spoiler]House of the Undying?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"
"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked.
"He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads."[/spoiler]
The second one being [spoiler]Dany[/spoiler] and the third being...well...
In the books, do they give much back story on the decision-making regarding giving the throne to Fat Boy after he kills Insane Dude, vs. handing it off to Whiny Blond Dickhead?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 12:06:10 PM
In the books, do they give much back story on the decision-making regarding giving the throne to Fat Boy after he kills Insane Dude, vs. handing it off to Whiny Blond Dickhead?
He didn't kill insane dude, Jaime did. And yes it was mentioned. They decided to give it to him on the basis that the Baratheons had a blood claim, though I think somebody pointed out that was just a legalism really because Robert was the leader of the rebels.
Jaime also cannot rule anything since he's a Kingsguard.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 11:38:46 AM
Pfft!! That [spoiler]Mummers Dragon[/spoiler] is a dyed [spoiler]Griffon[/spoiler] in disguise! Remember the [spoiler]House of the Undying[/spoiler] and the [spoiler]prophecy with the mummers dragon[/spoiler] in the [spoiler]house of the undying[/spoiler]!
Well what about the other part in the [spoiler]House of the Undying?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"
"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked.
"He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads."[/spoiler]
The second one being [spoiler]Dany[/spoiler] and the third being...well...
No, the first two were [spoiler]Rhaegar's children, Rhaenys and Aegon[/spoiler]. What he wanted was a third [spoiler]child[/spoiler], and that [spoiler]child[/spoiler] was [spoiler]Jon Snow[/spoiler].
All this redaction! Are we talking about Wikileaks? :)
No, those guys never gave a damn about spoilers.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 11:38:46 AM
Pfft!! That [spoiler]Mummers Dragon[/spoiler] is a dyed [spoiler]Griffon[/spoiler] in disguise! Remember the [spoiler]House of the Undying[/spoiler] and the [spoiler]prophecy with the mummers dragon[/spoiler] in the [spoiler]house of the undying[/spoiler]!
Well what about the other part in the [spoiler]House of the Undying?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"
"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked.
"He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads."[/spoiler]
The second one being [spoiler]Dany[/spoiler] and the third being...well...
I'm pretty sure that the baby in the prophecy is the [spoiler]baby that got it's skull smashed in[/spoiler], but do remember [spoiler]Jon[/spoiler] was named by Ned for [spoiler]Jon Arryn[/spoiler] just like [spoiler]Robb[/spoiler] was named for [spoiler]Robert Baratheon[/spoiler]. The whole reference to [spoiler]the woman he loved[/spoiler] in the [spoiler]house of the undying[/spoiler] certainly didn't refer to [spoiler]Elia[/spoiler], though Dany was prone to think that it did. I'm not sure the babe in the prophecy isn't [spoiler]Jon[/spoiler]
I go with Daenerys. Her family had the throne but were removed by the Baratheons (Stannis, Robert), her father or grandfather killed, she and her brother secreted away. So it seems she has the most legitimate claim. I like her style too. She plays the game of thrones/politics pretty well, tries to be fair minded in her dealings but can be tough and a bit ruthless as needed. Bodes very well for such a young person who would grow and mature even more into the role.
Stannis has a claim as the brother of the former King but Joffrey as the heir, though a false heir has the claim. Joffrey not even the former King's son but few people know that who would want to contest it.
Tywin would make a good King. I think he's one of the smartest of them all, tough, plays the game of thrones and politics well, very savvy and ruthless. But I don't like House Lannister for all their manipulations. I like Tyrion though; he's one of the smartest of them all.
My preference probably would be to see Rob Stark as King but he doesn't likely want that.
I think Starks make good lords, but they would make lousy kings of the Seven Kingdoms. They can inspire loyalty of their own people, but are completely hapless to the intrigues of those who are not their own people (i.e. the remaining six kingdoms).
Danny ruling the Seven Kingdoms, with the Starks as her vassals in the North, is probably the best alignment (as I think Starks are too honorable to accept someone as ruthless as Tywin as their liege).
Game of Thrones is a great example of why monarchy sucks so bad.
Dany is the one who is likely the best for the people of Westeros. At least the ones who don't get burned alive when she conquers Westeros.
But she is clearly the exception in her family. They mostly seem to be pretty nucking futs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 02, 2013, 11:53:44 AM
Joffrey's losing because he's the one the audience knows for a fact has no claim.
Not so. He is the acknowledged legal heir of the last king. Can't get much a better claim than that.
Of the three, he clearly is the best choice as well.
Stannis is crushingly unpopular and disliked by all - and has no purpose or reason in seeking the throne other than his sense that he has some abstract right to it.
Danaerys is presented sympathetically, but the hard truth is that wherever she goes, massacre, ruin and calamity follow. She has no knowledge of the realm she would rule or its people and her track record does not augur great success in cultural adaptation.
Joffrey is a nasty little shit, but his arc suggests a destiny of being dominated by the Tyrells, and there are a lot worse options out there than a Tyrell-dominated imperium.
How do you get that Stannis is crushingly unpopular? :huh:
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 02, 2013, 12:20:46 PM
No, the first two were [spoiler]Rhaegar's children, Rhaenys and Aegon[/spoiler]. What he wanted was a third [spoiler]child[/spoiler], and that [spoiler]child[/spoiler] was [spoiler]Jon Snow[/spoiler].
He said it when he was looking directly [spoiler]Dany[/spoiler] and, in any case [spoiler]Aegon is still alive[/spoiler].
True enough. Lannisters and Tyrells are probably two most pragmatic Great Houses of Westeros. And they would play the bad cop/good cop game well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
How do you get that Stannis is crushingly unpopular? :huh:
The fact that noone but his most loyal bannermen really support him. This is also talked about a lot in the books and in the tv series.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2013, 01:52:07 PM
Game of Thrones is a great example of why monarchy sucks so bad.
Dany is the one who is likely the best for the people of Westeros. At least the ones who don't get burned alive when she conquers Westeros.
But she is clearly the exception in her family. They mostly seem to be pretty nucking futs.
They are either nuts or geniuses. Obviously Martin is going by the thin line between genius and madness thing. So she is not the exception, rather she is the rule...but so is Viserys.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 01:57:08 PM
True enough. Lannisters and Tyrells are probably two most pragmatic Great Houses of Westeros. And they would play the bad cop/good cop game well.
The problem is that would require them trusting each other. Besides I do not think either are particularly pragmatic, the Lannister policies have been particularly disastrous.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2013, 01:52:29 PM
Joffrey is a nasty little shit, but his arc suggests a destiny of being dominated by the Tyrells, and there are a lot worse options out there than a Tyrell-dominated imperium.
The Lannisters have done a piss-poor job of reining Joffrey in. Hard to believe the Tyrells would be more successful.
Um, someone remind me who the Tyrells are? The Titsuckers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Um, someone remind me who the Tyrells are? The Titsuckers?
Loras and Margaery and company
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 02:43:16 PM
No help. :D
Stannis's gay brother's wife and lover. Those people.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 02:44:48 PM
Stannis's gay brother's wife and lover. Those people.
10-4
Bumboy and Beard.
It is probably mainly because of Natalie Dormer, but it just occurred to me that GRRM may be channeling Boleyns with Tyrells.
Of course, he is also channeling Boleyns with Lannisters. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
It is probably mainly because of Natalie Dormer, but it just occurred to me that GRRM may be channeling Boleyns with Tyrells.
I am trying to think of one similarity between them....yeah I got nothing.
Doran Martell.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
It is probably mainly because of Natalie Dormer, but it just occurred to me that GRRM may be channeling Boleyns with Tyrells.
Of course, he is also channeling Boleyns with Lannisters. :P
I'd say the Woodvilles are a closer bet for the Lannisters.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 10:30:46 AM
Incidentally, Sheilbh has been displaying this tendency consistently so it is more of a running joke between us. How about you let him respond rather than white-knighting about something you have no idea about.
Feel free to use the PM features if you don't want other people responding to your posts, fag.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 11:46:45 AM
I love how Stannis and Danny seem to be tied for the most part of this poll, and they outrank everybody else by a mile.
most people figure that, if they haven't died and been reborn up to now, they are likely to survive to whole ordeal 'til the very end.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
All this redaction! Are we talking about Wikileaks? :)
Well, it is necessary because of [spoiler]Never gonna give you up, [/spoiler] and [spoiler]Never gonna let you down [/spoiler], and if we didn't [spoiler]Never gonna run around and desert you[/spoiler] then [spoiler]Never gonna make you cry, [/spoiler]. So [spoiler]Never gonna say goodbye [/spoiler] and if that isn't possible then [spoiler]Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you [/spoiler]. If you got this far then the only decent thing for you to do is [spoiler]admit that you've just been rick-rolled.[/spoiler]. I do know that this relevant as of 2009 but, hey, shit happens.
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
All this redaction! Are we talking about Wikileaks? :)
Well, it is necessary because of [spoiler]Never gonna give you up, [/spoiler] and [spoiler]Never gonna let you down [/spoiler], and if we didn't [spoiler]Never gonna run around and desert you[/spoiler] then [spoiler]Never gonna make you cry, [/spoiler]. So [spoiler]Never gonna say goodbye [/spoiler] and if that isn't possible then [spoiler]Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you [/spoiler]. If you got this far then the only decent thing for you to do is [spoiler]admit that you've just been rick-rolled.[/spoiler]. I do know that this relevant as of 2009 but, hey, shit happens.
I think you mean like '07/'08 but thanks for keeping a child-like sense of wonder alive. :P
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 03:19:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
All this redaction! Are we talking about Wikileaks? :)
Well, it is necessary because of [spoiler]Never gonna give you up, [/spoiler] and [spoiler]Never gonna let you down [/spoiler], and if we didn't [spoiler]Never gonna run around and desert you[/spoiler] then [spoiler]Never gonna make you cry, [/spoiler]. So [spoiler]Never gonna say goodbye [/spoiler] and if that isn't possible then [spoiler]Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you [/spoiler]. If you got this far then the only decent thing for you to do is [spoiler]admit that you've just been rick-rolled.[/spoiler]. I do know that this relevant as of 2009 but, hey, shit happens.
I think you mean like '07/'08 but thanks for keeping a child-like sense of wonder alive. :P
I was guessing. But then again, thanks for admitting that [spoiler]you were Rick Rolled[/spoiler]
Quote from: Maximus on April 02, 2013, 02:37:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2013, 01:52:29 PM
Joffrey is a nasty little shit, but his arc suggests a destiny of being dominated by the Tyrells, and there are a lot worse options out there than a Tyrell-dominated imperium.
The Lannisters have done a piss-poor job of reining Joffrey in. Hard to believe the Tyrells would be more successful.
"The Lannisters" in this case is Cersei, who never even tried to rein him in. If Tywin or Jaime were there to keep him on a leash, they would have done much better. Tyrion had some success but he couldn't do it by himself.
Quote from: Viking on April 02, 2013, 03:32:57 PM
I was guessing. But then again, thanks for admitting that [spoiler]you were Rick Rolled[/spoiler]
I don't see why that's an issue.
Quote from: viper37 on April 02, 2013, 03:11:37 PM
most people figure that, if they haven't died and been reborn up to now, they are likely to survive to whole ordeal 'til the very end.
No way. Stannis is a goner, and soon. True king though he is, the narrative (and GRRMs predelictions) demand his head. Only critical author existence failure can give Stannis the victory he deserves at this point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
How do you get that Stannis is crushingly unpopular? :huh:
Renly says so, and there's no reason to believe that he was lying. Well, he had reason to lie, but every time Stannis is mentioned in the books by characters not under his thumb, it's usually in reference to how awful he is.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 02, 2013, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 02, 2013, 03:11:37 PM
most people figure that, if they haven't died and been reborn up to now, they are likely to survive to whole ordeal 'til the very end.
No way. Stannis is a goner, and soon. True king though he is, the narrative (and GRRMs predelictions) demand his head. Only critical author existence failure can give Stannis the victory he deserves at this point.
I think he'll have some interesting dealings with both the false Aegon and Tommen. Stannis is one of the most interesting characters in the series, and if GRRM was going to kill him off it would have been after Blackwater.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2013, 09:00:18 PM
Stannis is one of the most interesting characters in the series, and if GRRM was going to kill him off it would have been after Blackwater.
:yes: The fact that Martinus can't stand him because he killed his make-believe crush makes him even better.
Why is he interesting? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 09:31:47 PM
Why is he interesting? :unsure:
He's intelligent and a great field commander, stern, fanatical, harsh in pursuit of the "just" but frequently able to look past that when goals are threatened.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2013, 10:24:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 09:31:47 PM
Why is he interesting? :unsure:
He's intelligent and a great field commander, stern, fanatical, harsh in pursuit of the "just" but frequently able to look past that when goals are threatened.
That's why he's interesting? Doesn't sound very interesting to me. Kind of more annoying as he could have it all but plays the game of politics rather poorly.
[spoiler]Aegon is not false! The Griffin shall triumph.[spoiler]
You are false though. :angry:
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
It is probably mainly because of Natalie Dormer, but it just occurred to me that GRRM may be channeling Boleyns with Tyrells.
I am trying to think of one similarity between them....yeah I got nothing.
Really? A young and beautiful queen with a gay brother, both hoping to manipulate an execution-happy king?
The Targaryens. They've got the best claim and more importantly they're the ones best suited for bringing peace and stability to the 7 Kingdoms. Their madness / greatness curse is more something inherent in the institution of monarch itself, and anyway definitely afflicts the new ruling family too (e.g. Joffrey). The Seven Kingdoms would likely have been far better off if Robert Baratheon, Ned and Jon had failed in their uprising.
[spoiler]aegon is obviously false....though Martin does like going against the obvious so who knows. My prediction is everyone who matters knows he is fake yet many reckon it might be for the good of the realm to pretend and marry him to dani or stannis' kid[/spoiler]
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:29:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
It is probably mainly because of Natalie Dormer, but it just occurred to me that GRRM may be channeling Boleyns with Tyrells.
I am trying to think of one similarity between them....yeah I got nothing.
Really? A young and beautiful queen with a gay brother, both hoping to manipulate an execution-happy king?
I would have thought she was a hapsburg. A young and beautiful queen marries the older brother who dies before consumating the marriage who then marries the younger brother... of course after marrying a usurper.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:29:57 AM
Really? A young and beautiful queen with a gay brother, both hoping to manipulate an execution-happy king?
Yeah the Tyrells are a major house of old blood trying to best their rivals, the Boleyns were minor nobles with ambitions of being somebody. The Tyrells are the epitome of old school chivalric and aristocratic values, the Boleyns were major forces of social change. The youth and beauty of Margaery Tyrell are not a source of royal favor at all, Joffre is marrying her because of her old blood and power...which is opposite of the Anne-Henry dynamic. So all we got is there is a girl married to a king who has a brother. Incidently, not much is known about George Boleyn's personal life but I remember how much it irritates you when I want evidence for historical people's sexuality so I will go ahead and give you that one to :P
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2013, 06:54:48 AM
[spoiler]aegon is obviously false....though Martin does like going against the obvious so who knows. My prediction is everyone who matters knows he is fake yet many reckon it might be for the good of the realm to pretend and marry him to dani or stannis' kid[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Um who even knows about him besides Varys and Tyrion? I mean unless you think they are the only two people who matter and you may have a point there.
And he is not obviously false at all. Alot of people WANT him to be false and he may yet be. But GRRM hinted he was still alive for quite awhile. Besides Varys says he is Aegon at the end of ADWD and why would he lie to a dying man?[/spoiler]
Tyrion Targaryen.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 03, 2013, 07:29:54 AM
Tyrion Targaryen.
unpossible. Tyrion must be legitimate for [spoiler]Tywins ultimate nightmare of Lanna Lannister, the daughter of the Tysha the Sailor's Wife in Bravos, sitting as the ruler in Casterly Rock to come true.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]note, the identity of the Sailors wife has not been clearly established, but seems to be an early set-up, with Braavos being the answer to the question of where whores go and the sailors wife's view of marriage and putative fidelity to tyrion. To be blunt, he won't have any reason to complain given his own whoring[/spoiler]
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:20:26 AM
Incidently, not much is known about George Boleyn's personal life but I remember how much it irritates you when I want evidence for historical people's sexuality so I will go ahead and give you that one to :P
Because Showtime came out in support of the theory?
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 07:43:54 AM
Because Showtime came out in support of the theory?
Of course they did, it made it more interesting. But the theory is based on nothing really.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:28:12 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2013, 06:54:48 AM
[spoiler]aegon is obviously false....though Martin does like going against the obvious so who knows. My prediction is everyone who matters knows he is fake yet many reckon it might be for the good of the realm to pretend and marry him to dani or stannis' kid[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Um who even knows about him besides Varys and Tyrion? I mean unless you think they are the only two people who matter and you may have a point there.
And he is not obviously false at all. Alot of people WANT him to be false and he may yet be. But GRRM hinted he was still alive for quite awhile. Besides Varys says he is Aegon at the end of ADWD and why would he lie to a dying man?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]His little birds[/spoiler] would have heard. When it comes to a secret that big, you can't be too careful.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:46:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 07:43:54 AM
Because Showtime came out in support of the theory?
Of course they did, it made it more interesting. But the theory is based on nothing really.
apparently there are some gay folks who consider a historic figure gay if either of these apply:
-he wasn't clearly straight according to records
-he was clearly straight according to records
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:46:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 07:43:54 AM
Because Showtime came out in support of the theory?
Of course they did, it made it more interesting. But the theory is based on nothing really.
Which is why I don't think you should concede that point. :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:46:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 07:43:54 AM
Because Showtime came out in support of the theory?
Of course they did, it made it more interesting. But the theory is based on nothing really.
Why would you think I was referring to hard and verified historical facts as opposed to popular historical narratives, when commenting on an author using similar narratives in his storytelling? Seriously, sometimes you guys seem like autistic people.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 09:40:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:46:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 07:43:54 AM
Because Showtime came out in support of the theory?
Of course they did, it made it more interesting. But the theory is based on nothing really.
Why would you think I was referring to hard and verified historical facts as opposed to popular historical narratives, when commenting on an author using similar narratives in his storytelling? Seriously, sometimes you guys seem like autistic people.
As far as I can see the idea that Boelyn was gay stems from the late 80s - while Renly the character was written in the mid-90s. Was the theory very popular by then?
"Gay" in Tudor England?
Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.
Is that a compliment or an insult?
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 09:40:54 AM
Why would you think I was referring to hard and verified historical facts as opposed to popular historical narratives, when commenting on an author using similar narratives in his storytelling? Seriously, sometimes you guys seem like autistic people.
Well firstly the theory did not become popular historical narrative until The Tudors came out so it did not occur to me you were suggesting that version of the Boleyns was what motivated GRRM writing a decade beforehand. I thought you were talking about the actual Boleyns and GRRM is quite a medieval British history buff so it was not a super crazy idea, or autistic or whatever, that you were suggesting that was the inspiration. But that is not really the point. Even judging from the TV series and the books I think you are letting the fact that there is the same actress involved make narrative connections that are not really that similar.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.
Well to be fair I think he's just using lazy shorthand to state that he feels some sort of affinity with men from different eras who fucked other men...even if there is no evidence that they did so. :D (And then the same for fictional ones too.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2013, 10:22:49 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.
Is that a compliment or an insult?
Knowing some of the basics of the history of sexual identity when criticizing someone on the topic would seem important.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 07:28:12 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 03, 2013, 06:54:48 AM
[spoiler]aegon is obviously false....though Martin does like going against the obvious so who knows. My prediction is everyone who matters knows he is fake yet many reckon it might be for the good of the realm to pretend and marry him to dani or stannis' kid[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Um who even knows about him besides Varys and Tyrion? I mean unless you think they are the only two people who matter and you may have a point there.
And he is not obviously false at all. Alot of people WANT him to be false and he may yet be. But GRRM hinted he was still alive for quite awhile. Besides Varys says he is Aegon at the end of ADWD and why would he lie to a dying man?[/spoiler]
Others will find out I mean after he starts making waves.
To the OP, A pox on all their houses. Hopefully leaders from the past who we thought were dead arent. Oh wait.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 11:14:40 AM
To the OP, A pox on all their houses. Hopefully leaders from the past who we thought were dead arent. Oh wait.
Who are you talking about? None of the dead former leaders are dead-but-not-dead. Dead-but-not-deadness generally happens to their heirs :P
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.
Well to be fair I think he's just using lazy shorthand to state that he feels some sort of affinity with men from different eras who fucked other men...even if there is no evidence that they did so. :D (And then the same for fictional ones too.)
Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. :rolleyes:
That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.
Oh sure. Insult me because you couldn't come up with anything :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Well to be fair I think he's just using lazy shorthand to state that he feels some sort of affinity with men from different eras who fucked other men...even if there is no evidence that they did so. :D (And then the same for fictional ones too.)
ZOMG RENLY AND LORAS WEREN'T GAY IN THE BOOKS
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. :rolleyes:
That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.
Not really. I just have such a low opinion of your ability to reasonably discuss human sexuality and it's history that I assumed that you were either ignorant or careless, as you've previously demonstrated both in equal measure. Though, obviously, both ignorance and carelessness are completely overshadowed by your capacity to be a hyperbolic asshole.
Poor Martinus. Trying to make your own stupidity and laziness into somebody else's problem is typical of his kind of trash.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2013, 01:54:35 PM
Not really. I just have such a low opinion of your ability to reasonably discuss human sexuality and it's history that I assumed that you were either ignorant or careless, as you've previously demonstrated both in equal measure. Though, obviously, both ignorance and carelessness are completely overshadowed by your capacity to be a hyperbolic asshole.
I don't want to defend him but I found it a bit tiresome that you were going to try and lecture him on a history of sexuality. It was pretty obvious what he meant even those he did phrase it carelessly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2013, 01:17:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Well to be fair I think he's just using lazy shorthand to state that he feels some sort of affinity with men from different eras who fucked other men...even if there is no evidence that they did so. :D (And then the same for fictional ones too.)
ZOMG RENLY AND LORAS WEREN'T GAY IN THE BOOKS
they were, it's pretty obvious.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. :rolleyes:
That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.
you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "autistic" either . . .
I don't find it too odd to say she's a bit of Anne Boleyn-ish. Yeah the Boleyns were new money but they married into the Howards who were always pushing her marriage. It's a bit like Littlefinger seeming a little bit like Thomas Cromwell. They may not be inspirations like the War of the Roses, but there's definite resemblances.
Tom Holland wrote a piece about this sort of thing for the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/mar/24/game-of-thrones-realistic-history
Yeah. I turned to Mantell when I was done with Dance of Dragons. Sadly, Wolf Hall took me three times as long as the far larger Dance. :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2013, 10:21:54 AM
Not my fault you're totally fucking unschooled in gender studies, Marty.
Well to be fair I think he's just using lazy shorthand to state that he feels some sort of affinity with men from different eras who fucked other men...even if there is no evidence that they did so. :D (And then the same for fictional ones too.)
Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. :rolleyes:
That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.
It would also help if you knew what the word "autistic" means.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2013, 05:46:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Yeah, it's retarded on Queequeg's part to take objection to that statement. It is quite obvious, and we have been there hundreds of times, that the so-called gay identity is a modern construct, but is used as a shorthand these days for homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. :rolleyes:
That's why I call such behaviour autistic - it's an inability to read the intended meaning from context, and instead sticking to literal meaning of each and every word, even if the intention is pretty obvious.
you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "autistic" either . . .
Motherfucker beat me to it. <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2013, 07:50:35 PM
I don't find it too odd to say she's a bit of Anne Boleyn-ish. Yeah the Boleyns were new money but they married into the Howards who were always pushing her marriage.
The comp just doesn't work. Anne Bolelyn was as pointed out minor nobility on the make, and behaved foolishly. Tyrell is the eldest daughter of the high nobility, sophisticated, and clever. Also Joffrey bears no conceivable resemblence to Henry VIII, nor is there any parallel to Catherine of Aragon. In fact, other than a pretty young woman with ambitious relatives marrying a king (hardly an unusual pattern), there is virtually nothing the two narratives have in common.
Joffrey isn't fond of restrictions on his power, so he does have one point of similarity with Henry.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2013, 12:15:22 PM
Joffrey isn't fond of restrictions on his power, so he does have one point of similarity with Henry.
And most medieval kings.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 04, 2013, 12:09:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2013, 07:50:35 PM
I don't find it too odd to say she's a bit of Anne Boleyn-ish. Yeah the Boleyns were new money but they married into the Howards who were always pushing her marriage.
The comp just doesn't work. Anne Bolelyn was as pointed out minor nobility on the make, and behaved foolishly. Tyrell is the eldest daughter of the high nobility, sophisticated, and clever. Also Joffrey bears no conceivable resemblence to Henry VIII, nor is there any parallel to Catherine of Aragon. In fact, other than a pretty young woman with ambitious relatives marrying a king (hardly an unusual pattern), there is virtually nothing the two narratives have in common.
Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.
They are not seeking recognition from the other great families. They are the traditional Wardens of the South, that is pretty significant recognition. And while centuries ago they were vassals to House Gardener they were still an important family.
Marty, just admit it, you made the mistake of taking a television program at face value on the issue of history and you got spanked for it. You've made several attempts to justify your poor decision, but nobody is buying it.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2013, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.
They are not seeking recognition from the other great families. They are the traditional Wardens of the South, that is pretty significant recognition. And while centuries ago they were vassals to House Gardener they were still an important family.
I think you are wrong. I remember quite clearly Tyrells trying to pawn of Margaery first to Renly and the to Lannisters being explained exactly by them seeking a recognition.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2013, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.
They are not seeking recognition from the other great families. They are the traditional Wardens of the South, that is pretty significant recognition. And while centuries ago they were vassals to House Gardener they were still an important family.
I think you are wrong. I remember quite clearly Tyrells trying to pawn of Margaery first to Renly and the to Lannisters being explained exactly by them seeking a recognition.
They're not seeking recognition. They're seeking dominance. They knew that Renly was a weak man and that by supporting him they could rule Westeros the way the Lannisters had been doing. And then they realized that there was a better deal to be had by selling themselves to the Lannisters than there would be trying to deal with Stannis, especially because the Lannisters have been gravely weakened.
That said, Martinus is right *shudder* about how the Tyrells are relatively new amongst the Great Houses. They were jumped up by Aegon when he conquered Westeros.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Well, Tyrells are also "new money" in the history of Westeros (which spans millennia rather than centuries or even decades). They have replaced the Gardeners fairly recently and are still looking out for the recognition by the other great families.
That makes the Tudor comparison more difficult because almost all the major Tudor nobility was relatively speaking jumped up. Including the ruling dynasty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 04, 2013, 12:09:35 PM
The comp just doesn't work. Anne Bolelyn was as pointed out minor nobility on the make, and behaved foolishly. Tyrell is the eldest daughter of the high nobility, sophisticated, and clever. Also Joffrey bears no conceivable resemblence to Henry VIII, nor is there any parallel to Catherine of Aragon. In fact, other than a pretty young woman with ambitious relatives marrying a king (hardly an unusual pattern), there is virtually nothing the two narratives have in common.
Her father was a new man, but her mother was a Howard. Her uncle was the Duke of Norfolk and he made very good use of her to increase his influence (as he later did Catherine Howard. I don't think it's fair to say she behaved foolishly. She was engaged to an important nobleman (the Percys) and then she caught the King's eye. I can think of lots of royal mistresses. She's the first (and off the top of my head, only) woman I can think of who got a King to divorce his wife and remarry. She did all that despite, apparently, only being moderately good looking. If nothing else she was sharp.
She also had an outsized impact on history not just because of Henry's divorce but because of the impetus she gave to the reformers in England - she helped protect and promote the Protestant reformers. On a more personal level her 'court' included at least two of the greatest Tudor Anglican thinkers (Latimer and Parker), so she had some eye for talent at least.
I don't really know what she did that was foolish apart from marry Henry and fail to have a son, but given the circumstances I don't know that that's really blameworthy. She also had an unfortunate afterlife.
I've not read all the books so I'm not entirely up to date, but based on the series I think there's enough of a resemblance to provoke the thought. As I say I think it's the same with Littlefinger and Cromwell.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 04, 2013, 05:25:31 PM
That makes the Tudor comparison more difficult because almost all the major Tudor nobility was relatively speaking jumped up. Including the ruling dynasty.
First of all this is in the eye of the reader. Someone who's read about Anney Boleyn may see a resemblance. Someone who's read about Medieval England may see a bit of Isabella in Cersei - as Tom Holland pointed out.
Secondly I don't think Marty or I are saying that these are direct diagrammatic inspirations - like the War of the Roses is. Rather that there's a resemblance. There's something of this or that historical figure, city, event that comes across in this bit of the series or the books. But that recognition or the flash of an idea is part of the fun and an indication of how good a fantasy series it is.
As Holland put it:
QuoteDifferent events – and different periods – elide to consistently potent and surprising effect. In Game of Thrones, episodes from the history of our own world lie in wait for the characters like booby traps.
...
Just as the characters and plot twists of his novels derive from a whole range of different periods, so too do their settings. The default mode is high medieval, but alongside all the tournaments and castles there are echoes as well of earlier periods. Offshore, a recognisably Viking kingdom boasts a fleet of longships; Westeros itself, like dark ages England, was once a heptarchy, a realm of seven kingdoms; the massive rampart of ice which guards its northernmost frontier is recognisably inspired by Hadrian's wall. Beyond Westeros, in a continent traversed by a Targaryen would-be queen, the echoes of our own world's history are just as clear – if more exotic. An army of horsemen sweeps across endless grasslands, much as Genghis Khan's Mongols did; memories of a vanished empire conflate Rome with the legend of Atlantis.
The result might easily have been a hideous mess. Instead, Game of Thrones is fantasy's equivalent of a perfect cocktail. Elements drawn from the hundred years war and the Italian Renaissance, from Chrétien de Troyes and Icelandic epic, fuse to seamless effect. The measure of how credible – on its own terms – people find Martin's alternative history is precisely the phenomenal scale of its popularity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
First of all this is in the eye of the reader. Someone who's read about Anney Boleyn may see a resemblance. Someone who's read about Medieval England may see a bit of Isabella in Cersei - as Tom Holland pointed out.
Secondly I don't think Marty or I are saying that these are direct diagrammatic inspirations - like the War of the Roses is. Rather that there's a resemblance. There's something of this or that historical figure, city, event that comes across in this bit of the series or the books. But that recognition or the flash of an idea is part of the fun and an indication of how good a fantasy series it is.
Well yes if you are willing to retreat to the bit of argument where it's just "oh as a reader I can find a few random elements" then sure. :P
Also, on that Holland bit - I'm not sure I agree with:
QuoteThe measure of how credible – on its own terms – people find Martin's alternative history is precisely the phenomenal scale of its popularity.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that its mainstream reader is that savvy on history. More likely just picked up a Phillipa Gregory novel or two. :D
So I'd really say it is more down to the fun of the story telling and not really a measure of how credible people find it as alternative history.
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2013, 06:50:08 PMWell yes if you are willing to retreat to the bit of argument where it's just "oh as a reader I can find a few random elements" then sure. :P
I've always thought it's about the reader finding resemblances which'll be based on their other readings and interpretations. I've never said I think Tyrell is Anne Boleyn, or is based on her, but I think there's enough there that I can get it. Similarly with me seeing Cromwell in Littlefinger - that's no doubt shaped because I've recently read Wolf Hall - but I think there's enough there to see how it happens.
As I say I think it's maybe not a mark, but a cause of the book's success that it's fantasy that reads like historical fiction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2013, 06:55:05 PM
I've always thought it's about the reader finding resemblances which'll be based on their other readings and interpretations. I've never said I think Tyrell is Anne Boleyn, or is based on her, but I think there's enough there that I can get it. Similarly with me seeing Cromwell in Littlefinger - that's no doubt shaped because I've recently read Wolf Hall - but I think there's enough there to see how it happens.
Fair enough. I guess I don't find that particularly interesting though as I'm not really sure what that does - beyond I guess coloring how you'll view a character
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2013, 06:55:05 PM
As I say I think it's maybe not a mark, but a cause of the book's success that it's fantasy that reads like historical fiction.
Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree on this one - but on the weak basis that I hate historical fiction. -_-
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2013, 06:59:46 PM
Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree on this one - but on the weak basis that I hate historical fiction. -_-
That's fair. But there's hundreds of historical fiction bestsellers while fantasy is far less popular with the general audience.
I think that it seems like history or has characters we kind of think we maybe recognise it makes it more real for most people. When you've got a show with dragons that's a good thing for the general audience.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2013, 06:59:46 PM
Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree on this one - but on the weak basis that I hate historical fiction. -_-
That's fair. But there's hundreds of historical fiction bestsellers while fantasy is far less popular with the general audience.
I think that it seems like history or has characters we kind of think we maybe recognise it makes it more real for most people. When you've got a show with dragons that's a good thing for the general audience.
I'd disagree I think. Just randomly off the top of my head - Twilight, Harry Potter (and possible even 50 shades) all fall on the fantasy side over any semblance of history. :D
Actually scratch 50 as I'm just conflating fantasies. :D
:lol: A fantasy isn't necessarily fantasy.
Point taken, but I think 'young adult fiction' is the better way of describing those :P
Edit: Though there's a whole other story about adults reading books written for kids - Potter, His Dark Materials etc. I think it's quite new that it's so public. My impression is you wouldn't see men in suits on the bus 50 years ago reading Narnia.
I agree with Sheilbh. Perhaps rather than "channeling Boleyns", I should have said there are some Boleyn-like tropes present in the Tyrells.
Just as York-like tropes are simultaneously present in Starks and Tyrion Lannister, for example.
One more thing: several people said that GRRM wrote the Tyrells in the 1990s so couldn't have been inspired by Tudors and other depiction of Boleyns - I dispute that.
The HBO show Tyrells (especially the Brother-Sister Team* of Loras and Margaery) are quite different than the ones in the books - which is also a reason why it has not occurred to me before to compare them to the Brother-Sistem Team of George and Anne Boleyn in Tudors. The way these two are written (already in the second season, when they are both essentially seducing Renly, and being given a very precise agenda, rather than being his playthings - as was more the case in the books) bears really striking similarities to George and Anne in Tudors (sans of course Henry being gay so no seduction agenda for George) - so I don't think that casting Natalie Dormer was a coincidence (the only question is whether the show writers did it on purpose or was it subconscious).
*A narrative trope recognized by TV Tropes and Idioms website.
Of course, by the same token, Jaime and Cersei are also following Boleyn tropes albeit quite differently - there are the Boleyns that would have been if (i) all accusations of incest and treason levied against them historically (or in The Other Boleyn Girl) were true, and (ii) they actually succeeded in assassinating Henry.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2013, 03:03:38 PM
That said, Martinus is right *shudder* about how the Tyrells are relatively new amongst the Great Houses. They were jumped up by Aegon when he conquered Westeros.
Like the Targaryen themselves. And the Baratheons. And the Tullys. And the Greyjoys. It's ridiculous to sugest that the Tyrells were seeking recognition after three centuries in charge.
All House Tyrell write-ups on all fan wiki pages etc. refer to their reputation as upstarts or newcomers to the great houses. Whether this is justified or not does not matter - it's how (again) the narrative is presented (and we are talking here about the narrative tropes, not "facts"). So I will not debate this further - just read your background material.
Incidentally, Tullys are also upstarts - but Tullys are not ruling one of the seven kingdoms.
Targaryens and Baratheons, on the other hand, are simply conquerors - so they are not upstarts by the right of conquest (whereas Tyrells, for example, simply turned on their own lieges and that's how they got elevated to their current position). If Boltons were given the North, following Rob's rebellion, they would be viewed as upstarts as well.
The only people badmouthing the Tyrells as upstarts are the Florents, and that's because they wanted to be the upstarts themselves.
Just saw a Brienne/Jaime scene from the ep 302 preview and Jaime probably gonna win the best line in the episode award. :lol:
I'm not going to respond in detail to Sheilbh's response; I think it is clear that historically-speaking the comparison is a very big stretch (as is Cromwell-Littlefinger for that matter other than the fact of their relatively humble origins and ambition). The attraction of the Tudors as a point of comparison is that they are more familiar to many of us amateur historians than other possible points of comparison and their coverage in another HBO series with a common actress. Not in the fact that the comparison is actually close.