Please explain.

I know what you meant, I just stick by my original post. No worries.

I don't necessarily agree with all he says here. But the spirit of the articles is just to hate on something, for fun, to roll with it, at least that's what I thought. Most of how he reacts to the song is valid, he can … and he's right about the idea of saying 'rape me.' In both contexts. If the opinions are wildly…

This is a great one. I feel that it's the first time that the hater is down on something that the interviewer loves or is sensitive about, for whatever reason they can't just roll with it for the fun of the article. It goes towards proving his point that criticising Nirvana can be taboo.

That's a fair question.

Case in point: the newbies review makes a point of declaring it is writing from a "ludicrous digging-too-deep point of view" when it is in danger of making it sound like the episode was not good.

Nope, the tone of these reviews does not appear to contain a trace of what you think is s given.

Well, that's not the tone of his reviews, if you infer the point, which you don't.

Seriously, that fight was like the best scene in the D&D movie you wish they would have made.

I just posted something with the same sentiment. There's a finality in the tone of the reviews too like a pronouncement of fact rather than a reviews take. Bah.

By the way, c'mon people: Skeletons, elves and fireballs. Yes.

"Season four was frequently astounding, occasionally
strange, and every so often not very good, but it lacked that throughline that
might have held everything together." In your opinion. Your review says parts of it were not very good, but that doesn't make it so. Just to be clear.

Because if it is just a larger volume, then his point stands. We can hardly complain about GoT being over violent generally speaking, when we've just had the 20th Century. The argument is not about whether he misrepresented the War of the Roses, that's your invention.

It is more bloody in what way? You mean that violent deaths by torture or sword, for example, are less bloody in real life? Or you just mean that there are a larger volume of battles in GoT?

So not as violent then? The point under discussion is that the show/books seem relentlessly violent, and GRRM replies that it is no more violent than human history, less so in fact. I agree with him.

I don't know whose point you are answering. So, I think you mean that in real life, in times of war, it was not as violent as game of thrones make out? Is that what you are getting at?

Kitiara was my first proper book crush, holy shit.

I'm also 41 and started D&D in 82/83. Yeah, the big two D&D trilogies were the first Dragonlance books and later the Dark Elf trilogy. I think you nailed it here. I re-read these three years ago and found the writing to be almost unbearably cheesy. But the world builds nicely and the story of Caramon and Raistlin is…

Watching with some firsthand experience of violence, and a knowledge of basic history and current affairs, the show is as Martin says, on par with the actual society of the time, and a bit behind modern times for frequency of violent death during war times. In my view, the only issue here, as stated in the article is…

Ok, so we agree that it is a discourse, and one that is dismissive. My view is that GoT is good enough that to apply this to the show is reductive and unhelpful. And if we thought that the majority of the episode was 'table setting; then it should get a grade or tone of review that reflects this. Also, thanks for…