I thought it was a believable turn of events. A little inelegantly set up but believable.
I thought it was a believable turn of events. A little inelegantly set up but believable.
"Which, for the record, most journalists hate." Why is that relevant?
Because he's extremely good-looking?
I don't why you're presuming that I mean 'absent of substance' when I said 'conservative'. What you're saying is both correct and conservative.
Let me get this straight: you agree that the narrative makes no significant room for the universe's disenfranchised characters, that it exists within a genre with a gimlet focus on the powerful and that it asks us to root for the preservation of aristocratic families' positions.
Game of Thrones' bread and butter has been building sympathy and antipathy towards different families and using their successes and failures navigating a feudal system to provide jollies (and sad-jollies). It's such a fundamental aspect of the show so frequently discussed I don't know where to begin in giving…
How the show ends doesn't affect my point; I'm talking about the show has engineered its audience reaction.
There were injunctions in societies without the kind of machinery. The reason, I'd posit, is that it was a minority difference and it was more practical to victimise. I also heavily buy into Rene Girard's mimetic anthroplogy so the erasure of difference in times of crisis made sexual behaviour a hotter potato then in…
I don't have the anthroplogical data to weigh in on majorities with but I can't think of a social group that didn't plateau at "qualified tolerance". I certainly can't think of one which didn't draw a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. I stand to be corrected; I'm no expert.
The idea that an uncertain throne brings havoc is a conservative stance. It's predicated on accepting the social system in place. The show doesn't need to have Westeros become democratic to critique the system, it just needs to dramatise somebody being crushed under the weight of it. But it's medieval fantasy with a…
But there's been zero emotional charge given that thought. It's a rare person who when asked how she would like the series to end will not say "With x on the Iron Throne'. That the narrative's operating procedure is derived from a hermetic social order is what makes it conservative.
I can think of a half dozen primitive religions with severe injunctions for non-ritualised homosexual acts. Religion, society and human behaviour organises itself around the categorisation and hierarchy-building of difference.
The two songs they released for Record Store Day would have sat happily on Eight Arms.
The child didn't consent to drinking the poisoned water, she only took it on pretext.
In the most recent episode, she tells an ill girl that the water she gives her will cure her but it kills her.
I haven't trawled the comments sections here or elsewhere but it's been an unusually absent topic: that was Arya turning a definitive corner morally and it was treated like a moment of growth.
How can an event perpetrated against a character fly in the face of a character arc?
It was included so when Sansa precipitates the Bolton's bloody end, people will find it more satisfying.
I believe their argument was to assume, rhetorically, the appearance of a suffocating fish.
Oh, I'd never respond with the part outside quotation marks if I weren't facing a jury of grad school postmodernists. But if you tether yourself to a more dominant player's game, the best tact you can take at FTC is to dismiss the virtues of their game as baseless conservativism. "They played hard so they could get to…