If your reading comprehension was only above average, you'd notice that I never said I don't find discussing the topic of spoilers interesting, especially since there are people on all sides of the issue with interesting and well-considered thoughts on the subject, simply that being spoiled about future fictional…

Out of pure curiosity, how is anything I wrote delusional? And if you could constrain your answer to using the actual definition of the word, it would be much appreciated.

I have two questions:

You don't understand the difference between an explanation and belief, do you? So I'll explain very simply for you. I don't really care about spoilers; the article did spoil a bit of the drama of the episode, but IT DID NOT REALLY BOTHER ME. I guess I was simply pointing out that you don't seem to understand how…

I would guess some sort of expectation bias. And since we are looking at it from the perspective of the betrayed, it seems worse when it's a surprise. I blame Martin for the way he wrote it.

That's cool. Want to share some shows or other things you're planning on seeing? If I know what happens in any of them, I'd be happy to share my knowledge, you know, since you don't care about spoilers and all that.

No, the title implies that it's confirmed this week that Freddie Lounds was murdered, which you only find out is false at the end of the episode. But simply making a statement that appears to confirm something completely alters the way someone watches something. It'd be like if I said that Tyrion's death on Game of…

Oh, I agree it's a bit existential, and there are likely many better choices. Although what is with Freddie Lounds?

I don't know. Seems pretty easy to just cut "murder" out of the home page headline and avoid the whole issue. Not doing so just comes across as trolling.

I remember seeing Episode II on a digital projection screen when it was released, of which there were not more than a handful back in that day; I remember not really caring how poor the plot and other elements were simply because it was the most incredible looking film I'd seen (especially the chase through the city).…

The first 100 pages of The Fountainhead is perfectly interesting. And then.

The yin to the yang that is: "I don't get it. It's just a blank canvas. My kid could do that."

Maybe who cares, because the movie's about running though a person's dreams so it kinda has a deficit of plausibility from the get-go.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that reading. But I personally think it's more interesting that they did decide to shade the character with more nuance and upend this rote redemptive arc that Martin had placed Jamie on. I guess my problem with the books, and to a certain, but lesser, extent the show, is that I keep being…

Wow, I wrote that very poorly. What I was trying to get at was that nothing about how Martin writes any of his scenes implies that the narration is unreliable, save for them being from one character's perspective. And that he writes the thoughts of his characters as distinct from the factual circumstances, which…

Agreed, I think his stories collected in Oblivion are some of his most affecting work.

Disagree. The filming of the scene is the dumb answer to the dumb question. And for Martin to cry unreliable narrator now is pretty ridiculous—his entire style is premised on telling us exactly what each character is thinking about everything, which kinda negates the purpose of the unreliable narrator.

I started to enjoy it when I accepted near the end of the first season that it was simply pulp.

I'd like have more faith that she was intended to be more than a future love interest, but the initial signs don't really seem that promising. Plus, she's had about three minutes of screen time in the first two episodes.

Well, I did say almost any.