Most hated subplots

[Laura]

Your ad hominem also tells me that you have nothing better to throw at me. You're the one in denial. I've been explaining how it's not hating a female character, but the reasons you hate her. Hating Melisandre because she's a religious fanatic is not misogynistic. Hating Sansa because she's a damsel in distress is, whatever an expert on men and masculinities may say about it.

[Shawn]

Laura wrote: "This is getting better and better "Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities" as an expert source for female gender issues. This is hilarious, please keep it coming. You made my coffee break amusing, t..."

Right... because a psychology book on men and their personalities could never deal with misogyny.

Posting comments like that just continues to display why it is time to ignore you.

So this is goodbye. I don't care what innane bullshit you post anymore. Good luck.

Maybe one day you will learn to understand the definitions of the words you want to use and why that knowledge is important -- especially in a text based medium, and perhaps you will mature to the point where you actually read people's comments before you respond. At this point, I am doubtful though.

Laura wrote: "Your ad hominem also tells me that you have nothing better to throw at me.

Also, with your posts in this topic alone.. it is absolutely hilarious that you want to complain about ad hominem... or any other logical fallacies for that matter. Seriously. Grow up. Hell, your initial post in this thread WAS ad hominem.

[Laura]

Your hatred on the Mountain would be misandry if you hate him for being a knight instead of a poet or a singer. Now, if you hate him for being a murderous rapist brute, then it's not misandry.

If you disliked Sansa because she was a brat and a naive girl who thought her life would be like in a song, that's not misogynistic. Disliking Sansa for running to tell Cersei is not misogynistic. Disliking her for being a lady instead of a warrior is totally misogynistic.

A man who loves and idolizes his mom and thinks she's strong because she had to raise him in times of difficulty, but thinks his own wife should not work because her place is at home taking care of the kids is a misogynist, in spite of how he feels about his mom.

By the way, I have done my research (I don't consider Wikipedia scientific enough). I have talked to the two psychologists and the sociology/social medicine specialist that work in my department last week. Two of them happen to like the series. That made for a very interesting lunch conversation, I have to say. One of them mentioned the possible confusion between disliking the literary trope "damsel in distress" (from a Doylist point of view) versus hating the female character herself (from a Watsonian point of view). Internalized misogyny was mentioned, and Cersei is always the best example for that. The early interactions between Sansa and Arya go in that direction, when Arya is put down by Sansa for not being a proper lady, in the same way that Shawn and Brooklyn put down Sansa for being a proper lady. All three of these professionals laughed at the mention of Wikipedia as an expert source and neither understood how a study on men and masculinities would shed any light to it.

Last, but not least... I'm a German 16 year-old? LOL!

------------------------------------
Hated subplots:
I'm sure I don't want to know what Qyburn is doing in that creepy laboratory, starting with Robert Strong. It freaks me out.

[Shawn]

oh hell.. I can't stop pointing out the bullshit.

By the way, I have done my research (I don't consider Wikipedia scientific enough). I have talked to the two psychologists and the sociology/social medicine specialist that work in my department last week. Two of them happen to like the series. That made for a very interesting lunch conversation, I have to say. One of them mentioned the possible confusion between disliking the literary trope "damsel in distress" (from a Doylist point of view) versus hating the female character herself (from a Watsonian point of view). Internalized misogyny was mentioned, and Cersei is always the best example for that. The early interactions between Sansa and Arya go in that direction, when Arya is put down by Sansa for not being a proper lady, in the same way that Shawn and Brooklyn put down Sansa for being a proper lady. All three of these professionals laughed at the mention of Wikipedia as an expert source and neither understood how a study on men and masculinities would shed any light to it.

Talked to them last week huh? Seeing as the links to the wikipedia were posted on friday by Robin... I call bullshit.

Further more, she posted citations from other books, utilizing Wikipedia as a jumping point, which even Harvard and other universities acknowledge it as an okay starting point for research.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?...

http://www.georgefox.edu/offices/murd...

If she had just cited Wikipedia, you might have a leg to stand on, but she didn't. She recommended specific books, and was in general referencing what misogyny is, utilizing both dictionaries and other sources to give you additional ways to educate yourself. And mind you, this is NOT a paper with cited references. This is not a thesis. This is a stupid forum to discuss books. She used wikipedia perfectly to give quick references.

Also, without even looking up the book, you are making judgement calls about its content. Just like you make ridiculous claims about posts, without actually reading the majority of them. If you do just the bare minimum of research, the book's description is:

The International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities offers a comprehensive guide to the current state of scholarship about men, masculinities, and gender around the world. The Encyclopedia's coverage is comprehensive across three dimensions: areas of personal and social life, academic disciplines, and cultural and historical contexts and formations.

Seems like there might be a few places misogyny might come up in there. But hey. You didn't even bother to look it up. You just know everything.

A man who loves and idolizes his mom and thinks she's strong because she had to raise him in times of difficulty, but thinks his own wife should not work because her place is at home taking care of the kids is a misogynist, in spite of how he feels about his mom.

No no no. You are completely wrong. That is sexism.

Here are some links that might help you learn the difference: (None of which, mind you, are from Wikipedia)

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2013/12/26/s...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....

And by that, you can't even call us sexist. Especially since the main complaint I have seen is about her actions and decisions more than her role (and fyi expecting her to be in the damsel in distress role is the sexist view point). Even if it was a complaint against her role, the better argument would be anti-feminism (which you did bring up), but that doesn't work because we actually explained our points of view, and pointed out that it isn't even the role that is disliked as much as her decisions and actions within said role. But that would take reading people's posts to understand.

Now. I am done. I am sure you will post something else that is completely wrong.. but I will do my best to ignore it. I am not perfect though. So I might be back.

[Laura]

My weeks start on Monday. Friday was last week.

What you posted about Wikipedia supports my claim that it's not an expert source.

No, there's no sense in going to a book about Men and Masculinities to settle an argument about female roles, that's nonsense.

This is the first you bring up the term "sexism" and you do have a valid point there, the first one I read in your comments. I haven't seen absolute consensus about the difference or, rather, the limit where one ends and the other begins, but that only means the argument is valid. My example of the man who loves his mom... you may ask 10 feminists whether they think that man is a misogynist and I doubt all 10 will say the same. Then you add the sexist word and some of them may change their mind. That is a valid discussion there.

I still think that some of the comments against Sansa are misogynistic, but I see how some could be better qualified as sexist. Would it make you feel better if I call you sexist instead of misogynistic from now on?
------------------------------------------------------

More on hated subplots (since we talked about hating religious fanatics): the High Sparrow also gives me the creeps. Major creeps.

[Shawn]

Her post was on friday at 1pm. That is some fast turn around. but whatever.

It is a source, nitpicking over 'expert' or not, doesn't matter. And she cited sources that are experts.

Also, if you can't see how misogyny might come up in a book like that, one that looks into areas of personal and social life, academic disciplines, and cultural and historic contexts and formations... I don't know what to tell you... Beyond look at the citations that Robin provided, which explicitly show that the book talks about misogyny. But hey.. again.. that takes reading.

It is the first time I mentioned sexism because it still isn't the correct word. Sexism is expecting Sansa to be the damsel in distress, because she is a girl, and hey.. girls are supposed to be the damsels in distress. Disliking the damsel in distress stereotype/trope/etc is actually the opposite of sexism. So, sorry, once again you are wrong.

And no, if you ask ten feminists who actually know what the difference between misogyny and sexism is, you would get one answer. Your scene is 100% sexism. It is not even close to misogyny. Opinions do not change definitions. They are what they are.

You are welcome to think whatever you want. You will remain wrong in your usage of misogyny, and will still be wrong if you switch to claiming it is sexism. At that point, you are again just trying to attack people. (you know.. that thing you keep crying about.. those nifty ad hominem attacks)

[Laura]

I didn't use the expression "damsel in distress", I started off criticizing its use. Therefore, I never expected Sansa to be one. I said it was misogynistic (or you may now say sexist) to use that term and to use her situation as reason to hate her.

I believe when you say "if you ask ten feminists who actually know what the difference between misogyny and sexism is, you would get one answer", you mean people who have the same concept as you. Not all feminists have the same concept of that difference (which, for the record, I find pretty accurate), and I've read enough feminist forums, blogs and posts to know that.

You also say "Disliking the damsel in distress stereotype/trope/etc is actually the opposite of sexism". And I have agreed with you. Disliking the use of the trope -by the author- is one thing, hating the character for being in that situation is another, and one of my three coworkers agreed with you, and I said it already. If you hadn't been so busy counting hours, you would have seen that (some people work on Saturdays too).

I was under the impression that ad hominem is an attack to the person rather than to the person's arguments, as in making snide remarks about where I'm from or how old I may be, etc. What I criticize from you has nothing to do with you personally. I don't care how old you are, where you're from, what you do for a living. I don't automatically reject everything you write just because it comes from you, which is why I agreed with your point about sexism.

[Laura]

Shawn wrote: "Which seems to be pretty typical of Laura from reading her posts in other discussions."

Please, do tell. I'm curious now!

[Robin]

Laura wrote: "This is getting better and better "Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities" as an expert source for female gender issues. This is hilarious, please keep it coming. You made my coffee break amusing, t..."

The roles of men in society can be greatly influenced by women's roles in society. I see no reason why a sociologist writing about one might not comment on the other. How misogyny plays a role with men and masculinities is a very valid topic. Contrary to Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, we do not live on completely different planets and it would be impossible to analyze the role of one without assessing the other at times too.

But okay, what about the other book? What avoidance tactic will you come up with next? I'll just keep shooting them down...

[Robin]

Laura wrote: "Your ad hominem also tells me that you have nothing better to throw at me. You're the one in denial. I've been explaining how it's not hating a female character, but the reasons you hate her. Hatin..."

But you have yet to come up with any sources of your own to prove that your personal definition of the word misogyny is correct. You (poorly) try to discredit the sources I've provided but at least I've provided them - you expect us to just take your word for it and believe your definition? We are supposed to just believe that you have "talked" to sociologists and psychologists who say you're right? Nope, sorry, but unless you show us written, audio, or otherwise published proof, your claims are less reliable than the sources I provided. Who are these alleged "experts" you spoke to? What are their names and where do they work so we can check their credentials? What works have they published? I provided all this information for the sources I cited. Where's yours?

"Last, but not least... I'm a German 16 year-old? LOL!"

That's what your profile says. Is it not correct? And if not, why are you misrepresenting yourself? How are we supposed to believe a word you say about if you're not even being honest about who you are?

Before you try to claim that you simply haven't updated your profile as you've aged, that won't fly. GR's profiles only allow you to input your birth date, not your age, and then the system outputs your current age based on the date of birth. So the profile automatically updates your age every year. Only if you instead leave the birth date option blank and put your age into the "about me" section would the outdated excuse work, but that's not where your age is displayed, it's under the "details" section, which means you have put in a date of birth (including a year - without a year, it defaults to blank). So unless you've put your own birth year in wrongly, you are 16 and all this talk of speaking to sociologists "in your department at work" is bullshit.

[Laura]

Robin wrote: "That's what your profile says. Is it not correct? And if not, why are you misrepresenting yourself?"

HA! Aren't you adorable.
1) Are you aware that not only Germans live in Berlin?
2) The 16 is not my age. Ask Goodreads why they chose to display that on my profile: http://prntscr.com/6nc68g
Because I have http://prntscr.com/6nc79n

[Laura]

Robin wrote: "You (poorly) try to discredit the sources I've provided but at least I've provided them"
Poorly according to you. According to me, it's your sources that are poor. And I have agreed that the term could have been inaccurate, so why would I still search for sources to justify something that I agreed to be wrong?

Robin wrote: "you expect us to just take your word for it [...] We are supposed to just believe that you have "talked" to sociologists and psychologists who say you're right?"
I don't expect you to do anything at all. They didn't exactly say I'm right, except for my opinion about Wikipedia and the men's book. Please, feel free to believe it's just a bunch of bull shit, I couldn't care less.

[Toviel]

Kudos to this thread to becoming one of the most stereotypical internet debates ever. All we need is someone to invoke Godwin's Law, and it'll become a masterpiece.

[Laura]

Lila wrote: "Kudos to this thread to becoming one of the most stereotypical internet debates ever. All we need is someone to invoke Godwin's Law, and it'll become a masterpiece."

Yes. Good. Now are we done discussing my probable origin, age and occupation (or lack thereof)? Can we go back to most hated subplots?

[Toviel]

Laura wrote: "Lila wrote: "Kudos to this thread to becoming one of the most stereotypical internet debates ever. All we need is someone to invoke Godwin's Law, and it'll become a masterpiece."

Yes. Good. Now ar..."

But your backstory is clearly the most hated subplot yet! O:

[Brooklyn]

So it would be sexist to hate knights for being knights? One can't just dislike the smell of boiled leather and rusty metal and their tendency to solve all problems by swordpoint? It's sexist? Even though by the roles they play, Brienne, Maege Mormont and others act as knights?

And neither Shawn not I made any comments regarding Sansa as a "Damsel in distress" which you really seem to be hung up on. Those commenters left the thread awhile ago. I just said she was too good for Tyrion and later clarified that I meant that they'd be a poor match due to circumstances and personalities. Hell, I'm one of the ones who kinda likes her... which I also clarified.

Please quit attributing quotes to the wrong people.

If you want to discuss misogyny, I recommend going on threads about Cersei's walk of shame. If there aren't any here, there's a lot of interesting stuff about it on the Westeros forum.

And I completely agree. The High Sparrow is creepy as hell.

[Shawn]

I believe when you say "if you ask ten feminists who actually know what the difference between misogyny and sexism is, you would get one answer", you mean people who have the same concept as you. Not all feminists have the same concept of that difference (which, for the record, I find pretty accurate), and I've read enough feminist forums, blogs and posts to know that.

No. I mean people that can pick up a dictionary and read and understand what the different definitions are, and then apply them to the scenario.

You also didn't say one of them disagreed with you. We can quote your post if you want. :)

You came into the thread calling everyone misogynists. Without pointing out anything specific or adding anything except name calling to the discussion. That is most definitely an ad hominem attack.

Also, her sources are far from poor. You chose to ignore her sources and attack wikipedia. When in reality her sources were just mentioned on wikipedia. By the way, nitpicking over that, is also a logical fallacy. But meh, you only care about those when you aren't the one making them.

Too bad your coworkers aren't in this thread. would love to see their response to your posts.

@cemre exactly. If it is saturday for her... then it makes even less sense to try to claim she spoke to them 'last week'.

And we all were just fine before you came into the thread attacking people Laura. You started this shit. We just continue to point out how wrong you are.

Anyways. I will say again, I hate the entire subplot that is the main story arch of this shitty novel. Hopefully GRRM dies and some competent fan fiction writer takes it up and finishes it for us. Then Martin can fade off into obscurity again -- where he belongs. The best part will be when the show ends, and the books are still 10+ years from being finished, and no one mentions asoiaf ever again.

[Laura]

When asked why I said I had entered the misogynistic corner (noted, I should have said sexist), I listed the comments that made me feel that way. Notably, the damsel in distress and the one about embroidering napkins. If those weren't yours, why are you still fighting for it?

I also mentioned the Tyrion issue (the comment I addressed what the one saying he was too good for her, not the other way around), but we already discussed that, and I also mentioned the victim-blaming one (that she deserved everything that happened to her), but we also discussed it and I agreed that wasn't misogynistic (which was ignored, but I didn't care).

But to answer your question, is the same as Sansa-hate, one thing would be to hate a male character because he's the typical knight in shining armor, and a different thing would be to dislike use of that trope (by the author). Note that you can dislike the idea of knights (leather, smell, violence, etc.), still like the character and wish they weren't a knight, or like him in spite of being a knight. But if you hate him because he's a knight... then maybe yes?

***Knighthood is complicated in Westeros, and it would be a very interesting topic to open a new discussion, actually. The deconstruction is fascinating for a fantasy book. The official knights are corrupted assholes, and the ones who can't be knights are the "real" knights (Brienne, for example).

Going back to the unpleasant subplots, I think there are a few things that will turn to a really dark side in the following book (should they ever be finished). One is the High Sparrow and his army. Then there's whatever atrocities Qyburn is doing with women down there.

[Ben]

Guys, gals, I think I found a way to solve the problem for Laura. Ready?

I hate Sansa because she is a woman and I hate women. See, now her argument has credence and there really is misogyny in this thread. You are all welcome.

[Robin]

Laura wrote: "1) Are you aware that not only Germans live in Berlin?"

If you actually read what I wrote, I said "IF she is a native German". I didn't assume you definitely were. As an American who lived in the UK for 8 years, I know well that people can move about the world.

"And I have agreed that the term could have been inaccurate"

Wow, a grudging admission that you might be wrong, lol. I guess that's the most we can hope for.

"Please, feel free to believe it's just a bunch of bull shit, I couldn't care less."

Uh, huh, that's why you keep responding with such passion, lol.

[Robin]

Ben wrote: "Guys, gals, I think I found a way to solve the problem for Laura. Ready?

I hate Sansa because she is a woman and I hate women. See, now her argument has credence and there really is misogyny in this thread. You are all welcome."

LOL, best response yet.

[Brooklyn]

I think Ben wins this thread.

[Laura]

ROFL! "Wow, a grudging admission that you might be wrong, lol. I guess that's the most we can hope for." I admitted to this long ago; you were too busy trying to bash me to notice. And I also agreed to other things before; you were also too busy trying to mock me and guessing where I'm from and how old I am.

I leave you ladies to your thing. I see you really have no interest in discussing anything like civilized people, so... have fun. I didn't call the people misogynistic, I called the arguments that I cited misogynistic. Then I agreed that it was not the right term. I also agreed about the Tyrion thing and that victim-blaming is not misogyny. From my first post, I agreed to several things you discussed. But nothing is ever going to do for you. I don't know what the "good outcome" would be for you. Do you want me to say that I'm crying in a corner and that you're the queens of the world and absolute owners of the truth? You seem to think you are. I have responded to your remarks and changed my mind about parts of my argument, so clearly that is not what you're after. You're after "blood". You want to bash, attack, mock, gang against. So have fun together, that's not my game.

So yes, keep believing I'm a 16 year-old German and I just wanted an excuse to call you all misogynistic because it gives me pleasure to attack people for no reason at all. I have no coworkers because I go to however highschool is called in Germany, and nobody works on Saturday. Thank you for your help Ben, you made my day. I needed your not childish at all remark as the air to feel alive. That was so mature very much indeed! And Robin and Brooklin's answers were even more very much so super mature too!

If nobody is going to actually go back to discussing the hated subplots of the book (and 12 hours ago I was sure we were finally going to, but boy was I wrong!), I have no further business wasting time here.

Last, but not least: if I had been really a teenage girl trying to conform my ideas of the world, and starting to wrap my mind around serious issues of our society, such as misogyny or sexism... you should be ashamed of yourselves and the way you handled what you thought was a kid being wrong. I bet half my salary that you pried into my reading list to find books you deem stupid, to comment about them and use them to discredit my thoughts.

[Shawn]

Oops, I just walked into the misogynistic section of this forum... I will just walk out again. Not worth any more typing than this.

You posted that on March 23rd. a bit over a week ago.

You didn't claim what people were saying was misogynistic. You claimed we all were misogynistic, because according to you, this was the misogynistic section of Good Reads..

You didn't until yesterday morning, March 30th, a week later, even ADMIT that you 'might' not be using the right word. Even though repeatedly last week it was pointed out that you weren't even insulting people with the right word.

Get over the age thing. Everyone else did. You are the only one that is still bringing it up. And the maturity of your responses is what made people question your age.

Stop acting like you are so abused, everyone that reads this thread can see right through it.

[Toviel]

Both of you need to drop it.

The current "arguments" from both sides don't even address the core issue anymore, neither of you look good for making them, and it's derailed the thread long enough.

Laura, you can only tread the same ground so much. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, then stop talking about it. Tacking on a sentence or two about a couple of the book's subplots does not constitute as returning to the topic when you write a freaking essay addressing off topic material beforehand.

Shawn, you're just as bad at "getting over the thing" as Laura has been, and don't pretend for a second that the constant nitpicking of sources, posts, post dates, posters, and dictionary definitions even after declaring the fight "over" can be attributed to anything but refusing to get over it. We get it, you think Laura's wrong about a lot of things. No one here is going to magically forget about it or assume otherwise because you don't respond to every single sentence she's made.

Make a thread about sexism in the ASOIAF fandom if you MUST continue this stupidity, just get back on topic here or shut up already.

Meanwhile, I'm just going to go ahead and preemptively call that both of you are going to miss the forest for the trees and try to "disprove" these criticisms of your debating techniques or something. Also preemptively calling someone trying to prove they "don't care" about said criticisms while actively putting effort into explaining why they don't care and how the assumption is false.

[Shawn]

I am sorry Lila. Didn't realize you were a moderator... especially with your oh so constructive comments like "There needs to be a new internet rule that whenever a dictionary is brought into play, the argument is forever lost." That totally helped nip the original core issue in the bud.

But hey, since you asked oh so nicely.. and because clearly your opinion is more important than the creator of the thread's (Brooklyn) and the rest of us involved in the discussion... I will consider dropping it ;) You know though, you could always unfollow the discussion, or create your own thread and ask for no discussion about sexism or misogyny.. or use of the dictionary since that seems to upset you too.

But hey.. I am just missing the forest for the trees by finding it hilarious that instead of just asking nicely for the thread to get back on topic, you decide instead to tell everyone else to shut up.

[Toviel]

You will consider dropping it? Boy, oh boy, the angels must be singing on high!

Thank you for gracing us with several paragraphs about this important decision, interlaced with personal snark and pointlessly belittling another in defense of your previous behavior!

We are all blessed this day to witness such an important moment!

[Shawn]

Right? Just like your post added soooo much as well. And it didn't have any snark and pointless belittling in it. Nope none. You truly are a saint.

[Toviel]

I'm so glad we're in mutual agreement over something! <3

[Toviel]

Though to actually get on topic, both the Sparrow (which Laura did mention a few times, but I don't think she's coming back to discuss it) and Iron Bank plotlines in the later books actually did annoy me to some extent. Not because they were bad in themselves, per se, but just because it felt like Martin was adding _yet another_ plot to slow down a series that was already moving a snail's pace.

At least the show did good in foreshadowing the importance of the Iron Bank in the first season or so, so hopefully it'll work out better there than it has in the text.

[Holly]

I am hoping for some great mob-style tactics from the Iron Bank; but I am also dreading some Puritan style actions from the Sparrow.

[Toviel]

Iron Bank mob tactics would be great, especially if Ayra ends up getting in on the action--after all, she's well on her way to becoming a competent Faceless at this point.

The Sparrows... well, it's a plot that can go either way. It's very, very rare that repressive religious movements are handled well in high fantasy, so I am a little worried that it might fall turn out super cliche. Martin's really good at writing dynamic power players, however, so who knows, maybe it'll turn out great. Definitely with you on the dreading either way, Holly!

[Toviel]

Cemre wrote: "We should make a 12 Angry Men remake with the people in this discussion. Lysistrata will be Jury 1."

Pfffft, lol.

Cemre wrote: "Out of the three main plots, the one that interests me most is the Iron Throne one. I couldn't care less about Dany. It pains me to know that either Jon or Dany or anybody with Targaryen blood will..."

Oh, I feel this.

I'm personally hoping she gives up on the quest for the Iron Throne, as much as I want to believe that she'll eventually make a great Queen. I can see her arriving in Westeros and realizing it's not what she wanted or expected or something.

[Laura]

Lysistrata wrote: "Both of you need to drop it..."

THANK YOU. You were snarled at -not surprising, but you did it. We're back on topic! *bows*

Cemre wrote: "Out of the three main plots, the one that interests me most is the Iron Throne one..."

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Iron Throne destroyed in the end, the kingdoms fragmented to fend for themselves, as it was before the Targaryens. I think the important war is the one against the Others, and perhaps the point is that humans are killing each other in their wars, and when the Others come, there will be less able warriors left to fight the common enemy.

I personally find the vision of knighthood and chivalry an interesting subtext (as I mentioned in one of my comments).

Holly's observations: Yes, the Iron Bank and the Sparrows will definitely add to the tension of the already messy situation in Westeros. The High Sparrow gives me major creeps; like angry Franciscans gone Inquisition style... and now they're armed!

[Toviel]

Laura wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see the Iron Throne destroyed in the end, the kingdoms fragmented to fend for themselves, as it was before the Targaryens."

This idea. I like it. Bonus points if it's Dany herself who ends up destroying the thing--it took the Targaryens to unite Westeros, and it'd take a Targaryen to divide it.

I'm actually studying the beginnings of the Inquisition right now, which reminds me of the early university/schools of the time, particularly those in Paris. While it wasn't the focus of the church's ire in same way that the Poor Men of Lyons or the Humiliati were, a lot of students were often censured or reprimanded if they even thought about discussing certain heresies or philosophies. With Sam currently with the maesters now, I really have to wonder how they're going to play into things, especially with the Sparrows.

Which reminds me, the Night's Watch plot was the only one I've actually liked for the last couple books. Everything else just feels like we're wasting time while the real threat marches from beyond the Wall. The villainous scum taking the black are the real knights, yo.

[Holly]

Cemre wrote: "Am ı the only one who supports Margaery ? I want her to rule the Seven Kingdoms.

Yes, that's the fundamental flaw of the series. Once the Others invade/ Dany finally arrives Westeros, every othe..."

I would love to see Lady Olenna Tyrell on the Iron Throne; or Margery would work, her grandmother has schooled her well. I do adore the matriarchs.

[Laura]

Lysistrata wrote: "it took the Targaryens to unite Westeros, and it'd take a Targaryen to divide it"
Ooooooooh that would be cool. Built by dragon fire and melt down by dragon fire!

About Margaery, I don't know. We don't really know much about her and I can't help liking her TV counterpart (Natalie Dormer rocks).

[Matthew]

Alexandros wrote: "Brooklyn wrote: "I don't think Robb's wife is dead in the books. Last we heard Jamie had taken over Riverrun and found out that her mom is a scheming bi-atch and has her locked under guard. And the..."

No, he stated that she'll be in the prologue, and explicitly said she is not necessarily the POV character.

[Brooklyn]

I'm actually intrigued by the Iron Bank's role in the game because it affects so many of the existing characters and plots. Cersei has pissed them off and I'm eager to see what they'll do there. They're also now extending loans both to Stannis and The Wall.

I hope to see how this pans out.

[Laura]

Brooklyn wrote: "I'm actually intrigued by the Iron Bank's role in the game because it affects so many of the existing characters and plots. Cersei has pissed them off and I'm eager to see what they'll do there. Th..."

Especially considering that the economy of Westeros has invested in wars and the fields are all burnt. No revenue, no storage, a long winter and huge loans sound like a recipe for disaster.