Game of Thrones (spoilers)

[Kev]

Oh, the scientifically proven thing was indeed something I read at the time. It's why film trailers usually feature the best bits.

But I swear to you and Killersheep I honestly know nothing at all about the series beyond Season 1.

Surely you have known me long enough by now to know I'm not a total asshole like that? I moan on the main board when people post boxing spoilers, I'd certainly never be so dickish and to deliberately post spoilers on the main board.

If that really happens then I am truly sorry, but honestly I had no idea, it was just a guess as to what I reckoned would happen in Season 2.

This isn't a spoiler here, as I have no idea. But it seems to me the most important characters in the tv show are John Snow, Arya Stark, Daenerys and the dwarf. I just guessed everybody else is expendable.

I mused on the idea that John Snow and Daenerys are brother and sister but that is not a spoiler as I have no idea whatsoever. Just Ned Stark clearly didn't cheat on his wife, and so John Snow is no whore's son. He's the rightful heir to the throne imo but it's a total guess, based on nothing but what the first season showed and a conversation with Ouma who also seemed to think along those lines.

But honestly I know nothing and read nothing about the shows as I like to not know anything.

I don't even read the books for that reason, which I regard as one big collection of spoilers, yet you all seem to think they are fine to read.

Well, I apologize then. I was certain you did it on purpose.

I started reading the books because I loved the first series so much that I couldn't wait to know what happened next. To be perfectly honest, I'm not all that big a fan of the last two books and I don't think Martin is a very good writer, but he tells a great story.

Sounds a lot like Tolkien in that regard.

[CFH]

Oh, the scientifically proven thing was indeed something I read at the time. It's why film trailers usually feature the best bits.

But I swear to you and Killersheep I honestly know nothing at all about the series beyond Season 1.

Surely you have known me long enough by now to know I'm not a total asshole like that? I moan on the main board when people post boxing spoilers, I'd certainly never be so dickish and to deliberately post spoilers on the main board.

If that really happens then I am truly sorry, but honestly I had no idea, it was just a guess as to what I reckoned would happen in Season 2.

This isn't a spoiler here, as I have no idea. But it seems to me the most important characters in the tv show are John Snow, Arya Stark, Daenerys and the dwarf. I just guessed everybody else is expendable.

I mused on the idea that John Snow and Daenerys are brother and sister but that is not a spoiler as I have no idea whatsoever. Just Ned Stark clearly didn't cheat on his wife, and so John Snow is no whore's son. He's the rightful heir to the throne imo but it's a total guess, based on nothing but what the first season showed and a conversation with Ouma who also seemed to think along those lines.

But honestly I know nothing and read nothing about the shows as I like to not know anything.

I don't even read the books for that reason, which I regard as one big collection of spoilers, yet you all seem to think they are fine to read.

Well, I apologize then. I was certain you did it on purpose.

I started reading the books because I loved the first series so much that I couldn't wait to know what happened next. To be perfectly honest, I'm not all that big a fan of the last two books and I don't think Martin is a very good writer, but he tells a great story.

Sounds a lot like Tolkien in that regard.

Maybe. I find he tends to latch on to certain phrases or idiosyncrasies in each book (like the phrases 'sweet sister', 'make water', and 'nunckle' in books 1, 2, and 3 respectively) and he's just not that great of a writer. I don't find his words to really give me a picture of what things/people look like. But, up until book 4 at least where everything got ridiculously fragmented, I really like the story he was telling.

[Diane]

awwww....... seems like a group hug is needed in here.

[CFH]

awwww....... seems like a group hug is needed in here.

Mayweather is going to knock Cotto out

[Gandalf]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

[CFH]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

Not everything has to be completely serious all the time you know...

[Gandalf]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

Not everything has to be completely serious all the time you know...

I'm all for humour in books. Naked Lunch is hilarious satire. However, I do draw the line at some things. Lord of the rings is the only fantasy I would tolerate and that is because I read it when I was young. Any 31 year old suddenly getting into Harry Potter would be silly. They should be finding richness in literature rather than juvenile thrills all magical and gay. I like games too, but none of that "hocus pocus I will cast a spell on you" madness.

Great writers generally avoid it, though Burroughs got a little weird in his career sometimes. But he was off his head a lot of the time.

[killersheep]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

So you haven't read the books, have no interest in the books or series as a genre, yet joined in a discussion about it? Slow day at Saddoboxing.

[Gandalf]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

So you haven't read the books, have no interest in the books or series as a genre, yet joined in a discussion about it? Slow day at Saddoboxing.

Nope, the title makes me afraid to read. My last post was about great writers and my belief that anything involving goblins and such is seldom the terrain of great writers. Fantasy is fun for oddball kids. Mind you, I am Gandalf, so should probably bugger off to a cave and write an autobiography or something. I'm sure some dude in eyeliner will love it.

[AdamGB]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

Did you completely miss all of the themes in the lord of the rings or are you just ignorant?

Much like game of thrones is inspired by the war of the roses LOTR was based international politics and tolkien's experience in WW2, the mechinisation of war, the decay of society, fucking geonocide to name but a few.

Edit: am I really explaining lotr to 'gandalf'?!

If you actually read the books it seems like you missed a lot.

[Gandalf]

For me Dostoevsky, Dickens, Orwell and Burroughs are great writers. People who write about dwarves tend not to be great writers. They can concoct fun stories, but I don't regard them as great. That is why Lord of the Rings is great fun for kids. They are fun adventure books, but little more. The aforementioned writers define humanity with its highs and it's lows and offer vivid reflections of society at large. Fantasy books lack that power. You could argue that 1984 is fantasy, but really it is a massive mirror of totalitarian society. I am unlikely to ever come across a talking tree.

Did you completely miss all of the themes in the lord of the rings or are you just ignorant?

Much like game of thrones is inspired by the war of the roses LOTR was based international politics and tolkien's experience in WW2, the mechinisation of war, the decay of society, fucking geonocide to name but a few.

Edit: am I really explaining lotr to 'gandalf'?!

If you actually read the books it seems like you missed a lot.

Oh dear. Lord of the rings is mainly read by children for good reason. Yes, there are themes but there are also characters like Tom Bombadil, dwarves and goblins. That stuff is gay and as far as I am aware, pure fantasy land. If you hold that as mighty literature then good for you, but I would much rather read something like 1984 or Crime and Punishment to get my insights into character and overriding 'themes'.

'Fucking genocide'? A strange way to put it IMO. You should probably calm down. Lord of the rings is what it is. It is fun, but hardly the pinnacle of all that is great in literature.

[Diane]

awwww....... seems like a group hug is needed in here.

Mayweather is going to knock Cotto out

[killersheep]

Oh, the scientifically proven thing was indeed something I read at the time. It's why film trailers usually feature the best bits.

But I swear to you and Killersheep I honestly know nothing at all about the series beyond Season 1.

Surely you have known me long enough by now to know I'm not a total asshole like that? I moan on the main board when people post boxing spoilers, I'd certainly never be so dickish and to deliberately post spoilers on the main board.

If that really happens then I am truly sorry, but honestly I had no idea, it was just a guess as to what I reckoned would happen in Season 2.

This isn't a spoiler here, as I have no idea. But it seems to me the most important characters in the tv show are John Snow, Arya Stark, Daenerys and the dwarf. I just guessed everybody else is expendable.

I mused on the idea that John Snow and Daenerys are brother and sister but that is not a spoiler as I have no idea whatsoever. Just Ned Stark clearly didn't cheat on his wife, and so John Snow is no whore's son. He's the rightful heir to the throne imo but it's a total guess, based on nothing but what the first season showed and a conversation with Ouma who also seemed to think along those lines.

But honestly I know nothing and read nothing about the shows as I like to not know anything.

I don't even read the books for that reason, which I regard as one big collection of spoilers, yet you all seem to think they are fine to read.

Well, I apologize then. I was certain you did it on purpose.

I started reading the books because I loved the first series so much that I couldn't wait to know what happened next. To be perfectly honest, I'm not all that big a fan of the last two books and I don't think Martin is a very good writer, but he tells a great story.

Sounds a lot like Tolkien in that regard.

Maybe. I find he tends to latch on to certain phrases or idiosyncrasies in each book (like the phrases 'sweet sister', 'make water', and 'nunckle' in books 1, 2, and 3 respectively) and he's just not that great of a writer. I don't find his words to really give me a picture of what things/people look like. But, up until book 4 at least where everything got ridiculously fragmented, I really like the story he was telling.

Just curious, who do you think is a great writer? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find I have a very good idea of what places and characters look like based on his descriptions.

[CFH]

Oh, the scientifically proven thing was indeed something I read at the time. It's why film trailers usually feature the best bits.

But I swear to you and Killersheep I honestly know nothing at all about the series beyond Season 1.

Surely you have known me long enough by now to know I'm not a total asshole like that? I moan on the main board when people post boxing spoilers, I'd certainly never be so dickish and to deliberately post spoilers on the main board.

If that really happens then I am truly sorry, but honestly I had no idea, it was just a guess as to what I reckoned would happen in Season 2.

This isn't a spoiler here, as I have no idea. But it seems to me the most important characters in the tv show are John Snow, Arya Stark, Daenerys and the dwarf. I just guessed everybody else is expendable.

I mused on the idea that John Snow and Daenerys are brother and sister but that is not a spoiler as I have no idea whatsoever. Just Ned Stark clearly didn't cheat on his wife, and so John Snow is no whore's son. He's the rightful heir to the throne imo but it's a total guess, based on nothing but what the first season showed and a conversation with Ouma who also seemed to think along those lines.

But honestly I know nothing and read nothing about the shows as I like to not know anything.

I don't even read the books for that reason, which I regard as one big collection of spoilers, yet you all seem to think they are fine to read.

Well, I apologize then. I was certain you did it on purpose.

I started reading the books because I loved the first series so much that I couldn't wait to know what happened next. To be perfectly honest, I'm not all that big a fan of the last two books and I don't think Martin is a very good writer, but he tells a great story.

Sounds a lot like Tolkien in that regard.

Maybe. I find he tends to latch on to certain phrases or idiosyncrasies in each book (like the phrases 'sweet sister', 'make water', and 'nunckle' in books 1, 2, and 3 respectively) and he's just not that great of a writer. I don't find his words to really give me a picture of what things/people look like. But, up until book 4 at least where everything got ridiculously fragmented, I really like the story he was telling.

Just curious, who do you think is a great writer? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find I have a very good idea of what places and characters look like based on his descriptions.

Maybe it is just the way I read it then.

I almost never read fiction and haven't for probably a decade, so I don't have a lot of Martin's peers that I can compare him to. I used to really love Robert Jordan when I was a kid and seem to remember having vivid images of his characters and settings.