Game of Thrones: The Finale

So now we’ve all had a few days to digest the game of thrones finale, I thought I’d share some thoughts on it. Warning for anyone who hasn’t watched it yet, spoilers are coming.

First thought: holy shit.

This episode was jam packed with far more than I expected. After the amazing “Battle of the Bastards” (arguably the best medieval battle ever seen on TV or film, and certainly the most realistic), I wasn’t sure how “The Winds of Winter” would hold up.

Somehow, the showrunners gave us a finale that not only wrapped up loose plot threads, but also gave us some truly epic moments.

First off, let’s begin with King’s Landing. As much as I despise Cersei, I have to hand it to her: we all underestimated her. The writers have been building up the presence of the wildfire for most of the season and they pulled off the scene in the most spectacular way possible. With excellent performances from Jonathan Pryce and Natalie Dormer, the viewer’s shock mirrors that of the characters as we all realize the depths to which Cersei will go to achieve her goals and get revenge.

I guess this is why they call it King's Landing...

Perhaps the best scene from King’s Landing dealt with the fallout of Cersei’s plan. The silent simplicity of Tommen’s suicide really hammered home the sick brutality of his mother’s actions. In the wake of all this destruction, I really hope Jaime finally comes to his senses and redeems himself by turning against his sister.

Speaking of siblings, the actions of the youngest surviving Stark sibling provided another fantastic scene. The death of Walder Frey, one of the show’s most viscerally sickening characters, was a suitably satisfying moments. Arya’s list is slowly getting shorter, and I can’t wait to see who she crosses off next. Villains of Westeros beware!

Hell yeah a girl is Arya Stark! 

This episode was chock full of such fan-service moments. Tyrion’s naming as Hand of the Queen was not exactly surprising, yet it was immensely rewarding. He is a character who’s had a really rough time of it, and it is quite heartwarming to see him finally get some recognition for all the work he’s done. From the start, Tyrion has grappled with prejudice and discrimination (largely from his family) despite the fact that he is probably the most intelligent character on the show. I’m glad he finally has some of the respect he deserves.

Now, perhaps (plot-wise) the most important moment of the episode was the conclusion of the Tower of Joy scene. We finally see the confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. The importance of Jon’s parentage cannot be overstated, as his identity as both a Targaryen and a Stark gives him the most legitimate claim to the Iron Throne, even more so than Daenerys. Whether Jon wishes to take advantage of this claim (unlikely) or whether Bran is even able to tell anyone of his discovery (slightly less unlikely) remains to be seen.

The revelation of Jon’s parentage represents one of my only major criticisms of this season: book spoilers. For those who only watch the show, this isn’t a big deal. But for those of us who have read the books, it’s quite disappointing to have the gun jumped on these points that George R.R. Martin has spent decades developing, from Jon’s parentage to the true meaning of the word Hodor. Understandably, such revelations can’t really be helped, but that doesn’t make them any less disappointing.

My only other criticism of the episode (and the season) are two largely useless plotlines, one dealt with in this episode and the other not.

After nine episodes, we finally returned to Dorne and, again, I find myself wondering why this plot tangent is even in the show. The decision to kill Doran Martell seemed a poor move on the writers’ part when it happened, and it seems even more so now. Why did Doran need to die if they were just planning on subbing Ellaria Sand into his storyline? The treatment of Dorne has left me more confused than annoyed, because the choices made don’t seem to follow any discernable logic.

That being said, seeing the colourful Dornish spearmen marching alongside Daenerys is something I’m excited to see next season.

This season’s other tenuous plotline rests in the Iron Islands. Even in the books, the introduction of Euron Greyjoy and the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field; in the show, it just seems like an excuse to send Yara and Theon to Slaver’s Bay (now renamed Dragon’s Bay). Surely they could have come up with an easier way to engineer this? Doesn’t the fact that Yara and Theon stole all of his ships kind of makes Euron a lame duck? This is another instance where the writers attempt to address a secondary plotline yet have neither the time nor the space to do it justice.

"I don't care if he's a bastard: he's my king!"

Overall, however, the finale was a great end to another wonderful season. All the pieces are on the board and we’re rapidly hurtling towards what is sure to be an epic finale. The fact that we have to wait another ten months to see what happens next breaks my heart, but it’s sure to be worth it. For all its faults, Game of Thrones has earned (and continues to earn) its spot as the best show on television, just as Jon has earned the title of King in the North. Both have had their ups and downs, and they continue to make mistakes, but, in the end, we remain loyal, and the world is better off for it.

As always, thanks for reading J

Brexit and the Problem with Nationalism

“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” – Albert Einstein

Right now, the world is in a period of transition. The United States is losing its place as the world’s primary superpower, Russia is stirring up trouble again, and the Middle-East continues to be a seemingly unsolvable problem. Humans are on the move more than they ever have been before, many of them as refugees, and, the world over, economies are suffering as free market capitalism collapses under its own weight. Information travels faster than it ever has before, and people demand news that is ready made and easy to digest straight from their smartphones.

Considering all this, the Brexit debate doesn’t seem terribly surprising.

I’ve hated the term Brexit (“British Exit”) from the start, as it seems like a silly, trivial name for such an important issue. For those unaware, it refers to the referendum the UK will be having on June 23^rd to determine whether or not the country will remain in the European Union.

It surprises me that North American media outlets aren’t paying more attention to the referendum, given the possibly disastrous effects Britain’s withdrawal from the EU will inevitably have on the world. While the referendum debate might seem like a far-off issue for Britons and Europeans, the outcome will have real world consequences that will affect all of us. Considering the fact even the anticipation of a Brexit has a significant effect on the Canadian economy, it is well worth it for Canadians to be informed about the issue.

For the Brits reading this, I’m not going to argue Vote Leave is a con, or why Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage don’t give two shits about the working class. Brexiters are notoriously stubborn, and no amount of logic seems to convince them. Better people than me have tried.

What interests me is the origin of Brexit sentiments: why do intelligent people so staunchly (not to mention angrily) support a decision that would ultimately do nothing to benefit them? Each of Vote Leave’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked, from the absurd notion that an economically independent Britain would be more prosperous to the idea that Brussels is somehow to blame for the woes of the working class. It continually astounds me that intelligent people are campaigning to leave the EU.

As far as I can tell, Brexit, and other such nationalist movements, invariably begin with patriotism.

For all of my adult life, I have refused to call myself a patriot. I was born in the UK, but was raised in both Canada and Britain. I am a citizen of both countries, yet I don’t think of myself as either “British” or “Canadian.” My accent flip flops back and forth, and I consider both countries to be an intrinsic aspect of my identity. Perhaps it is because of this background that I refuse to identify myself as particularly belonging to either country.

 “Aren’t you proud to be British?” Canadians often ask me. “Aren’t you a Canadian now?” my British friends say.

Sure, I appreciate my British heritage as much as I appreciate Canada: the UK is a richly vibrant nation with a deep connection to its history, just as Canada is full of wonderful people, landscapes, and cultures.

Do either of these things make my homelands any better than the rest of the world? Do my Britishness or Canadianness make me intrinsically different from, say, a Frenchman or a German?

Hell no.

Human beings are the same wherever you go. In every nation, you’ll find good and bad people, a vast mix of privilege, class, and ideology. These things are a constant of human society, unaffected by the arbitrary borders and illusions of shared identity that form the abstract concept of “nationhood.” The particular manner in which these facets of humanity manifest is based more on circumstance and attitude than any facts of identity. In short, people are only different because they choose to be different based on race, religion, or, in this case, nationality.

While I respect those who are proud of their country, I also fear them. Patriotism is dangerous, fostering divisiveness and widening our divides, inevitably leading to nationalism and ultranationalism. We’re seeing the fallouts of seemingly benign patriotism right now in the rise of Donald Trump and the possibility of a Brexit on Thursday.

The world over, we are seeing people turn to nationalism, the big brother of patriotism, as the answer to what they perceive as their own powerlessness in the world. This is why Donald Trump is the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, and this is why Vote Leave has so much support. For once, people feel that they are being given a voice in issues that affect them.

Looking at Britain, it is easy to understand the desire to opt out of the EU. The economy is suffering and it is easy to blame those who are visibly “other” for the sorrows of the working class. The EU is an overly bureaucratic organization that seems to do little other than stifle Britain’s success as a country. Political parties like UKIP and news outlets like the Daily Mail stoke the fires of discontent by continually spouting off about the EU’s misuse of British money.

Are there problems with the EU? Yes, obviously. But all logic suggests that the UK is far off as a member than not. The arguments are vast and numerous (I’ll attach some further reading on why the EU should remain at the bottom).

Yet, despite the logic of Remain’s argument, people are unconvinced, and so many members of Britain’s working class see Brexit as the answer to their woes. Come Thursday, the referendum is anyone’s game.

Brexiters are thinking with their hearts and not with their heads. When Boris Johnson promises to make Britain great again, it’s understandable that people want to jump on the idea. Given that, for all its history, Britain has been a ruling force in the world, Brits don’t relish the idea of playing a bit part in a larger group.

Nevertheless, the facts are undeniable. This Thursday’s vote will not help people to “get their country back.” Britain will not reclaim the days of the Empire and become the great power it once was. There is no changing the fact that the sun has indeed set on the British Empire.

Intelligent people are being blinded by nationalist propaganda and rhetoric gone wild. A single referendum will not change Britain’s fortunes for the better. Rather, it is likely to do quite the opposite.

If Britain leaves, Europe will crumble as other restless states follow their lead. The continent could very likely slide backwards into the bickering group of schoolchildren it was prior to the Second World War, and international sentiment will turn against the United Kingdom for setting that ball rolling. Internally, the UK itself is also likely to crumble as Scotland and Northern Ireland hold onto a dying EU. Nationalist parties throughout the world will receive a propaganda boost, and the success of Brexit will encourage Donald Trump and his supporters as the US heads towards an election in November. We could even see a serious movement for an independent Texas, and, if that succeeds, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a revival of Western Canada’s campaign for independence.

There is nothing inherently wrong with patriotism. Pride in one’s country is not a bad thing. But people need to avoid making the mistake of thinking that divisive nationalist sentiments will drastically improve their quality of life.

For everyone voting in the Referendum, it might feel like you are taking back control, but you are not.  Because of circumstances, partly of my own doing, I am unable to vote as an expat in the Referendum, which I deeply regret. For everyone who is voting, please don’t make a mistake of historic proportions.

As always, thanks for reading!

Further reading on the referendum:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/english-working-class-victims-brexit-vote-false-patriotism?CMP=fb_gu

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/mood-ugly-mp-dead-jo-cox

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/10/no-single-market-access-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/president-trump-brexit-which-worse-britain-votes-leave-hammer-blow-peace?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/brexit-canada-impact-1.3643295

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36024492

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21700697-parochial-and-vacuous-britains-dismal-referendum-campaign-has-been-populists-dream-nigel

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700692-aftermath-vote-leave-european-union-will-depend-unpredictable-responses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8

Orlando Shootings

I wanted to write something about the shootings in Orlando, but I don't want to politicize it. People know my views, and I will continue to argue them vehemently. But now is not the time.

I've decided to share the diary entry I wrote yesterday about the incident, because it best captures my thoughts. Right now, we should be thinking about the victims and those who grieve for them. Forget the politics, forget why this happened. Forget what might come from this. For now, just think of the families. Because we'll all forget about them soon.

From my diary:

"There was a shooting in Florida last night. A man walked into a gay night club and gunned down fifty people.

Fifty people. Dead. For nothing. Hundreds of grieving family members, hundreds of survivors. People whose lives will no longer be the same.

I did not know these people, yet I cried. I continue to cry. Why? They were strangers to me. Their deaths have little effect on my life.

Why then do I feel this weight on my chest?

It isn’t because of the inevitable way the media will jump on it like sharks to blood. It isn’t because news agencies will milk the story until the next big tragedy, squeezing out every ounce of coverage before people lose interest.

It isn’t because of the politics, the futile calls for gun control, the fearmongering. The cynicism of the pundits, and the naïve hope that this single instance will change anything.

It isn’t even because of how heartless and empty we can all be, with our Facebook statuses and our prayers, retweeting and sharing only to forget as the world forgets and we all go back to our comfortable little lives.

I weep because still there are cell phones ringing in pools of blood.

Unanswered.

June 12th, 2016"

Bernie Sanders is no saint: he’s a politician who needs to get his head out of his ass

The Sanders camp likes to present Bernie as more than a mere politician; he’s a real human being who cares more about the issues than winning elections. Ostensibly, this is a fairly accurate evaluation. As far as politicians go, he’s always been one of the good guys. His career has been generally fairly progressive and his current rhetoric around Wall Street corruption hits all the right notes. I believe he genuinely wishes to uplift the middle class.

Despite this, one has to understand something. While he’s more genuine than the average career politician, he’s by no means a saint: he is very much a politician. Over the course of the primary season, he has increasingly succumbed to the pitfalls of election campaigns, manipulating facts and doing damage to the very causes he champions.

Those following this blog or my Facebook feed might get the impression that I hate Bernie Sanders. While I have certainly posted a few “Bernie bashing” pieces, I nevertheless admire the man. I admire what he stands for, and how he’s changed the landscape of this election. I appreciate the fact that he has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left and forced her to work for the nomination. On top of that, I think he’s a genuinely decent man who believes in his cause.

That being said, he’s a politician, possessing all the traits necessary to succeed in this role. His career reflects this fact, as much as his supporters like to deny it. As Hillary Clinton has basically now claimed the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders needs to grow up and admit that he’s lost. Likewise, his supporters need to stop treating the man like a saint and recognize that Hillary Clinton is not the devil. To do otherwise is to aid Donald Trump’s campaign.

Those “feeling the Bern” like to point to Bill Clinton’s tough on crime bill as proof of Hillary’s racist incompetence. Few dispute that the 1994 bill was a horrendous piece of legislation that Hillary was wrong to support. That both Bill and Hillary have since stated their regret over the bill does not mean we should simply forget it.

However, what Bernie supporters do like to forget is the fact that Bernie Sanders also voted for the bill.

Can we all take a moment to consider this hypocrisy? Bernie Sanders, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Dragons – wait, I’m getting my posts mixed up – voted in favour of the very bill he and his supporters like to throw in Hillary Clinton’s face. Was he as enthusiastic about it as Clinton? No. For him, it was seemingly more of a grudging concession. In the end, his rationale does not matter. His name is on that bill as much as Hillary Clinton.

Does this mean I think Hillary should be forgiven for supporting the bill, or the ridiculous manner in which she went about it? No, obviously not. But if one is going to point out this specific stain on her political record, one also has to acknowledge that it is just as much a mark against Sanders.

Another issue that the Sanders camp likes to throw out is her reluctance to embrace gay marriage until recently. Hillary Clinton did not publically support of gay marriage until 2013. This was around the time that every other liberal politician jumped on the bandwagon – including Bernie Sanders.

Sanders did not give a definitive support of same-sex marriage up until 2009. Prior to this, he specifically avoided discussing the issue. Despite his championing of the economic underdog, or his involvement in the civil rights movement, when it comes to LGBTQ issues, he’s hardly been a political maverick. One reporter said that “obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros.”

To be sure, Sanders’ record on this issue is more progressive than Hillary’s. He was (slightly) quicker to endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage, and he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which would have limited marriage to being exclusively between a man and a woman. The Act is yet another shameful aspect of Bill Clinton’s legacy, one that Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed.

However, unlike how he is currently attempting to portray it, his opposition was based primarily on pragmatism and contemporary issues. As a supporter of state rights, Sanders feared that the DOMA would undermine the ability of the state to determine their own legislation. Jane Sanders, Bernie’s wife and chief of staff, was quoted at the time as saying “we’re not legislating values.” This seems like an odd statement from a man whose entire campaign has been based on specifically appealing to such values.

All politicians are fickle, altering or masking their opinions to win elections. This is the nature of the game. If Bernie Sanders was not so hypocritically claiming moral superiority, holding himself above the corrupt fray everyday politics, his engagements in this tactic would not be such an issue. He cannot portray himself as a maverick and a radical when he continually engages in the same tactics he criticizes his opponents for.

Bernie’s supporters like to highlight the civil rights records of the two candidates. While Hillary was out campaigning for a segregationist, Bernie was off getting himself arrested while protesting segregation. Is this true? Yes, Hillary Clinton did indeed campaign for Republican Barry Goldwater around the same time that Bernie Sanders was actively engaged in the Chicago civil rights movement.

Unfortunately, this comparison represents another manipulation of how the facts are presented. When she played the role of a “Goldwater Girl,” Hillary Clinton was a sixteen year old living in an incredibly right-wing household; Bernie Sanders was a twenty-two year old university student at the time he got arrested, having grown up in the aftermath of the Holocaust a Jewish household. These differences may not seem like much, but is there a single person out there who claims to have been a fully formed individual at age sixteen, entirely free of the biases of their upbringing? We are all influenced by our surroundings. Family and education are undoubtedly the foremost influences in childhood and young adulthood.

There is an immense difference between being a high school teenager and a university student. In high school, one’s world is relatively insular and contained; university, conversely, is about expanded horizons and self-discovery. Speaking as a second year university student, my understanding of the world is very different from that of three years ago, and it will likely be different again three years from now. I challenge anyone to tell me that they are different.

A more accurate comparison would be where the two candidates were at the same relative age. Four years after campaigning for Barry Goldwater, at the age of twenty, Hillary had denounced the “racist” Republican Party and was a staunch liberal. In 1968, she campaigned for Eugene McCarthy, arguably the Bernie Sanders of his day. At her 1969 university graduation, she gave an ad-libbed speech that directly denounced the University’s chosen “anti-activism” speaker.

When one compares the two candidates in this manner, the difference between them becomes far less prominent. Hillary readily admits that she was not born a Democrat, and it is immature to hold any 68 year old woman – let alone someone with a distinguished career– accountable for the mistakes she made as an adolescent over five decades ago.

Is Hillary Clinton the perfect candidate? No. She has made huge errors, some of which the Sanders camp are very right to point out. I could easily write a long essay on the problems of a Hillary candidacy. Perhaps I will. But if Bernie supporters aren’t going to examine their own candidate with the same scrutiny they demand of Hillary Clinton, their arguments lose credibility.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been a disappointment. He has contradicted his own beliefs and held his opponents to hypocritical standards. In the wake of the June 7^th primaries, his chances of victory at the convention are arguably nonexistent, despite his intention to win the support of the party superdelegates (which, one might recall, he previously critiqued Hillary Clinton for).

At this point, by continuing to fight, Bernie Sanders is hurting the people he claims to represent. I doubt he would argue that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster, so why does he continue to divide the Democratic Party in a manner that can only benefit Trump?

Bernie Sanders claims to be a man of the people. Well, the people have spoken. He has lost fairly. Arguing otherwise is hypocritical and insulting. He seems unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, people have heard his pitch and are unconvinced.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones: Mid-Season Update

Now that we’re past episode seven, two thirds of the way through the season, I feel it’s time to give an update on my thoughts about Game of Thrones.

Warning for those who are not up to date, this will contain spoilers for the current season. Read at your own peril.

Overall, I’m fairly happy with this season, but I do have my concerns.

As some may recall, I was wary about the (predictable) decision to revive Jon Snow. Five episodes later, and I’m still not entirely sure what I think. As much as I love Kit Harrington’s interpretation of the character, I can’t help but feel that the writers continue to play it safe. With the exception of the episode immediately following his revival, they have largely glossed over the psychological effects of of the ordeal.

Existentially, the realization that there is no life after death is crushing. Yet, other than his decision to reclaim Winterfell, Jon seems to be plodding on as usual. After he sulkily leaves the Night’s Watch, Sansa’s arrival is the only reason the character is not consigned to oblivion. That said, I love the new interaction between the two half siblings. Both characters have been inalterably changed by their experiences, and the showrunners have done a fairly good job of exploring the dynamic between characters who have largely not interacted onscreen.

You should probably ditch the ponytail, Jon... Your dad could pull it off, but you can't.

The reintroduction of Rickon Stark really frustrated me. Understandably, the writers wanted to motivate Jon to take back Winterfell, but the execution was clumsy. Last time we saw him, back in season three, Osha was taking Rickon to Last Hearth, seat of the Umbers, a family who was fiercely loyal to Robb Stark. The knowledge that Rickon was out there, safe, as a Stark ace in the hole, was comforting knowledge against all the horrors they have had to endure. To reintroduce him as the prisoner of Ramsay Bolton seems like an unnecessary ploy to create tension. Personally, I believe there was enough motivation for Jon to rally the north without adding Rickon as a prisoner.

Speaking of artificial tension, I still can’t get over the ramshackle Dornish storyline.

I didn’t talk about it in my other post due to my word count and the assumption that the story would have farther developments. However, we have now gone six episodes since Ellaria Sand and the Sandsnakes staged a coupe in Dorne and there seems to have been no repercussions. We have seen nothing more of these revolutionaries, and there seems to have been little or no reaction throughout the rest of Westeros. Aside from the actual scene’s clumsy execution, this leaves me wondering… why is Dorne even in the show?

In the books, the Dorne plot was dry but intriguing. One knew this was a possible game changer in Westeros’ larger political conflicts. The show’s adaptation of this storyline? Not so much.

While certainly Game of Thrones has done an excellent job of streamlining other plotlines for the TV format, the excursion into Dorne represents a failure to do this. In A Song of Ice and Fire Doran Martell was a wildcard who’d worked for decades to bring about the fall of the Lannisters. When Arriane Martell and the Sand Snakes (who Ellaria and her daughters are based upon) unwittingly threaten this plan, Doran lets them in on it. At no point is he assassinated: as of right now, he’s alive and well and plotting away.

The Sand Snakes look as dissapointed with the Dorne storyline as I feel

For someone who has not read the books, I imagine this plotline seems pointless. For someone who loves the books, it’s downright frustrating. The showrunners need to find a way to wrap it up, as there has not been adequate set up, nor do they have the time, to do it justice.

The Iron Islands plotline is another one that doesn’t fit smoothly into the show’s narrative progression. Even in the source material, the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field. In the show, the reintroduction of Balon Greyjoy in addition to new characters seems out of place. The new dynamic between Yara and Theon is really engaging, and both actors give excellent performances, but the politics of the Iron Islands seem inconsequential on the grand scale of the show. I can’t help but feel like this is going to be another plot tangent that is left ultimately unaddressed.

That being said, the show is doing an excellent job of bringing together certain tangents left wide open in the books. George R.R. Martin has always stated his intention to expand from the relative insularity of the first book, into the middle books’ vast wealth of viewpoints and landscapes, before drawing the threads back together for the final books, giving the series a degree of symmetry.

Despite this, we have largely yet to see this closing of threads in the books, with A Dance with Dragons introducing even more viewpoint characters. The show seems to be moving more actively towards this goal, as can be seen in Sansa and Jon’s attempt to rally the north, Arya’s upcoming return to Westeros, and Danaerys’. One senses that the final act of the saga is about to begin.

Perhaps my biggest disappointment about this season is the apparent spoilers for the upcoming Winds of Winter. As George R.R. Martin originally intended to have ASOIAF’s sixth book out before this season, it divulges certain key plot points, such as the apparent identity of the mysterious Coldhands, the nature of the White Walkers, and the possible confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. That being said, I am by no means jumping on the anti-George R.R. Martin bandwagon. As I’ve said many times, I’d rather he take six years to write a good book than six months to write a bad one. To quote Neil Gaiman for the umpteenth time, “George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.”

Not only is this one of the show's most badass scenes,
it's one of the most important to the plot

Ultimately, despite its flaws, Game of Thrones remains the best show on television (certainly better than whatever The Walking Dead has become) and one of best page to screen adaptations. The problem with a show this good is that its few flaws, even the minor ones, stand out against such strong writing and performances.

This season has seen some epic and powerful moments, such as young Eddard’s duel at the Tower of Joy and the tragically beautiful “hold the door” scene. The reintroduction of the Blackfish, Benjen Stark, and Sandor Clegane seem to promise great things to come.

I’ll probably write another piece once the season is over, so stay tuned.

As always, thanks for reading J

Still