The Game of Thrones

[Jonboy]

[OzTitan]

2 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Dawn, as described in the books, is a pale white greatsword (like Ice). Neither of Dayne's swords in the show qualify. He may still be the Sword of the Morning, but he didn't have Dawn.

"As described in the books" probably doesn't matter much though.

Edited June 28, 2016 by OzTitan

[reo]

6 hours ago, Mercalius said:

The bottom half of the sword was covered in blood, and if it is Dawn - the sword is essentially made from a star.  There wasn't just blood on the bedsheets, though that absolutely helped visualize their intentions when shooting the scene   

I don't think it's weak sauce at all.  As far as the show doing its version of things, I'd say this is pretty well played if true.  A bloody meteorite sword (with a star on the pommel) is just as literal to a bleeding star as a reddish shooting star that fueled so many theories in the past.  The big difference is this one happens to exist at basically the exact moment one of the key heroes is literally born (ok maybe a few minutes off), however that's a lot less of a stretch than thinking it allows for some spiritual re-birth or sudden awareness of one's abilities that everyone has clung to with other characters.  

Jon was "reborn" too in a manner of speaking.

[Number9]

8 hours ago, Jonboy said:

Awesome!!  My only words for the finale.  

I am think about relistening to the book that describes Dorne.  I did this series this season an injustice by not watching it while doing other things.  The finale was like a movie.  I don't see why they had Arya not just change faces like Jaqen did originally.  

[Number9]

My earliest Theories.  Jon Snow would become the hero(then he got stabbed).  Aria would return and kill all the people on her list.

Crazy theory(new)  Aria will forgive the Hound and they will become allies again as the baddest killers of all time.  If Jon sends then, write you will.

The Iron Throne.  No one sits on it long.  Ouch!

Tommen. He should have wed the little queen above on the white horse.  At least Joffrey had some idea of what the king could do.  

[Number9]

16 hours ago, Jonboy said:

Maybe Cersei marries the Night's King, lol. 

She would definitely fuck him if she could stay on that throne.

[Number9]

21 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

I've considered it but loaned out my books years ago and never got them back. My re-reads are all audio book these days, so it just wouldn't work. Some day I'll buy the Kindle version and would probably do it. Maybe during the brutal wait for the book after WoW.

I think these sorts of re-reads will do a lot for understanding the characters differently... zeroing in on what they know and experience and interpreting them through that lens instead of the overall story and what you know.

I listened to all the books.  I don't know how to spell any of the names.  The story is so much different when read, but I do not have time to read that many books.

[Jonboy]

Speaking of audio books...did you guys realize there's apparently a debate about whether you have actually "read" a book when you listen to it? @Number9saying the story is so much different when read made me think of that.

What do you guys think? Does listening to an audiobook count as reading it?

[Jamalisms]

Yes, it does. It's actually better for me, as I'm not skipping whole (uninteresting) paragraphs at a time.

[Jamalisms]

If you can get past the section right after the Previously On, this is pretty great. The Previously On is great as well, showing contradictions... but that section immediately after is terrible.

 

[chef]

13 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Speaking of audio books...did you guys realize there's apparently a debate about whether you have actually "read" a book when you listen to it? @Number9saying the story is so much different when read made me think of that.

What do you guys think? Does listening to a audiobook count as reading it?

Yes, in the way that if you feed yourself or someone else spoons the food in you are still eating.

Most of the info I have seen shows similar results (reading vs listening) when simpler texts, thinking pop lit.  Sometimes listening actually comes out ahead when the reader's voice conveys the author's intended tone, as often you need to finish a section of text to be able to infer the intended voice of a character.  (Think reading Shakespeare vs watching it - and of course remember it ... the plays anyway ... were always meant to be seen as such, not mere lines on a page). 

 

Complex texts, especially technical books and the like, is where the straight line path of an audio book fails in that you cannot as easily jump back and forth for reference to strength the memorization process.

 

Also fair to note that many people listen to books in one type environment while reading in another, so situational factors affect the experience.

 

[Number9]

17 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Speaking of audio books...did you guys realize there's apparently a debate about whether you have actually "read" a book when you listen to it? @Number9saying the story is so much different when read made me think of that.

What do you guys think? Does listening to a audiobook count as reading it?

Yes and No.  I think audio books are very close to reading, IF you are only paying attention to the book.  Audio books allow you to do other things while listening.  They allow no reread for lapses in concentration.  If I go to sleep while listening to a book, it's a big wreck.  

[titanruss]

19 minutes ago, Number9 said:

Yes and No.  I think audio books are very close to reading, IF you are only paying attention to the book.  Audio books allow you to do other things while listening.  They allow no reread for lapses in concentration.  If I go to sleep while listening to a book, it's a big wreck.  

...or you just rewind. 

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, Jonboy said:

Speaking of audio books...did you guys realize there's apparently a debate about whether you have actually "read" a book when you listen to it? @Number9saying the story is so much different when read made me think of that.

What do you guys think? Does listening to an audiobook count as reading it?

Functionally speaking it counts as reading. It's the same info in most instances.

But to be technical, the act of reading and the act of listening are physically different. So I understand why people get anal about it. 

[Jonboy]

Yeah, I would agree that it counts. Lots of interesting research on it (sounds like there needs to be more though) and I would definitely say it's a different experience than reading. Not really sure we can say it's better or worse. 

When you read something, you are looking at symbols on a page, and your brain is busy filling in all the blanks. Like the sounds of the voices, the scene, the inflection, the deeper meaning, the plot, etc. When you're listening to something, a lot of those spaces are filled for you, and when you in turn watch something, even more things are put together for your brain. 

http://kut.org/post/why-reading-audiobooks-isnt-shortcut-listening-vs-reading-and-your-brain

And yet...

But there's a real distinction between reading and listening that goes beyond any stuffy judgments made by book purists. Indeed, the evidence suggests that our mode of enjoying a book can alter the way we absorb its material. The very freedom granted by audio books—inviting the eyes to wander, and then the mind—may make them less intellectually interchangeable with printed ones than some readers would like.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3026224/evidence/your-brain-on-audio-books-distracted-forgetful-and-bored

So on an intellectual level, is listening to a book really just as good as reading it? Pretty much, but it depends on the type of book. Studies on electronic media consumption are still relatively limited, and the audio book genre has been “woefully unaddressed by the academic community in general,” wrote philosophy professor William Irwin in a 2009 essay.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/olgakhazan/2011/09/12/is-listening-to-audio-books-really-the-same-as-reading/2/#43f7bf6326c6