Tamasha In reply to Archsider [2013-12-20 11:38:35 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, man! Glad to be here.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to silverharmony [2013-05-10 16:37:49 +0000 UTC]

You're most welcome! It was a beautiful cosplay, and gave me a great moment of nostalgia.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to Legendaryhero64 [2013-04-19 14:07:20 +0000 UTC]

Ack! How did I miss this? XD I fail in so many ways.

Be that as it may, GOOD LUCK TO YOU TOO, and I am so excited to be working with Doc. The game is afoot, my feathered friend, the game is afoot!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to Celestial-Gold [2013-02-10 06:19:09 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to LaughingAstarael [2011-07-18 15:14:06 +0000 UTC]

As always, you are most welcome! <3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to LaughingAstarael [2011-04-26 16:23:07 +0000 UTC]

I KNOOOOOW! I KNOWWW! Danny, oh holy shit. And Ned. Hell, even Robert!

AND TYRION, ALWAYS, TYRION <3333

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LaughingAstarael In reply to Tamasha [2011-04-26 21:12:56 +0000 UTC]

I want
to pinch

Jon's cheeks.


ALSO ALSO WTF WE HAVE JON'S MOMMA'S NAME NOW??

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Tamasha In reply to LaughingAstarael [2011-04-27 03:30:53 +0000 UTC]

(Oh btw to access the analysis, you have to click the 'No Books Read' thing at the top and set your scope to the most recent book.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to LaughingAstarael [2011-04-27 03:29:42 +0000 UTC]

Oh, that part was in the book, too!

Ned claims her name was Wylla. But another character in book two or three - I think it may have been a new recruit to the Nightswatch - tries to strike up a friendly conversation with Jon later, using the common ground of Wylla. Apparently she was his wet-nurse. Now if Wylla was a wet-nurse, and the zomg!Targaryen theory about Jon is true, then it's only logical to assume she's in on the deception with Ned Stark, and helped nurse the infant.

You do know the theory, right? HERE, READ - IT'LL BLOW YOU AWAY WITH HOW RIGHT IT JUST SEEMS. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LaughingAstarael In reply to Tamasha [2011-04-27 19:21:48 +0000 UTC]

Ohhh, alright. This is me not having read the books in six years xD;.

And actually, I don't think I'll read - I'm not a fan of theorizing where plots are going. I'd much rather accept everything in the moment and see how it all turns out. I'M WEIRD OKAY?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tamasha In reply to LaughingAstarael [2011-04-28 15:12:01 +0000 UTC]

Well, it's not so much a theorizing where the plot is going, but where it already HAS gone and has been going for the first four books, except GRRM has been making it subtle enough for you to have to work at figuring it out? XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LaughingAstarael In reply to Tamasha [2011-04-28 18:41:28 +0000 UTC]

Well, yes. I guess I put that into the same category, in my addled head? I guess I read fairly shallowly, all in all. I just like to let the story unfold, and reveal things to me as they come. I tend to get annoyed, actually, when I can call an outcome just based upon my reading; and while I do get more from the text with each reread, I don't really go in for digging or actively going about connecting dots.

I have no idea why my head works like this. -facepalm-

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tamasha In reply to LaughingAstarael [2011-04-30 02:38:03 +0000 UTC]

Ah, but that's only assuming the author eventually DOES do a full, well-explained reveal, right? And given GRRM that's no guarantee at all. He's just as capable of suddenly launching into a zomgwtf moment, and assuming that you HAD worked out the subtle plot hints and secrets. And if you hadn't, you'll be left floundering in confusion! And even if you DO somehow catch up with what just happened, it's entirely possible that you will have. . .lost out on something. A deeper understanding of the plot as a whole. A tiny, almost-hidden glimpse into another side of a character's personality. A fragment of dialogue, a little hint that casts a situation in a whole new light.

Rhaegar is barely ever mentioned in the four books, for instance, and I doubt he'll be mentioned much in the books to come. Most of what we hear about him is through Robert, who does nothing but heap abuse on his head. But if you pay attention and connect the dots - what you realize is something so, so subtly hinted at, but sweet and sad enough to make you cry. And while that little piece of info is not vital to either the progress of the plot or your understanding of it, and you could very well keep going through the series without ever picking up on it...well, you'd have missed out on something if you did. D:

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LaughingAstarael In reply to Tamasha [2011-05-03 05:26:27 +0000 UTC]

Ah, but: just because I said I'm reading shallowly does not mean I'm skimming. I don't need (or want) a spelled out reveal: as long as I've read the books recently, all of the little elements that I've read will click together for a really lovely 'oh!' moment that is, for me, a thousand times better than any 'I CALLED it' moment. My detail retention is excellent (within a certain timeframe, of course, necessitating the rereading I'd have to do with every new release), so while I'm not going to pounce on an important piece of dialogue as I read it, if it turns out to be that important, I'm more than likely to recall it when the Big Thing it fits into happens.

That example actually supports me - I remember the Rhaegar undercurrent, though at a remove of what is now five years I no longer have it clear in my head. The difference for me is this: if an author writes something between the lines, I will very likely pick it up; but if an author buries clues to the Answer throughout a series, I won't bother.

A reveal that's confusing to anyone who doesn't dig for it is, I feel, a poorly written reveal. I don't want a condescending author to take me by the hand and walk me through the steps, but if the story doesn't flow naturally into its ending - if I can't look back and see how the book got to this point - then I'm calling shenanigans. I'm fine with not getting every single layer of meaning; I'm more than happy not to know the ending three books before I get there; the author can thread layers of foreshadowing and hinting through the book to their heart's content. But if the book demands such close reading to make any sort of sense, then, well... good for those that read like that, but I'm out.

(I actually approach art the same way: I don't know the meaning or reasons behind Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' and I really don't want to know, because they're beautiful and they work; finding out the story behind 'Christina's World' took something away from it. Learning that a piece of modern art I find ugly has a really beautiful concept behind it makes it not one bit less ugly to me - it's the concept, as a separate entity, that I'll take away. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.)

I'm not sure what this says about me as a person.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tamasha In reply to MasterKagura [2011-01-15 16:23:17 +0000 UTC]

LOL

THAT IS AWESOME

STRAWBERRY AND BUTTERSCOTCH, MY FAVOURIIITE.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0