While I've recently begun watching the show, and, in fact, enjoy it, I'm severely bothered by it's portrayal of women. The only time any woman does anything important, it's because she gave birth to someone, or something, or because some powerful male allowed her to. It's either a connection she has, or her vagina. Women certainly have no importance by their own virtues!
It reminds me very much of a game of D&D a grog would highly enjoy. Full of rape, incest, misogyny, and there are even, yes, fart jokes. The story is good, the plot is solid, but I can't help but imagine the DM as a neck-beard who's privately getting off on it.
While I've recently begun watching the show, and, in fact, enjoy it, I'm severely bothered by it's portrayal of women. The only time any woman does anything important, it's because she gave birth to someone, or something, or because some powerful male allowed her to. It's either a connection she has, or her vagina. Women certainly have no importance by their own virtues!
It reminds me very much of a game of D&D a grog would highly enjoy. Full of rape, incest, misogyny, and there are even, yes, fart jokes. The story is good, the plot is solid, but I can't help but imagine the DM as a neck-beard who's privately getting off on it.
This is perhaps an odd subforum to place this thread in, as the TV one would have been more appropriate, and I believe there's at least one other Game of Thrones thread.
In any case, I'm not sure how far into the series you are, but there are certainly many female characters within the series that contradict your generalisations. Just be very careful to avoid GoT spoilers on the net. I wouldn't even go on the internet until I finished the series if I were you.
I'm assuming you haven't read the books at all. All the women seem to be mere plot devices at one point or another but overall I think it's fairly strong. Or, headed that way at least. My favorite character in the entire series is female though, if that says anything.
This is perhaps an odd subforum to place this thread in, as the TV one would have been more appropriate, and I believe there's at least one other Game of Thrones thread.
Actually, I thought I did. I guess I clicked the wrong link, somehow.
In any case, I'm not sure how far into the series you are, but there are certainly many female characters within the series that contradict your generalisations. Just be very careful to avoid GoT spoilers on the net. I wouldn't even go on the internet until I finished the series if I were you.
There are some, but they seem tokens. Too few, too far between. In the middle of season 2, there are, arguably, six. At least a strong two, arguably more, but, how many total people are in the cast? I won't say there aren't redeeming female characters, but the fact of the matter is that there are far more female characters who are important due to their connections or their vaginas. Most of the women who could be said to be important are still highly sexualized or use sex to their advantage. I'm not saying it's not a valid strategy, I'm saying this is a fantasy series where it's actually not a necessary strategy. If you can slit a man's throat, you don't need to sleep with him, or anyone else, first.
I'm assuming you haven't read the books at all. All the women seem to be mere plot devices at one point or another but overall I think it's fairly strong. Or, headed that way at least. My favorite character in the entire series is female though, if that says anything.
Most of the characters are important by virtue of some hereditary claim.
I don't see the need to pick at it. The world depicted is far from egalitarian. In the middle ages women were not given the opportunity to do great story-worthy things, and so for the most part they didn't.
Most of the characters are important by virtue of some hereditary claim.
I don't see the need to pick at it. The world depicted is far from egalitarian. In the middle ages women were not given the opportunity to do great story-worthy things, and so for the most part they didn't.
I was unaware that the Game of Thrones took part on the real Earth during the Middle Ages. I was under the impression it was modern fantasy fiction. You know, the kingdoms that never existed, the dragons, the magical shadow-doom-baby, and all that... sort of gave me the impression it wasn't real.
And who has claims based on heredity? The women, or the men? Are the men sold to be husbands?
I understand humans used to be far more vicious, I understand rape and pillage used to be a standard part of wars... but now they're not, nor do they need to be. I don't like my fiction due to it being similar to Middle-Age Earth, I like it for the story and the fantasy. My fantasies do not require harlots, or the subjugation of women at all.
Both the men and the women are important based on heredity.
You want him to pick and choose what elements of the middle ages he borrows based on your preference? It's a gritty series, half the reason it's so popular is because it gives marvelous insight into the darker side of human nature. He's not prescribing a utopian system.
Both the men and the women are important based on heredity.
You want him to pick and choose what elements of the middle ages he borrows based on your preference? It's a gritty series, half the reason it's so popular is because it gives marvelous insight into the darker side of human nature. He's not prescribing a utopian system.
Which women are important based on heredity? The queen, whom was sold to the king before he was king? The Mother of Dragons, whom was sold to the Khal?
What Elements of the Middle Ages are there? What Middle Ages? Earth's? Does the story take place on Earth, now? I don't deny it has elements from the Middle Ages, I deny that the books and show being verisimilitudinous is a virtue. It's fantasy, so why make it a kind of gritty based on the middle ages? Why do only women get raped? Is men getting raped not gritty? Is men getting sold into marriages and thus forced to leave their home not gritty? Would a female torturer be less gritty? Is a female commander who takes slaves less gritty?
Tell me, why does grit require women to be helpless more often than not? What insights into the darker side of human nature does it give? Is the exploration of this gritty human side a good thing, ought it be valued, or do people do it in spite of it's wickedness? Did you come to understand yourself better for the story, do you have insights you previously didn't, or is it just a story? A story with weak women, valued only for being sold into marriages at best, worth their reproduction alone?
The insight it gives to me is that people find weak women as a standard against which to measure the strong ones believable, realistic. A story is believable, realistic, when women are good as whores, literally or figuratively, more often than not.
Gender rants? Really? You're not someone I would have expected them from.
The shift from modern day Earth to Westeros shifts gender paradigms backwards from our more highly developed social norms. Much as it shifts technology and governance, to something similar to the middle ages of Earth. I don't see why you'd care to question the assertion, are you being deliberately over fastidious?
GoT is about power struggles. One form of power struggle is the dominance of men over women. The issue is explored to some extent by Cersei, Sansa, Daenerys and Arya. It is far from the only struggle explored, and I'm perplexed as to why you'd fixate on it.
There were some memorable lessons learned from game of thrones. I wouldn't say it changed my world, but it did sharpen my perspective somewhat.
Tell me, why does grit require women to be helpless more often than not?
Because in these sorts of conditions, they are. It makes sense. I don't think it's a preferable state of affairs, but that's the nature of the exertion of power. People are either competitors or tools. Most women and men are subjugated, the differential in gender representation of the hand full of people that take top dog spot is still represented by the glass ceiling. Given the changes Martin made in creating his world, does it not logically follow that women would be of lesser importance?
The shift from modern day Earth to Westeros shifts gender paradigms backwards from our more highly developed social norms. Much as it shifts technology and governance, to something similar to the middle ages of Earth. I don't see why you'd care to question the assertion, are you being deliberately over fastidious?
Frankly, it's simply a norm to the fantasy genre that I find distasteful and irritating. The kind of gamer who likes these stories are the kinds of gamers I don't like to play with because they're sexist. They buy into it. They believe the sexual subjugation of women is an innate aspect of fantasy. It is not.
One form of power struggle is the dominance of men over women. The issue is explored to some extent by Cersei, Sansa, Daenerys and Arya. It is far from the only struggle explored, and I'm perplexed as to why you'd fixate on it.
Because it irritates me. What's wrong with the power struggle of women dominating over men? Because it's not realistic? There's some sophisticated exploration of it? I fail to see how it's a sophisticated "exploration" of the subject, as opposed to entertainment reveling in it. There's no moral, there's nothing to learn. It's just entertainment, and it's unnecessary. It's there because people like it, not because it has some higher exploratory purpose. People think women are weak.
Because in these sorts of conditions, they are. It makes sense.
Including you. Yet, there are a few women who lean against the norm of being pure victim... why must it be a feminine quality?
I don't think it's a preferable state of affairs, but that's the nature of the exertion of power. People are either competitors or tools. Most women and men are subjugated, the differential in gender representation of the hand full of people that take top dog spot is still represented by the glass ceiling. Given the changes Martin made in creating his world, does it not logically follow that women would be of lesser importance?
Oh, in his world, it must logically follow, because that's how he made it. He did not have to, yet his world is populated by savages who rape women, who sell them, etc. Did he have to write it that way? Does it logically follow that women are always the raped, the sold, and the one who's good for nothing but making babies?
Yet, we are modern people. Are we showing this to the old savages who raped and sold women and slaves? No. This story is for modern man.
I think there are real biological differences between men and women, and that these differences lend them to different roles. These roles are descriptive in nature, and other than in those times where they influence policy or social norms, entirely unlimiting.
Honestly, I think Martin explored it to the most reasonable extent without making a point of it (or did he?). Deviations from the norm need to be justified, and while it is a fantasy, so he could do pretty much anything he wanted, he did not decide to inherently shift gender dynamics away from what you'd expect. For whatever reason, you take offense to this are expressing your dissatisfaction.
Perhaps the subjugation of women in fantasy is playing to an audience, and yet both men and women alike read fantasy. Perhaps it is the audience's desires that should be addressed?
Including you. Yet, there are a few women who lean against the norm of being pure victim... why must it be a feminine quality?
Again, it's descriptive. Nobody is saying that women have to be victims, but on average, or perhaps only in our minds, it's more likely. Gender norms are horrible, let's get rid of them. Let's start with changing Earth, then go about conquering the fantasy realms.
I must admit this topic is very amusing to me, especially coming from you SpaceYeti.
GoT has never really bothered me, because it's better than most other modern fare. Whores and all. Women are actually present in the story and are usually three dimensional. Even the dead hooker Ros was well characterized. Most series fail to even acknowledge the existence of women outside of token love interests, let alone as portray them as complex individuals and actual people with independent motivations. In a way, GoT is oddly charitable. They even have outright ugly women and several old ones and all are competent. It's awkwardly over-sexualized, but all in all not bad for tv-land.
edit:
Hadoblado's responses seem to weaken the argument a bit. >.>
I love you guys for this post. I recently read the available books and saw the show -so there might be spoilers ahead for some- thus I know that women aren't the only ones sold and stuff. SPOILER ALERT. Later in the books some men (won't say who) will end up on the slave market also. And there are more than one mentions in the books about even little boys being raped. I'm not sure where this rage comes from, really. There are countless of men in the series who are tortured and killed. Howcome no one says this is sexist? Just because "men are supposed to go to war"? How is that not sexist then? See, the double edged knife...
I must admit this topic is very amusing to me, especially coming from you SpaceYeti.
GoT has never really bothered me, because it's better than most other modern fare. Whores and all. Women are actually present in the story and are usually three dimensional. Even the dead hooker Ros was well characterized. Most series fail to even acknowledge the existence of women outside of token love interests, let alone as portray them as complex individuals and actual people with independent motivations. In a way, GoT is oddly charitable. They even have outright ugly women and several old ones and all are competent. It's awkwardly over-sexualized, but all in all not bad for tv-land.
edit:
Hadoblado's responses seem to weaken the argument a bit. >.>
The show goes for some shock value. For example, in the series Drogo rapes Daenerys after their wedding but in the books she's actually aroused by him and gives pretty explicit consent, or Robb's wife (don't open the spoiler if you haven't seen 9th episode of the 3rd season)
who isn't killed at the Red Wedding, heck she's not even pregnant.
Speaking of Denearys, I think she's supposed to be a strong character, but the show does a terrible job at portraying her character, her past hardships (she's a major POV character in the books) and how she goes from being a child that's both dependent on Vyserys and a victim of his prolific abuse into being a more competent character. In the show she just seems like a side character with insane luck and strong guys falling all over her with the desire to serve her. Just very unrealistic overall.
Personally, I don't think your statement is fair / true SpaceYeti. I can't really judge on the series. The series are indeed more hollywood fashion and perhaps sexualised. However, as far as the books go, I think there are plenty of important non-sexual female characters. And then there's sexual hot female characters that are more than breeding machines.
Yes, sex is certainly a theme. With women more so than otherwise? Perhaps so. But I think he's honestly a pretty fair writer...
Don't open spoilers unless you've read all teh books. do not open
lady stonehand / zombie catelynn
brienne of tarth
ygritte
the martel sandsnakes
cersei - honestly anyone who read all the books knows she has her own character and personality, she is definitely more than a mother. However, if anyone bred important characters / is important because of her womb, then it's her I suppose.
denaerys
Both of the women with bran in the series (Osha & ... forgot the name of the swamp girl...)
arya... Anyone?
The flower girl and her grandmother
Asha
Half of those haven't had babies. Some of them are sexualised, but some of them are definitely not sexual. I honestly don't find GoT, especially the books but also the series to be so shallow at all. I must say the books are better tho, sometimes overly detailed but certainly some of the most nuanced broadest books i've read. I'm just waiting for the next one to come out.
Basically, it's exactly the sort of fantasy which, if it were a game someone invited me to, I would not play it because of all the unnecessary BS. The kind of jerk who would run a game of FATAL... unironically.
Also, I find it sophistic and oftentimes silly for someone to "explore" the darker side of humanity by writing a fantasy. If you want to explore human darkness, read reports on actual crimes. Writing a gritty, rape-filled story isn't an exploration of the darkness of humans, it's an exploration of your own dark fantasies.
What fantasy series, if any, do you think outshines GoT in terms of portraying women more positively? If, in such a series, you think they are being portrayed more positively, do you think the depiction is accurate of females generally? If not, is this beneficial to females? If so, why?
What do you want out of a fantasy series?
Additionally, what's wrong with exploring one's own dark fantasies in something as benign as fantasy fiction? It could very well be a healthy outlet, if we accept that people who enjoy or write fantasy series containing such things are exploring their own dark fantasies. If you believe such things may actually contribute to people believing rape is fine and dandy, do you have any research showing that fantasy books lead to an increase in such things? You say people ought to just read about actual crimes. However, actual crimes are not entertaining for the reason that most of us can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and many of us have the capacity for empathy.
How about the "Dragon's of..." series? Frankly, I don't read a whole lot of fantasy. Some, sure, not a bunch. Let's see; The Amber series, Xanth up to book 10ish, and a bunch of Dragonlance and Realms... plus a few other non-memorable books here or there.
If, in such a series, you think they are being portrayed more positively, do you think the depiction is accurate of females generally? If not, is this beneficial to females? If so, why?
Other series certainly do paint them more positively, but my entire problem is that it's fantasy... it doesn't need to be "accurate". If your fantasy book has women being raped, it's because you want it to. It's fantasy, it can be anything. Especially when it has nothing to do with the real world Earth. How do you "accurately" portray the women of an entire other reality? I won't deny similarity to real world Earth, I deny the necessity of being similar to real world Earth.
Frankly, I don't know. I like fantasy; magic, dragons, warriors, kings, queens, etc. I don't, however, know exactly what quality(s) about it all that I desire. Except I do know that I don't require rape or the unnecessary sexualization of women. Even if such things are concerns that I don't mind, there's a limit.
It hit me most solidly when the wildling woman who was captured by the Starks and who looked after... the young Stark cripple, whatever his name is, seduced the traitorous jerk who took Winterfell. After she slept with him, she sneaked out of the room and escaped. Why did she bother sleeping with him when she could have done everything else she did either way? What was the point of that? It bothered me because, if you want "realism", if you want the inclusion of sex and rape, then why do you stop at it's inclusion, and not it's execution? If you're so worried about realism, make it realistic sex. Nobody's going to have sex with someone so that they can go do something they could have done anyway. It screams at me that it's sex for sex' sake.
Additionally, what's wrong with exploring one's own dark fantasies in something as benign as fantasy fiction? It could very well be a healthy outlet, if we accept that people who enjoy or write fantasy series containing such things are exploring their own dark fantasies.
Nothing's wrong with that. I never made the claim that it was. I said it bothered me, because it reminds me of the groggy neckbeards who run such fantasy game campaigns because they get off on it. They claim it's because they're concerned with their "verisimilitude", just to run a game that's not verisimilitudinous anyhow. And Game of Thrones isn't verisimilitudinous. It's not like the real world. That much is obvious.
You say people ought to just read about actual crimes.
If they want to learn about and gain insights into the darker side of humanity! Delving into the darker areas of your own mind gives only insights into the darker areas of your own mind... not all of humanity.
Hell, just about anyone else would make for a better king. Ros would have been a better king. You know, if she wasn't a she and...
she wasn't dead!
The dwarf would make the best king out of the whole damn show.
I'm getting kind of sick of the torturing of... Brozhen... Shawn? The Greyjoy jerk. What's that shit all about? Just rescue his ass and answer why the torturer jerk is doing his shit, already!
Season 3 has some pretty damn cunning and powerful women fosho
It's tricky with a show like this, on the one hand it makes sense for the world that author has made not to have come very far in terms of equal rights :P
On the other hand I to get the feeling that it's layed on a bit thick at times.
Season 3 has some pretty damn cunning and powerful women fosho
It's tricky with a show like this, on the one hand it makes sense for the world that author has made not to have come very far in terms of equal rights :P
On the other hand I to get the feeling that it's layed on a bit thick at times.
I'm getting kind of sick of the torturing of... Brozhen... Shawn? The Greyjoy jerk. What's that shit all about? Just rescue his ass and answer why the torturer jerk is doing his shit, already!
I feel this is one of the parts where the show is inferior to the book. Theon Greyjoy becomes one of my favourite characters through his sheer happenstance. The screen depiction just seems so arbitrarily cruel it's difficult to relate to.
Oh, in his world, it must logically follow, because that's how he made it. He did not have to, yet his world is populated by savages who rape women, who sell them, etc. Did he have to write it that way? Does it logically follow that women are always the raped, the sold, and the one who's good for nothing but making babies?
Yet, we are modern people. Are we showing this to the old savages who raped and sold women and slaves? No. This story is for modern man.
This perspective just completely baffles me. You suggest that he should have written about a different world? Maybe you should be reading about a different world. There are plenty of books and shows out there about nice happy things, this one is about a world where these kinds of things are common. It's consistent through the entire story, it's a reasonable portrayal of a world dominated by physical strength, "historically accurate" if you will...
I honestly can't even fucking imagine presuming to say that an author should change his fantasy world to fit my own idea of what the world should be. blows my mind.
This perspective just completely baffles me. You suggest that he should have written about a different world? Maybe you should be reading about a different world. There are plenty of books and shows out there about nice happy things, this one is about a world where these kinds of things are common. It's consistent through the entire story, it's a reasonable portrayal of a world dominated by physical strength, "historically accurate" if you will...
I honestly can't even fucking imagine presuming to say that an author should change his fantasy world to fit my own idea of what the world should be. blows my mind.
My point was much more that the world is that way because he made it that way. He wanted to tell this story. The whole "Well, in that world, it works" simply doesn't apply, because the world can be anything. It's a dark world full or rape because that's exactly how he wanted it to be, not because rape is necessary for anything story-wise.
Keep in mind, my actual problem is that the show makes me consider it's creator as a neck-bearded grognard writing about a D&D game he ran, with all the hookers and rape there not necessarily as a realistic human fear, but because he's a misogynistic creep. Not that I think that's the case, but it's certainly a bothersome prospect. Why all the nude scenes? Yeah, people have important conversations when they're not wearing clothes, but they also do it in clothes. They usually do it in clothes. I won't say it's the same in the books, but it seems like an excuse to show some A & T.
My point was much more that the world is that way because he made it that way. He wanted to tell this story. The whole "Well, in that world, it works" simply doesn't apply, because the world can be anything. It's a dark world full or rape because that's exactly how he wanted it to be, not because rape is necessary for anything story-wise.
Keep in mind, my actual problem is that the show makes me consider it's creator as a neck-bearded grognard writing about a D&D game he ran, with all the hookers and rape there not necessarily as a realistic human fear, but because he's a misogynistic creep. Not that I think that's the case, but it's certainly a bothersome prospect. Why all the nude scenes? Yeah, people have important conversations when they're not wearing clothes, but they also do it in clothes. They usually do it in clothes. I won't say it's the same in the books, but it seems like an excuse to show some A & T.
You didn't actually read what I wrote, huh? I never said I agree or disagree with anything he wrote or said. I think the world he created is vaguely indicative of a grognard creep writer.
The guy who made FATAL claims his game is realistic and thus good, yet it's patently neither of those things. Rather, it's the poster boy for the kind of grog I'm thinking of as the writer of GoT (though GoT isn't nearly as horrible!).
My point was much more that the world is that way because he made it that way. He wanted to tell this story. The whole "Well, in that world, it works" simply doesn't apply, because the world can be anything. It's a dark world full or rape because that's exactly how he wanted it to be, not because rape is necessary for anything story-wise.
Keep in mind, my actual problem is that the show makes me consider it's creator as a neck-bearded grognard writing about a D&D game he ran, with all the hookers and rape there not necessarily as a realistic human fear, but because he's a misogynistic creep. Not that I think that's the case, but it's certainly a bothersome prospect. Why all the nude scenes? Yeah, people have important conversations when they're not wearing clothes, but they also do it in clothes. They usually do it in clothes. I won't say it's the same in the books, but it seems like an excuse to show some A & T.
Seems like a huge stretch to me to call the writer himself misogynistic. Is it not perfectly realistic to have a large dose of misogyny in a primitive, mostly uneducated, patriarchal society, especially in the midst of war where physical strength dominates? Across the Narrow Sea are cities run almost entirely off of slavery, does this mean he supports slavery? Or owns slaves? of course not
I can't say that every single bit of nudity in the show is necessary, but Littlefinger runs brothels, I think it's pretty reasonable to have the scenes where he is in a brothel to have nudity in them. I also know, because we always pay close attention to the nudity warnings before the show, that around half the episodes have no nudity whatsoever. If it's too much for you, again, don't watch?
As bad as I thought it was to complain about aspects of the fantasy world that you CHOOSE to watch, it's actually even worse that you would ascribe those aspects to the creator. I suppose it makes you think he's also, aside from being a misogynist, a murdering, incestuous rapist who owns slaves?
Edit: also wanted to respond specifically to this
"It's a dark world full or rape because that's exactly how he wanted it to be, not because rape is necessary for anything story-wise."
If you don't think rape is important to the story, then you probably just don't know the story very well. Robert's Rebellion happened entirely because of rape. Tywin betrayed the Targaryens as revenge for rape. Daenerys being sold to/raped by Khal Drogo might have been kind of important. Every forced marriage aka rape is a little bit important for alliances. and on and on and on...
The show DOES have a lot more nude and sex scenes that the book presents openly -at least that's how I remember it. I guess in this it's HBO and the show writers who are to blame, not the book writer. Besides, they are using the nudity to get even more people into watching it - otherwise the only one who would be checking this one out would be the nerds and fantasy fans.
Seems like a huge stretch to me to call the writer himself misogynistic. Is it not perfectly realistic to have a large dose of misogyny in a primitive, mostly uneducated, patriarchal society, especially in the midst of war where physical strength dominates? Across the Narrow Sea are cities run almost entirely off of slavery, does this mean he supports slavery? Or owns slaves? of course not
No, that's why I used the qualifier "vaguely". In fact, he patently morality expies with the girl freeing everybody. He also makes it fairly clear that these things are all bad, which is why I'm not actually too worried about it, my biggest complaint being the frequency of rape's acceptance, but that dropped dramatically as his expy gained power.
I can't say that every single bit of nudity in the show is necessary, but Littlefinger runs brothels, I think it's pretty reasonable to have the scenes where he is in a brothel to have nudity in them. I also know, because we always pay close attention to the nudity warnings before the show, that around half the episodes have no nudity whatsoever. If it's too much for you, again, don't watch?
Pfffft, I love nudity. I'm not offended at the nudity, it simply adds to the appearance of mysogeny. Also, brothels don't need to have naked women all over. They only need to be naked in the bedrooms. I don't imagine there's a tremendous amount of reason for hookers to have much clothes on in brothels, but we're also talking high class brothels. High-class brothels have an appearance to keep up, not of sex, but of class (which, inasfar as I can tell, is effectively how well you can hide your basest desires). Moulin Rouge is about a brothel of the same name (well, it takes place there), yet we see zero breasts or booties.
As bad as I thought it was to complain about aspects of the fantasy world that you CHOOSE to watch, it's actually even worse that you would ascribe those aspects to the creator. I suppose it makes you think he's also, aside from being a misogynist, a murdering, incestuous rapist who owns slaves?
No, but it does open up the door. Now, after I've seen the whole series, I'm more on the boat that he was interested in the characters surviving in a crap-sack world, but the fact remains that if the crap-sackiness of the world was the point, not the people living in it, then the writer is, in fact, interested in writing about the crap-sackiness of the world, they enjoy it. The question is, why so interested in it? I'm no longer so concerned, though.
I wouldn't say he's interested in the characters surviving in a crap-sack world....
That's all fair enough though- it certainly is a very dark story. I suppose he's interested in writing about it for the same reason we're interested in reading it/ watching it- to see or imagine how different environments can shape human nature.
I'm only up to episode #18 (I think their current run is at #33 right now).
Sorry to skim read and see that some people haven't liked it or been disappointed. I didn't read any of the books but found it far better than I had anticipated. I appreciate the moral ambiguities and the reality that none of the characters are protected from grisly and untimely demises. I like not being sure what's going to happen.
^^ Impressive. I finished on Friday -- watched 'em all over 10-11 days, while still working my normal workweek. That was enough to blow my mind, I can't get the stupid theme song out of my head...
Pretty weird to see what pieces come on and off the board. There were people I thought would stick around who didn't, and others that pop up out of nowhere and start to dominate.
^^ Impressive. I finished on Friday -- watched 'em all over 10-11 days, while still working my normal workweek. That was enough to blow my mind, I can't get the stupid theme song out of my head...
Pretty weird to see what pieces come on and off the board. There were people I thought would stick around who didn't, and others that pop up out of nowhere and start to dominate.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
Where did you get so far?
Don't know how long it will last, but she shall have a little time to feel even more superior.
