There's no reason to think Robert would have ordered Lady's death if Nymeria were still there

Err, the way the scene went down indicated they didnt care about the other wolf till Sarah Connor brought it up so she got at least something going her way. There is zero evidence the wolf would have been put down if the original was found or even if Arya had been punished in some way.

Robert Baratheon, "A direwolf is no pet. Get her a dog, she'll be happier for it."

If you know enough to know it should be in spoiler text, but post it in this thread, from now you're getting banned.

Again, background information from the book clarifying what we saw is one thing. Telling us what a book was about that viewers of the show would have no way of knowing does not pass this test.

I realize there will still be some judgement calls, but err on the side of caution.

You're stretching dude. He only says this after ordering Lady's death to temper his decision.

he's already shown that he doesn't really care about Cersei's feelings. I don't see anything to suggest that he would do this just to please his wife. He's also not a person to lie. He says what he feels.

FFS WHEN BITCHING ABOUT PEOPLE SPOILING, STOP REPEATING THE INFORMATION YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT. (posts deleted that did that)

If it's not obviously- I'm pretty active, and will nuke that stuff, so it's not like the cat's out the bag and we should just ruin it for people who didn't read the thread in the past 15 minutes.

I feel like some of the book readers have the impression that the non-readers are completely dense and incapable of drawing their own conclusions, so they post what they consider "vague clues" because it's not like one of us non-reader idiots could possibly make any sense of it. Or more likely, it's all just a terrible mistake.

how do you know what I said is significant? I have only read up to the point the show is at, so I have no idea if it means anything. I would have mentioned it even if it was about cooking bacon.

your friend told you a specific fact about something that happens in future story lines - how is that the same?

anyway, I was just trying to add some depth from the book, but if this thread is for those who don't want/like that, that's fine too.

wow...

He's not doing it to please his wife, he's doing it to save himself grief later. That's completely consistent with his character.

It's a spoiler simply because you brought it up. If the name of the book he was reading had no significance to the story it would be an irrelevant detail and you wouldn't have thought to mention it. But because it's something you feel is important enough to bring up people are going to start thinking "Hmm I wonder how that will tie into the story in the future?" And considering the name of the book the only conclusion that people will come to is actually a pretty big spoiler. To clarify: If the show had revealed the name of the book, it wouldn't be a spoiler, even though it's the same information, because nobody would be sure if it had any significance. It might be a hint or some light foreshadowing but it wouldn't be a spoiler. If you provide the name of the book it would be a huge spoiler because not only are you naming the book, you're saying "This has significance to the story."

It's exactly the kind of slip that happened yesterday. If I was Dids I would bring the banhammer down with no mercy on anybody even acknowledging that there ARE books. Let this thread be about discussion of THE TV SHOW. It's going to be a slightly different story than the books, but if it's worth a **** (and after two episodes I'm guessing that it will be), it will stand up on its own merit. There's no reason to add details from the books. I'm convinced now that ANY talk of the books will only hurt this thread. Someone will inevitably slip up and release a huge spoiler. I'd advise making this an official rule because if I was trying to watch this show without spoilers, I'd personally stay far away from this thread the way it is now. I'm sure there are some actually in that situation that have either made that decision or are close to it. I'd prefer not to lose them. And I'd prefer not ruining the viewing experience of those who do stay because this is going to be an awesome series as long as the book readers don't **** it up.

yeah I think I'm with you here. Its really easy to spoil things if you're not careful, much easier than you'd think. I've read the books and ITT I've tried to not even mention anything from them, just weighed in on what I've seen.

There's really no reason to mention the books at all here as far as I can tell.

My only counter-argument is that there are a lot of details that are simply never going to make their way into the show, but that are hinted at in such a way that is only going to be significant to those who have read the book. There is a world of difference between pointing out these little details for the benefit of the non-book readers (particularly when there is a specific question asked about the hint that was dropped) and some kind of assertion that "the show cannot stand on its own".

From the strict interpretation we're getting in this thread, in fact, the vast majority of the information conveyed in the promotional material aired on HBO prior to the show ever premiering would constitute a ban-worthy spoiler. I think that's completely silly. It's not going to spoil the story for *anybody* to give a name and brief job description for a character that's been shown but that they clearly just haven't had time to name yet.

I think people should point out spoilers in PMs to Dids or using report post or whatever. Because saying in the thread "OMG DUMBASS X is a spoiler" only confirms that X is important whereas someone may have glossed over it.

Yeah, and I agree that in theory the book readers could provide some valuable insight. It's just in practice I realize now it's going to be impossible to avoid spoilers slipping out. There's just too many people trying to stay to one side of a gray line. Things will be unintentionally spoiled. And at the end of the day I don't think all the insight we can gain from the books is worth a single spoiler. Especially when you consider that the show is doing a good job of telling the story on its own.

Plus you've got the issue that we don't even know what's being omitted because there's just no time for it and what's being omitted because they're choosing to work it into the story in a later scene. Like in the scene where Ned and King Robert stop along the Kingsroad to eat and get that message about Danerys and Khal Drogo. They discussed a lot more in the book. But I fully expect all of that stuff to come out in a future episode some other way, so it would be a spoiler to mention any of it. That example is obvious, others may not be so clear. That's why I think we should just let the TV story stand on its own. They're obviously making some changes to the story and I think in the end it will be a better story if you only follow what HBO gives you, rather than trying to work in more details from the book.

Add to that there are some people that would prefer to watch this show as a standalone story even if there are book details that could clarify things. There just aren't enough pros to outweigh the cons. I still think any mention of the books ITT will take away from the viewing experience rather than add to it.

well said d10. i agree completely

I'm going to the other thread. Too many spoilers in this one.

Not true. She simply wanted to exert her power and get payback. Not to mention that she'd have trouble convincing the king to sign off on executing wolf #2 in that scenario. It would be too easy to ruin her image, she'd settle for the death of Arya's wolf.

lol what?

How does that confuse you?

She wanted payback. "We don't have Arya's wolf"
Cersei sensed that Robert didn't give a **** about this and might just appease her.
"We have a wolf."

As in, a wolf to replace the attacking wolf.

"Fine, whatever, a wolf's no pet anyway"

guys, it seems pointless arguing with bluegrassplayer.
he seems like the kindv guy where the author of the books could come into the thread and say he's wrong and he'd still argue to the death.
the fact that he is still trying to argue that bribing the kid to keep quiet was a viable alternative to killing him should make it clear he has no capacity for logical discourse.

the only catch is that I haven't read beyond where the show is, so I can't really give a spoiler if I wanted to.

The books and the show aren't identical. The show will probably reveal key details at different times when it is convenient.

maybe, but to this point the show has followed the book really closely