I don't know why you're all so worried about Gendry's parents since Gendry died in S02E09.

Obviously true

This is true also. Isn't there a scene where she explicitly states that she would never want Roberts children because he (well, one reason) called her Lyanna on the wedding night, and she wanted to build a dynasty of her own blood ala the Targs etc? Like, all of this is explicitly said by her somewhere.

There just can't be book readers playing along with theories wrt what is going to happen because they already ****ing know what happens ffs. Why would anyone even participate in such speculation other than to troll? Use the other thread, this isn't difficult stuff.

This is the entire reason I created this thread. A thread solely for TV watchers with no book posters.

Dids, however, then locked the original thread and turned this one into the TV discussion thread for everyone.

He didn't like the idea of 3 threads (Books, TV only, TV thread for book readers).

Still doesn't make sense to me that it can't be set up like that.

Why would a thread for book readers be in this forum at all. The other thread is for the TV show, for book readers. This is the TV forum. Also, none of this could possibly be confusing. Here is a test:

Have you read any books beyond the territory of where the TV show has covered? If yes, then congratulations go to the other thread. If no, congratulations you may post here. If you are somewhere in limbo aka read book 3 and don't want to continue reading other books, well, sucks to be you right?

Just quoting this so that it doesn't get lost in all the noise. I think this may have been mentioned before, but this is the most likely explanation for Gendry sharing that his mother was blond being in the script.

yeah, this.

And also, the books may have a slightly different order, or reveal things about content that hasn't aired yet. So even if you are simply keeping pace, please be careful and use your best judgement. And even non-spoilery stuff shouldn't be in this thread-- such as back story that was gone into detail about, but left out of the show. Not sure how everyone feels about HBOgo content-- I personally think it's fair game for the thread, just as Lost extras on ABC's website would (should?) have been fair game in the Lost thread.

Some of the opinions about who can/can't post here are kind of ******ed for two reasons:

1) It's absurd to make a blanket statement that someone who has read the books cannot make an appropriate non-revealing post ITT.

2) There are a few things that have been speculated in this thread that have not even been resolved in the books yet (this is not a reference to Our House's posts before anyone flips out at me).

Factual inaccuracies? Seriously, gtfo. It reminds me of why I haven't posted on 2p2 in so long. Too many nits and angleshooters. Anyway, this is my last post again for a while. Thanks for ruining all the fun, Phil + other bookreaders.

First off, Gendry's Lannister eyes were my opinion of his appearance. Someone asked me to clarify that after my very first post, and I did it immediately. Why try to lock me into something I never said or did, and in fact, did the opposite of? I remember being accused of bad logic earlier. Right. And anyway, how could an opinion be a factual inaccuracy?

Second, we hardly know anything about 17 years ago. I'm sure the big brazen bookreaders have a ton of background information that the viewers don't. So it's easy for you, Phil, knowing what you know, to probe me hard because you "can't think of any reason" that the kid was taken or given away by Robert or anyone but Cersei, and then hold me to weird, throw-out stabs at an answer. All I said was, IT'S POSSIBLE Robert was forced to make a deal during the war (like Robb Stark was for a wife). IT'S POSSIBLE neither Robert or Cersei had a choice in the matter, and some other person, people, or creatures were behind it. IT'S POSSIBLE Cersei lied to Cat about the exact series of events. And IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE the kid wasn't dead when he was carried away in a bundle. And so on and so on. We can't begin to speculate what happened 17 years ago without any information. But I don't NEED to answer that question, and did it just to humor you. So, no, you don't get to take my list of random possibilities (that you dragged out of me in the first place) and try to pass them off as some type of concrete Gendry philosophy with factual inaccuracies.

I did a LOT of posting the last few days, so it's really easy to cherry-pick things I said out of their correct context, and paint them differently to the readers. At least I can leave the thread with the comfort of knowing that you chose to go after the low hanging cherries, and had to commit all kinds of logical fallacies in order to do it.

I'm a huge spoiler nit so I have to give my take:

Let's say it's S1E5 right now, and Our House posts a big theory about how Viserys is going to marry Sansa. A known book reader then comes in and starts talking about how that's a stupid theory. You don't see any problem in that case? In ANY situation like this the book reader's opinion is going to be colored by the fact that he has 3 additional books worth of knowledge.

If every poster's theories in this thread were subject to getting shot down by book readers then there'd be no discussion possible for people who only watch the TV show.

I don't think book readers should point this kind of stuff out either. If it's been stated in the show then one of the non book readers will point it out eventually. I think book readers have a tendency to go overboard with trying to explain stuff and they wind up revealing stuff that hasn't been shown on the TV show yet. It's better if the TV viewers learn stuff at the pace that the show intends.

Basically people who have read the books shouldn't do any kind of explaining or speculating in this thread IMO.

What proportion of this thread is arguing about spoilers? 33%?

First they came for the those who gave information about the books.
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't a book reader who gave information about the books....

I agree, people who think book readers should be openly posting in this thread are kind of ******ed. There are probably more than two reasons though.

Yes it is, however I'm pretty sure no one has said such a thing (recently.)

Yes, a reasonable person would assume so. You can talk about these unresolved arcs in the book readers' thread.

1. As a book reader you may have more info on the arc, even though it may not be completely resolved.

2. If a book reader speculates about an arc, get's called on it, claims it is unresolved in the books, non readers know with a high certainty that the issue won't be resolved for at least a season (it could reasonably be assumed that book readers who have read ahead are ahead at least a book) if not for another several seasons.

Clearly many people posting in OOTV are incapable of grasping these concepts, much less reasoning their way to them on their own. Thankfully we have two very clearly marked threads... yet still, here we are...

Lannister eyes? You do realize that Gendry is played by an actor and not the actual bastard son of Robert. The producers could care less what someone looks like, evidenced by the blatant dyeing of almost all the Lannisters hair. Since there is no mention at all in the series of him looking like Cersei, there is no reason to assume he somehow came from Cersei. ( because if for instance Jaime wanted his offspring on the throne, he woulda just killed Gendry )

rofl what a clusterfuxk. everyone in here complaining about phil's arguing: have u ever considered thqt were you to place him on ignore there'd be not only no one getting annoyed at his posts but there'd also be no one.left for him to argue with thus he'd prob stop doing it altogether

It would depend entirely on the argument being made.

We can't know who read the books, all we can do is act on what we see in the thread. It's not like I haven't done a lot of deleting/banning/modding in this thread. When people cross the line, they get got. Phil didn't come close to crossing the line.

Worry about the arguments and judgement on their merit, don't worry about the people.

I agree that the theory has tons of holes. However, I could see it being possible that Robert didn't know about Gendry and that Cersei was the one that decided to hide him.

Basically, the story would be that at some point after she was pregnant, Cersei realized that she hated Robert and could never allow his heir to be king. She then plots with Jamie to kill the kid and have pure Lannister heirs. However, after giving birth, she can't bring herself to kill the kid so she sends him away and tells everyone that he died. She can'thave any future contact with Gendry since if Robert finds out he would kill her and if Jamie finds out he would kill Gendry.

Obviously, this is still very unlikely and would have some issues (such as how would Jon Arryn track down Gendry is he was a secret to all), but I could see this being a possibility.

Phil is being pretty douchey, Dids too, but lol at anyone who considers the Gendry=Cercei's real son theory seriously.

No.

No.

No.

This isn't ****ing Lost, this is GAME OF THRONES.

At the VERY least it's spoiling the fact that theory X won't happen in the next few seasons.

Phil's post would have been fine except that 1 or 2 posts later someone called him out as a known book reader (in a later response he also mentioned differences from the books which is spoilery in this context too). These posts clearly ticked off a bunch of TV viewers which is exactly what shouldn't happen in this thread.

I'm pretty sure it has been stated in the show, FYI. There's tons of backstory exposition in season 1 in conversations between people like Ned / Robert or Cersei / Robert or Ned / Catelyn.

edit-- I had not read the books before I watched S1 and recall still knowing the things I said just from watching the show, although obviously my memory is not totally reliable / prone to confirmation bias.

Are you sure? Pretty sure I saw a smoke monster last season.

ITT, people with an overblown sense of entitlement who have not read any of the books argue that in order to provide non-book readers with a thread free of any threat of spoilers, people who have read only some of the books should be deprived of a thread free spoilers.

Is there a book forum?

<DTM goes and reads the forum index, then comes back>

Nope. Didn't see one. The only one that mentions literature also mentions TV. Maybe whe should move both GoT threads to the Lounge, and while we're at it, close down OOTV.

You are posing a doubly false dichotomy. Both threads are about the TV show. The other one allows spoilers from the books, and this one doesn't. There are more than two classes of poster. Besides those who have read none of the books and those who have read all of the books that have yet been published, there are those that have read only some of the books. These latter would be spoilered if they took part in the other thread. You acknowledge the existence of the third group, but cavalierly decide that your wants are superior to theirs.

This is a thread meant to discuss the TV show, without mention of any spoilers from the books. It is free for anybody to post in, including book readers, so long they don't spoil. The mod has decided it is less work for him to weed out spoliers than it is to moderate three threads, including one we don't have: a thread about the TV series where book readers will not be allowed to post at all.

The notion that book readers cannot argue only from evidence presented in the TV shows is insulting to book readers, and/or reflective of the limited powers of reasoning possessed by the non-readers who advance the notion. It is demonstrably false that book readers will only argue for positions consistent with the books and only against positions inconsistent with the books. There have been multiple instances ITT of book readers promoting possibilities in the TV series that they know did not happen in the books. This isn't done as trolling, but in the spirt of the thread. It becomes easier to do as the storyline in the show continues to diverge from that in the books.

People who want to ban whole classes of posters because of what they might do, rather than because they actually broke the rules, are free to go run their own website where they can ban whoever they want. In the mean time, we have Dids to keep the thread spolier-free, and he's doing as good a job as can be expected. You should be grateful. I know I am.

I don't think Ned is being dishonorable by failing to tell an about-to-be-dead Robert that he suspects Joffrey is not Robert's son, or by writing the King's intent rather than a direct quote.

The wording "until the rightful heir comes of age" is more about the question of determining who is the rightful heir than it is about whether that person is of age or not. What Ned is thinking is that he's writing himself out of job. His problem is that he needs to have proof that Joffrey is not the rightful heir. Gathering proof, rather than suspicions, will take more time. Until that question is settled, Joffrey is the heir apparent, and the regency continues until either Joffrey comes of age or is proven not to be the rightful heir. Perhaps exercising the regency will give Ned the time he needs.

In the rapidly developing situation when Robert dies, Ned comes to realize he won't have time to gather proof before he has to act. Others are at least one step ahead of him, however.

If someone would have came in here last year and said a smoke monster would come out of a woman's vagina and kill a king, none of the book readers would have jumped out and called such a ridiculous theory was it was: crazy.

But it happened.

And now everytime a crazy theory is shot down by a book reader, that's one less mystery and one less angle that the story could follow. If you know how the story is going to unfold you cannot be without bias.