Who is your favourite prologue/epilogue character?
A tie between Merrett Frey and Kevan Lannister.
Merrett, I like reading in pretty much the same way as I like reading Victarion’s chapters. Unlike Victarion, he’s just bright enough to know how pathetic he is, but that’s integral to the events of the chapter. GRRM doesn’t introduce Lady Stoneheart hanging Lothar Frey, who planned everything down to the music, or Raymund Frey who murdered her, or Black Walder who everyone agrees is a piece of work. No, GRRM introduces the PoV of Merrett Frey, complete loser. Even as he parrots off the family’s self-justifying arguments (”what about our honour?” “it was war!” “We lost fifty men while slaughtering thousands of Stark soldiers!”) this guy is simultaneously unpleasant and unfortunate - but no threat to the new Brotherhood Without Banners, enough to make it land that he was lured out to the forest under false pretences and murdered in cold blood.
Kevan’s interesting to me because he was Tywin’s yes-man through the creation of all these problems that now beset House Lannister, and now it’s his problem. Tywin had Rhaenys and Aegon Targaryen murdered, now Kevan deals with Aegon (though obviously not the real son of Rhaegar). Elia and Oberyn Martell both died Lannister-related deaths, now Kevan must rely on Nymeria Sand not to be overwhelmed by the Tyrells on the Small Council. Tywin and Kevan ran a brutal campaign of war crimes in the Riverlands, now Kevan has to deal with the fact the Riverlands refuse to be subdued and require constant Lannister presence. Tywin once inflicted the humiliation of a public naked walk on his father’s mistress, now Kevan does it to Cersei and that’s going to cause a few issues too, even if Kevan will never see them. It’s a whole bunch of chickens coming home to roost.
Also, both epilogues are creepy in a way I really enjoy (more than I enjoyed Varamyr’s creepiness in ADWD’s prologue). Both feature reasonably normal days gone horribly wrong, both give alternative insight into circumstances we knew existed but hadn’t got a good look at, both set up new players and incipient action for the next book.
Drunk me usually wants chicken wings when I come home at like 2am but can never get them. But earlier tonight, in my lonely slump, I bought a bunch at Whole Foods. I’m not even drunk right now but knowing they’re waiting for me at home??? Amazing.
People just assume that we’re fibbing every time we say he’s definitely dead. We did come up with the line, “Of course he’s dead, he’s definitely dead. More importantly, I know exactly what he’s going to do next,” with appalling glee. This year, it’s all about shadows from the past coming back to haunt them, and the consequences of their actions. I would say the chickens are coming home to roost … without real chickens. There are no chickens in this season. That’s an exclusive!
‘Sherlock’s trip to his mind palace in “The Abominable Bride” appeared to confirm that Moriarty is gone for good.’ - Mark Gatiss interview with yahoo - (x)
Michael Wolff: How Bill O'Reilly's Scandal Exposes a Murdoch Family Divide
Fox News’ handling of the renewed harassment allegations is a
reflection of greater company conflicts and a generational shift as
Rupert hangs on to a bygone era and James and Lachlan plot a risky new
Last July, after Gretchen Carlson sued the Murdoch-controlled 21st
Century Fox and Roger Ailes, the then-head of Fox News Channel, for
sexual harassment, Rupert Murdoch told his sons, both Ailes enemies,
that paying off Carlson without a fight would mean more lawsuits.Easy-money settlements always bring more claims. James and Lachlan
Murdoch, however, were eager to get rid of their nemesis, and the most
direct way to do that was to accept Carlson’s claims after a quickie
investigation and then use a big payoff — $20 million — to end the
dispute and calm the storm.
Nine months later, the chickens coming home to roost, Fox has
continued to collect a string of look-alike claims against Ailes and
against ratings giant Bill O'Reilly, with a firestorm of recent press
attention on what The New York Times is calling the “O'Reilly
revelations.”What has been revealed is not evidence nor an admission of
guilt but details of payments settling complaints against O'Reilly —
not a small distinction. You can assume maximal guilt, which the Times
and other Fox haters do, or you can assume, as many lawyers do, that
when there is money to be had, plaintiffs come out of the
woodwork. (“Coming out of the woodwork” is a virtual term of art in big
settlement tort cases).
Murdoch Senior is said to be saying, “I told you so.” James, CEO of
21st Century Fox, is blaming it on the Fox News culture and has hired
Paul Weiss, the same law firm that performed a two-week investigation of
Ailes, to probe O'Reilly (there is, too, a Department of Justice
investigation of how settlement payments were made, which Rupert
dismisses as DOJ liberal politics and which his sons see as indicating
more Fox News dark arts). This is a reflection of greater family and
company interests and conflicts. For 86-year-old Rupert, Fox News is a
key part of his legacy, as well as the family company’s health: the most
profitable news outlet ever ($1.5 billion in profits this year) and
among the most influential. For James, 44, and Lachlan, 45, the hope is
to reshape this legacy, to move Fox away from what they see as its
retro, Trump-style views toward, well, something nicer (and to do this
profitably, they hope, somehow).
The Murdoch interests have, however, now been joined — with Murdoch
Senior arguing it’s his sons’ own damned fault — to the flashpoint issue
of sexual harassment. And while they could rationalize losing Ailes
because Fox News, even without him, remains powerful, it would be harder
to rationalize a loss of O'Reilly, who, at 8 p.m., is the most-watched
host on cable and supports the entire evening schedule.
It’s a particular sort of irony that Fox, which, to the delight of
its audience, built itself on rejecting liberal assumptions, might now
be brought down by such a signature liberal assumption: Where there are
charges of sexual harassment, there is sexual harassment. It’s a kind of
zeitgeist power play. After President Trump went out of his way to
support O'Reilly on April 5, The New York Times, which
left little doubt that it accepted the truth of the allegations, noted
“the president has a particular rapport with Mr. O'Reilly, whose
hectoring braggadocio and no-apologies nostalgia for a bygone American
era mirror Mr. Trump’s own.”
This is a curious view considering Trump won the presidency, and
O'Reilly is the highest-rated cable news host and, to boot, one of the
best-selling authors in the country. So, more accurately, it may only be
a bygone era for The New York Times and the liberal
order that so furiously opposes and links Trump and Fox. But the
cultural upper hand is a mighty one — and sexual harassment has become
an issue so fraught, it largely precludes debate. Hence, advertisers are
now fleeing O'Reilly — seeming to make a moral judgment, but,
practically speaking, just avoiding controversy (few, if any, have left
the network entirely).
Your narrative is your fate. It doesn’t matter if O'Reilly or Ailes
did or didn’t do the things they are accused of — no trial has occurred,
no evidence has been released, no investigators’ conclusions shared —
their real guilt is that people believe they could have.
Confusing matters, the Murdoch sons also see O'Reilly and Ailes as
part of a bygone era — their father’s. Pay no attention that it was
precisely this sensibility that has been such a powerful audience draw
at Fox. (Of note, to the lasting outrage and confusion of liberals,
Trump, despite the bygone era suggested by his Billy Bush “pussygate”
tape, was elected anyway.) The Murdoch sons, while in important ways
financially supported by the profitable, culturally backward views at
Fox, see their job as taking the company into a new era.
The sons’ plan was to make Fox the network of Megyn Kelly rather than
of Ailes and O'Reilly. That plan foundered on widespread resentment at
the network toward Kelly for her part in Ailes’ ouster and on the
election of Trump. Suddenly, Fox’s “when America was great and men were
men” appeal was even stronger.
One solution has been Tucker Carlson, a conservative but less of a
dour, bygone-era one, who has scored significant ratings at 9 p.m. But
an important aspect of those ratings is that he is firmly sandwiched
between O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Both retro men are, even beyond their
huge salaries (nearly $20 million a year for O'Reilly; $14 million for
Hannity), vastly rich — O'Reilly, 67, from books; Hannity, 55, from
radio and real estate — with dedicated audiences who’d likely follow
them wherever. The worry at Fox is that they need Fox less than Fox
needs them, and they might soon leave too.
The liberal hope is that media pressure will continue to force
advertisers to reject O’Reilly (no matter that liberals have frequently
been aghast when conservatives have urged advertiser boycotts of liberal
media). But, in fact, so far advertisers have merely moved to other Fox
shows, which depend on the O'Reilly spillover audience. If O'Reilly,
who is on a pre-planned vacation, returns April 24 and the ratings
remain strong, those advertisers likely will be back on his show.
Murdoch Senior has remained largely remote from this dispute, but he
reportedly has been paying attention again. He is said to be worried
that his sons are moving toward a radical break — “re-imagining Fox,” is
what James is said to call it — and hastening the end of an era that,
in television terms, so far has been more popular and unyielding than
any cozier new one.
“In the aftermath to come, Americans should remain vigilant of the mainstream media’s tendency to blame-both-sides equally, regardless of the lopsided casualties of police violence. And whether or not Americans will agree or disagree with Johnson’s actions should not be the question we explore most. Focusing on his actions alone is a convenient diversionary tactic which enables America’s white supremacist power structure to delegitimize his anger and sweep the issue of state terror back under the rug. Instead, we should ask how are we going to communicate to police officers that if they wish ever again to be secure from the consequences of their violence, their top priority must be to stop terrorizing black and brown communities. That if they truly desire their own safety, they will first have to stop murdering people — or else more chickens, inevitably, will come home to roost.”
Did you hear about Keke Palmer being featured in a music video against her will? Some of the responses to that show how misogynistic men really can be. Siding with a guy who didn't take no for an answer. On the other hand. The chicken has come home to roost.
I heard about it on the Wendy Williams show this morning, and the silly comments about Keke being “childish” and “crazy” are obnoxious. You can’t just force someone to be in your shitty music video. I don’t see why people are letting these female celebrities be abused and used by these men right before our eyes.
This year, it’s all about shadows from the past coming back to haunt them, and the consequences of their actions. I would say the chickens are coming home to roost … without real chickens. There are no chickens in this season. That’s an exclusive!
For “The Abominable Bride,” I enjoyed teasing, “There’s a lot more of me,” because I was wearing a fat suit! [Laughs] This season, there’s quite a lot of me without the fat suit, but you’ll have to wait and see. All I’ll say is that past events have consequences for everybody in the series, not just Sherlock and John.
“What Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammed was in fact true: America’s chickens… are coming home to roost.
We took this country by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arowak, the Comanche, the Arapahoe, the Navajo. Terrorism.
We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
We bombed Granada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hardworking fathers.
We bombed Qaddafi’s home and killed his child.
Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against a rock.
We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living.
We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hardworking people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they would never get back home.
We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.
America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
Violence begets violence.
Hatred begets hatred.
And terrorism begets terrorism.”
I dunno guys, I think this might be the biggest turning point in the episode… maybe the series. Suicide’s been a theme since day 1 remember, and there were lots of references to their previous mentions of it this ep, and then Sherlock goes and repeats “I dont want to die” a bunch of times… in a scene that, to me, kind of called out the heart-restarting scene (and then Magnussen’s creepy visit foreshadowed Culverton’s). I’m thinking there miiiiight have been more in the subtext than the performance Sherlock intended to deliver.
After all, wasn’t that one of the obstacles to their relationship, Sherlock continually throwing his own life away, and John not being able to risk his heart on someone with a casual death wish?
So many chickens coming home to roost. So many loose ends being tied up.