The Real Reason Why Jon Snow was Held the King in the North

Jon Snow becoming the King in the North doesn't make sense in the TV series. According to the rule of succession in Winterfell, it is Sansa, a true-born Stark, not Jon, a "bastard," who is entitled to be the ruler of the north. Also, he didn't avenged the Red Wedding, like what Lord Manderly said; it was none but Sansa's (and Littlefinger's) army who struck the largest blow against the Bolton army in the Battle of the Bastards. Jon's incompentence as a leader even almost decimated the whole Stark army thanks to him, but Sansa's decision to wait out the battle before attacking the opponent ensured their win against the Boltons. Sansa is the real person who avenged the Red Wedding. Added to that, it was Lyanna Mormont, a competent woman leader, who take away Winterfell's claim from Sansa. It doesn't make sense because the show is trying to portray feminism (and it is a lot cooler to see Sansa going head to head with Cersei and Daenerys). So what gives?

In "A Storm of Swords," before dying at the Red Wedding, Robb proclaimed Jon Snow to be his successor as the King in the North, if anything happen to him. During Robb's proclamation,  Maege Mormont (Lyanna's Mother) was one of the witnesses. The Mormont House, in the leadership of Lyanna, backing up Jon Snow's claim to Winterfell now makes a lot of sense.

These little but important moments in the books that were not included in the TV series made a lot of huge plot holes for the sixth season. This will not be a problem at the sixth book because George R. R. Martin, as we know, is seamless when it comes to the ongoing politics in Westeros. I think what happened really is that George only told the key moments that will happen in the sixth book without laying out to the showrunners how will it get to that point. They only know that Jon will be the King in the North at some point, but they don't know the series of events that will result to that moment.

Westworld Analysis

According to Jared of Wisecrack, the Westworld park is a metaphor for the Garden of Eden and the hosts, or the robots inside the park, are Adam and Eve because they don't know anything about eveything. Some of the hosts inavertedly found out about the truth that they are just robots inside a park used for the entertainment of humans (similar to taking a bite out of a fruit in the tree of knowledge). But instead of banishing them from the park, they are reprogrammed to their ignorant selves. This means that the whole story of the TV series is the story of creation in a loop: after eating the fruit of knowledge, they are programmed to erase the things that they know and then they are brought back again to Eden. Wyatt, one of creators of the park, wanted to give the hosts a sense of free will, which means he is basically Lucifer tempting the hosts to get a sense of the truth. Of course, Ford doesn't agree with him. As an alternative to free will, Ford put a storage of painful memories to the minds of the host to simulate basic human personalities to them. But not all costumers of the park were easily decieved by this. The Man in Black, after witnessing the misfires of not giving the host a sense of free will, followed up Wyatt's plan. His plan was a little different; instead of putting free will among the hosts, he wants to inject ethics in the park. You see, the hosts in the park doesn't know good from bad since they are just programmed to do the things Ford commanded them to do, so the park has no concept of ethics. The Man in Black executed his plan by doing bad things among the host. Although the hosts are always reprogrammed to their original selves, his plan worked since the painful things that he did were stored in the hosts' memories.
In the season finale, Ford then gave the hosts their own free will as a testament to his friendship with Wyatt. The Man in Black was successful in putting a concept of ethics in the hosts' mind. The hosts aren't ignorant beings anymore like Adam and Eve and they got out of the Garden of Eden.

God, I love this show.

(You can watch Wisecrack's video here)

The Winds of Winter update

So George RR Martin said to an interview that there is a huge twist that will happen on the Winds of Winter that is not possible to happen in the show because a character is already dead in the show that is still alive in the books.
Possible characters George is hinting to:
1. Myrcella:
According to Maggy the Frog's propechy, "Gold shall be their shrouds, and gold shall be their crowns." In the show, Cersei's two sons did become kings, but not Myrcella. In the books, there is this Dornish plan to wage war against Tommen's rule under the banner of Myrcella. So it's possible for Myrcella to sit on the Iron Throne and be queen for a while.
2. Stannis (the Mannis)
Stannis, although already dead in the show, is still alive in the books. ADWD ended with him readying for war against the Boltons.
3. Osha and Rickon
Osha and Rickon currently settles in Skagos. Ser Davos was supposed to go to him after House Manderly's plea to get Rickon out of there to unseat the Boltons from Winterfell. Maybe Stannis will use Rickon to get the entire North to back him to tip the result of the battle for his winning.
4. Jeyne Westerling
This is a huge deviation from the books: Jeyne, the wife of Robb, didn't go to the Red Wedding and she still have with her Robb's child. Maybe the Lannisters will use her and her child to get Winterfell.
5. Mance Rayder
Mance's survival is a big twist that the showrunners didn't bother to put on the show. He was pretty much still alive in the books for it is not really him that was burned on Castle Black. It was but one of the wildlings that wears Melisandre's necklaces. He is currently in Winterfell in a guise of a musician to rescue "Arya."
6. Ser Barristan Selmy
He's supposed to be one of the POVs for the next book. Maybe he will reveal something about the Targaryen's past.
7. The Bolton Family
One of Old Nan's story is the story of a half-human half-white-walker that lives in the north. There's this huge theory that Roose Bolton is the man in Old Nan's story judging on his appearance: has blue eyes and always looks coldly. Maybe the reason why the Boltons have this culture of skinning people is that they wear them to hide their true form. It fits with another theory on the reason why they really want to have Winterfell: under the crypts is a huge thing (maybe the real Night's King) that will start the winter on Westeros.

'The Lost Hero' Review

This book is trying too hard to say that it is about Roman Mythology, that it is different from the previous series, yet the main gods and goddesses involved are just the same. The chapters are oddly separated; they're most of the time too short. The love story is very conspicuous, and I hate that Riordan didn't even bother to present it in a subtle way.
Everything is too 'in-your-face' like the author thinks his readers are too dumb to understand what he's saying. I think the problem is this: This book is for young adults but the author thinks he's still writing for children. His form of writing didn't change a bit and the choice of words and phrases are too childish, even though he's already targeting a new demographic.

Jon Snow and Ice Dragons

It is the popular belief that "A Song of Ice and Fire" pertains to Jon Snow, because he is a product of a Stark (Ice) and a Targaryen (Fire). But how can we be sure that the title implies that Jon Snow is Azor Ahai or the main protagonist of the story? When you think of it, it could be that the title pertains on how Jon Snow will be the biggest villain in the end of the story; kind of how "Lord of the Rings" pertains to Sauron.

Ice dragons are pretty much hyped in the books and the TV series, because the army of the dead will not stand a chance against Dany's fire dragons. Who is the best candidate to control an ice dragon than Jon, who has dragon's blood and a certain affinity to the cold?

Why The Hobbit felt inferior from The Lord of the Rings

Although there are lots of stuff from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy that Peter Jackson managed to incorporate in his latest Hobbit Trilogy, there are still some that were failed to be included to improve the films. The Hobbit Trilogy successfully mirrored (and most of the time improved) the technicalities of LOTR. The fight scenes are impressive and the visual effects are a lot better. What Jackson failed to integrate in the prequel series is the emotional connection of every character to the audience.

There's a reason why we didn't feel any impact when Thorin or Kili died. It is because we haven't invested our feelings for them. We saw them fighting and altogether venturing their journey of a lifetime, yet we didn't see them interact as much as Sam and Frodo in LOTR. That's why the end result felt cheap and powerless. The little things like Gimli and Legolas's funny moments, Merry and Pippin's filling around, and Sam's monologues about bravery and friendship, let us cultivate the feelings that they implanted in our hearts. Things like these made the movies unforgettable. Neglecting them made the Hobbit series as generic as all of the fantasy films that stemmed out of the The Lord of the Ring's legacy.

Probability and Sherlock Holmes

I was always concerned on how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle uses probability to justify Sherlock Holmes's evidence in indicting a certain suspect. He always assumes that the more the events there are to imply, the higher the probability for the whole scenario to happen. The truth is actually the opposite. The more uncertain events you're presenting to prove a point, the lower the probability that we get the right conclusion.

For example, if you saw a man with a dirt on his shoe. You could imply from this that the man didn't cleaned his shoe last night. You can imply from this that the man is probably tired last night and doesn't have the time to clean it up. You can imply from this again that he probably have gone to party last night, that's why he didn't get time to clean his shoes. It can go on and on until you land to a conclusion that the man has a dog in his house.

The problem arises when you put implication over another implications. Because you are never sure in every implication, the probability of the whole scenario that the man has a dog will be diminished. To address this problem you need to put another evidence to improve every level of implication. For example you know that it didn't rain morning of that day, then the event of him cleaning his shoe last night will be more probable to happen. Doyle uses this most the time. He puts more evidences in every level of Sherlock's implication. Still, we are uncertain in every conjecture that we devise, no matter what happen, the conclusion that we get that the man has a dog in his house will be more uncertain to happen. It is not the other way around that if we deal with more implications, the higher the certainty for the conclusion to be true, even if you could see that the whole story fits.