Plot holes (Real ones, not things you don't like)

[JonSnow4President]

You are most likely right in them recognizing usefulness. The writing surrounding Petyr has always stood out to me over all the rest, so I tend to dwell on his motives. Now that I finally took the time to read DwD, of course, I'm going back and recognizing the buildup surrounding Varys so he is also occupying my brain!

Did we figure out what the poster concerned with Ice was viewing as a plot hole? I scanned but couldn't locate elaboration.

Because Robert had a headsman, so he wouldn't need a giant otherwise useless sword to chop heads off with.

[Dr. Pepper]

In that case, it's probably also a plot hole that Viserys walked around with the sword. Dude doesn't know how to use it, but he required that symbol anyway. God damn plot hole!

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I look at it from a writing standpoint. Martin's world is so huge that he has to be keeping track of enough of it in spreadsheets/notebooks/etc. (and we know he's still slipped up from time to time). I know this is the case for me. Somewhere in that supplemental information there are "original" character bios which go over that character's description, past, motivations, and death - and there are "updated" character bios as the story has progressed. Character arcs in these sprawling, epic stories aren't set in stone and they often surprise the writer.

In Storm of Swords we got a glimpse that, even if he didn't expressly plan it, he was hoping for Tyrion to cause mischief at King's Landing. In Dance With Dragons, we see how far he's willing to go. It's possible that arc was there from the beginning.

Isn't it also possible that maybe Varys and Petyr started out as conspirators and, as time has gone by, George has discovered more about the two of them and altered things? Perhaps that still falls into a plot hole, especially if he never resolves it. Just a thought - nothing concrete, of course. I don't even know if George keeps track of all this stuff like I do, I'm just guessing!

I'm in the camp that those characters grew in telling their strory. The author might have known from the begining what their role in the story would roughly be, what are, in general, their motives and have a sketch of their personality in his mind, but they were fleshed out as the story progressed, and so did the specifics of their actions. Consequently, the narrative lost its consistency in some (minor IMO) details because things may have changed in the way.

The architect inside me blames the gardener :)

(It doesn't bother me too much, really, as long as it stays in very minor levels that don't affect the overall storytelling)

[Masha's apron]

There is something that might be considered a plot hole, but could just be an oddity or point to something larger in the story.

Craster has apparently been sacrificing his sons to The Others for a long time, enough for any sons he had with his first wife, who is said to be an old woman, to be sacrificed. This means that a) The Others have come close to Craster's keep to pick up those sons for a very long time (twenty+ years) and b) it has been happening while the Watch used Craster's for rangings.

It seems very odd in these circumstances that the Crows didn't come across the Others around Craster's in those previous years, or that they didn't knew what was actually happening to Craster's sons. Again, the idea is that The Others have been moving south from just before GOT, but Craster's sacrificed sons suggest that they have been "coming south" for a good few decades. This also makes some of the wildlings' comments a bit odd when they suggest they have been pushed down to the Wall by the advancing Others, but ...errr... the Others must have been all around that land for ages.

[butterbumps!]

I'm in the camp that those characters grew in telling their strory. The author might have known from the begining what their role in the story would roughly be, what are, in general, their motives and have a sketch of their personality in his mind, but they were fleshed out as the story progressed, and so did the specifics of their actions. Consequently, the narrative lost its consistency in some (minor IMO) details because things may have changed in the way.

The architect inside me blames the gardener :)

(It doesn't bother me too much, really, as long as it stays in very minor levels that don't affect the overall storytelling)

I just realized that I forgot to address one of the points you mentioned earlier about LF before I posted-- the potential plot hole of why LF would expose himself to Varys by owning up to wanting to plant division between Stark and Lannister. lol, it's the one part of this that I'm actually confident isn't a plot hole.

LF's lie isn't only about opportunism here, so I don't think he's exposing himself to Varys as sloppiness in service to an end of creating division. There's a self-preservation issue going on as well. He knows that dagger is Robert's, but if Cat and Ned figure out that it's Robert's and start asking questions about who would be inspired to finish off Bran who has access to Robert's arsenal, this causes a lot of problems for LF. At LF's prompting, Lysa sent Cat that letter accusing Cersei of killing Jon Arryn, so he knows the Starks are going to be bringing this up to Robert if they learn the dagger came from Robert's own arsenal. Those questions will lead them down the path to LF. LF has to make sure Ned and Cat are thrown off the trail, since it already leads back to him and Lysa. Blaming Tyrion for the dagger is only half of LF's message there; he's also trying to manipulate Cat into forgetting about the dagger as any sort of proof, because the truth of it would lead the Starks toward the culprits of a different murder.

[It's Not That Littlefinger]

not sure if this is a plothole exactly, but its something i've thought about:

at the battle of the blackwater, tywin crossed his troops over the blackwater upstream (which is what stan should have done, but that's a different comversation) a couple of miles so he could take stannis from behind. so he was coming from the north and stannis was on the south bank with most of his army. but if stan had been able to get his troops over more quickly, tywins troops would have been caught on the wrong side of the river, allowing the mannis's troops to take KL.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I just realized that I forgot to address one of the points you mentioned earlier about LF before I posted-- the potential plot hole of why LF would expose himself to Varys by owning up to wanting to plant division between Stark and Lannister. lol, it's the one part of this that I'm actually confident isn't a plot hole.

LF's lie isn't only about opportunism here, so I don't think he's exposing himself to Varys as sloppiness in service to an end of creating division. There's a self-preservation issue going on as well. He knows that dagger is Robert's, but if Cat and Ned figure out that it's Robert's and start asking questions about who would be inspired to finish off Bran who has access to Robert's arsenal, this causes a lot of problems for LF. At LF's prompting, Lysa sent Cat that letter accusing Cersei of killing Jon Arryn, so he knows the Starks are going to be bringing this up to Robert if they learn the dagger came from Robert's own arsenal. Those questions will lead them down the path to LF. LF has to make sure Ned and Cat are thrown off the trail, since it already leads back to him and Lysa. Blaming Tyrion for the dagger is only half of LF's message there; he's also trying to manipulate Cat into forgetting about the dagger as any sort of proof, because the truth of it would lead the Starks toward the culprits of a different murder.

I don't follow. How does the dagger "belonging" to Tyrion deflects Cersei's alledged implication in Jon Arryn's murder?

The Starks do not know of the Lannister family dynamics. Judging from their own experience, as people usually do, they would be more likely to assume that Tyrion and Cersei were plotting together in this. In fact, I think that the truth, it was from Robert's arsenal, leaves it way more open (a lot of people, including servants -who go guess who they may be working for- may have access to Robert's arsenal) than Tyrion, a Lannister, did it.

Catelyn correctly deduces that Bran's attempted murder had to do with something he saw, but that did not directly point to Cersei, although she was a primary suspect. Implicating a member of her family, however, doesn't leave much room for doubt.

IMO this lie connects both murders with the Lannisters on purpose.

[butterbumps!]

I don't follow. How does the dagger "belonging" to Tyrion deflects Cersei's alledged implication in Jon Arryn's murder?

The Starks do not know of the Lannister family dynamics. Judging from their own experience, as people usually do, they would be more likely to assume that Tyrion and Cersei were plotting together in this. In fact, I think that the truth, it was from Robert's arsenal, leaves it way more open (a lot of people, including servants -who go guess who they may be working for- may have access to Robert's arsenal) than Tyrion, a Lannister, did it.

Catelyn correctly deduces that Bran's attempted murder had to do with something he saw, but that did not directly point to Cersei, although she was a primary suspect. Implicating a member of her family, however, doesn't leave much room for doubt.

IMO this lie connects both murders with the Lannisters on purpose.

I'm not debating that LF saw this as opportunism and played it to his advantage to connect the murders to the wrong suspects. I'm saying that LF had more than just opportunistic investment in telling that lie.

If the Starks follow the dagger, they arrive at Robert. Imagine the conversation that would result if Ned and Cat asked Robert how a dagger in his personal arsenal came to be a murder weapon against Bran. More than likely, Cat and Ned would bring up Cersei's apparent guilt in killing Jon Arryn, and accuse the Lannisters of plotting against them. Should word of Lysa's accusations against Cersei get to Robert, that's a pretty big risk in the event Robert makes her answer for it. And Lysa gets you back to LF. That's the risk I'm referring to. I'm pretty sure LF's goal was to keep the Starks from going to Robert and getting to the truth of any of this, because the right questions would lead back to Lysa and LF.

[Dany Girl]

Those arguing against Ned taking Ice to KL, he also took it to war in the Rebellion I believe. Or at least had it at the tower of joy and used it if I'm remembering correctly. Great Swords are fairy common in Westeros it seems. And the Hand would definitely want an impressive status symbol that acts as a deterrent. Ice is very useful in that regard. I'm sure Ned knows how to effectively wield Ice at this point in time.

[Trigger Warning]

I don't know if it's a "plot hole" but I thought it was weak to have Robb, who is portrayed as a natural leader with a gift for military strategy, for some unknown reason fail to tell Edmure what he wants him to do at Riverrun.

I suspect that he made all that up to guilt Edmure into marrying a Frey.

[BastardlyRock]

Those arguing against Ned taking Ice to KL, he also took it to war in the Rebellion I believe. Or at least had it at the tower of joy and used it if I'm remembering correctly. Great Swords are fairy common in Westeros it seems. And the Hand would definitely want an impressive status symbol that acts as a deterrent. Ice is very useful in that regard. I'm sure Ned knows how to effectively wield Ice at this point in time.

:agree:

[ShadowCat Rivers]

If the Starks follow the dagger, they arrive at Robert. Imagine the conversation that would result if Ned and Cat asked Robert how a dagger in his personal arsenal came to be a murder weapon against Bran. More than likely, Cat and Ned would bring up Cersei's apparent guilt in killing Jon Arryn, and accuse the Lannisters of plotting against them. Should word of Lysa's accusations against Cersei get to Robert, that's a pretty big risk in the event Robert makes her answer for it. And Lysa gets you back to LF. That's the risk I'm referring to. I'm pretty sure LF's goal was to keep the Starks from going to Robert and getting to the truth of any of this, because the right questions would lead back to Lysa and LF.

But I don't see why they couldn't do the same in the case at hand: Go to Robert, accuse Tyrion, Robert asking why would Tyrion do this thing, and eventually leading to Cersei's alledged implication in Jon Arryn's death.

The reason they didn't is because they felt they needed more evidence to accuse Robert's own family. The same would be true -and maybe even more true- in the hypothetical scenario. They wouldn't ask Robert this question if they didn't have a clue about who did it - it would be worse because it might seem like they indirectly accused the king himself.

Also I think that LF counted on the Starks not outing Lysa, Cat's sister and a frightened widow. They just wouldn't do that, not without hard evidence. LF knew enough of Cat's and Ned's sense of family-honor-duty to rely on that.

[butterbumps!]

But I don't see why they couldn't do the same in the case at hand: Go to Robert, accuse Tyrion, Robert asking why would Tyrion do this thing, and eventually leading to Cersei's alledged implication in Jon Arryn's death.

The reason they didn't is because they felt they needed more evidence to accuse Robert's own family. The same would be true -and maybe even more true- in the hypothetical scenario. They wouldn't ask Robert this question if they didn't have a clue about who did it - it would be worse because it might seem like they indirectly accused the king himself.

Also I think that LF counted on the Starks not outing Lysa, Cat's sister and a frightened widow. They just wouldn't do that, not without hard evidence. LF knew enough of Cat's and Ned's sense of family-honor-duty to rely on that.

Ned and Cat didn't think they needed more evidence until LF convinced them of that. iirc, Ned was ready to go straight to Robert about it.

If LF tells them that it's Robert's dagger, then it opens an entirely new facet of questioning with a party who's not being set up as an antagonist to the Starks. By revealing that it belongs to Robert, it makes Robert the source of answers-- or at least the start of further answers. Allowing this line of dialogue to begin is a risky option for LF, because you don't want Cat and Ned to bring up Lysa's accusation so directly at this point in time. And I don't believe that the Starks could have had a conversation with Robert about the weapon used in a clear murder attempt of Bran without bringing up Lysa's letter accusing Cersei of murder. Even if one argues that Cat wouldn't reveal her sister's secret, Ned feels a very strong sense of responsibility to get justice for Arryn's murder.

Essentially, the truth-- that it's Robert's-- leaves this open-ended in terms of offering the Starks a source to ask further questions. Questions that have a high risk of leading to Lysa. Who leads to LF. By blaming it on a Lannister-- and simultaneously convincing the Starks that there isn't enough evidence to press charges on him-- the questions stop; it's an impasse.

It's a lot easier to convince the Starks that the dagger isn't enough evidence to convict anyone and to forget it entirely as dead end when Tyrion is named as the owner, rather than Robert who isn't a dead end on this matter, and with a frank enough discussion about it, could lead to Lysa.

[Trigger Warning]

Mance also beat Jon with a greatsword out in the practice yard. Jon talks about how the clansmen south of the gift use them in battle. Yeah, it's a bit silly to act like soldiers could never use them for fighting.

I highly doubt a lord would take one into battle though. What with generally fulfilling the role of heavy cavalry with their close retainers and all.

Still though, you'd think he'd leave it with Robb as he fulfils the role of Lord of Winterfell in Ned's absence, not only as a symbol of office but to protect it should something happen in the south.

[Dr. Pepper]

I highly doubt a lord would take one into battle though. What with generally fulfilling the role of heavy cavalry with their close retainers and all.

Still though, you'd think he'd leave it with Robb as he fulfils the role of Lord of Winterfell in Ned's absence, not only as a symbol of office but to protect it should something happen in the south.

Randyll Tarly carries Heartsbane around with him and takes it into battle. I'm not sure what the big deal is with people carrying around swords, even elaborate greatswords. It's like asking why women would wear jewelry and claiming it's a plot hole. I mean, it's essentially useless and usually doesn't even offer the benefit of being a defensive weapon.

The inconsistency with the greatswords is how they are worn. The average man's arm length isn't long enough to draw it without some elaborate dance. Though, I just go ahead assume that the scabbard is made with buttons or something that will easily pop free when the wielder grabs the sword from their back.

[Epyon]

The more I think about this one, the more I don't get it....

Ned hands Selmy the note from Robert, declaring Ned "Lord Protector of the Realm", until the "heir" (which would have been presumed to be Joffery by the Kingsguard) is of age....

A royal decree from Robert, their King..... Grants all power to Ned.

Jofferey is not yet crowned, and by Robert's own decree he has -zero- power.

And yet, every single KINGSGUARD in the room, watches Cersei commit treason by tearing the note up, and sides AGAINST Ned.

I'm not saying it would have necessarily mattered, as Cersei had the entire City Watch, and the Lannister troops with her, but how exactly does that situation go down without the entirety of the Kingsguard siding with Ned, attempting to obey his commands to detain the Queen/ Prince, and (likely) all fighting to the last man in the inevitable battle?

[Trigger Warning]

Randyll Tarly carries Heartsbane around with him and takes it into battle. I'm not sure what the big deal is with people carrying around swords, even elaborate greatswords. It's like asking why women would wear jewelry and claiming it's a plot hole. I mean, it's essentially useless and usually doesn't even offer the benefit of being a defensive weapon.

The inconsistency with the greatswords is how they are worn. The average man's arm length isn't long enough to draw it without some elaborate dance. Though, I just go ahead assume that the scabbard is made with buttons or something that will easily pop free when the wielder grabs the sword from their back.

IRL large greatswords were carried over the shoulder. The scabbard on the back thing's probably just how GRRM wanted it since back scabbards are a modern invention (for Europe) and quite visually popular in fantasy and pop culture.

I'm not saying it's a plot hole, I just personally think that Ned would have left it with Robb but GRRM decided that he doesn't and that's all that matters.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The more I think about this one, the more I don't get it....

Ned hands Selmy the note from Robert, declaring Ned "Lord Protector of the Realm", until the "heir" (which would have been presumed to be Joffery by the Kingsguard) is of age....

A royal decree from Robert, their King..... Grants all power to Ned.

Jofferey is not yet crowned, and by Robert's own decree he has -zero- power.

And yet, every single KINGSGUARD in the room, watches Cersei commit treason by tearing the note up, and sides AGAINST Ned.

I'm not saying it would have necessarily mattered, as Cersei had the entire City Watch, and the Lannister troops with her, but how exactly does that situation go down without the entirety of the Kingsguard siding with Ned, attempting to obey his commands to detain the Queen/ Prince, and (likely) all fighting to the last man in the inevitable battle?

You do have a good point, but they probably still saw Joffrey as the King and as long as his position was not in jeopardy there wasn't a reason to act. They are the KG, not the HG so that might play a role as well. But ultimately they were outnumbered by CG's and Lannister troops. It may have been different if Robert gave the order while being alive, but I doubt it.

[It-was-koff-the-Pie-koff]

Fine. You guys want to real plot hole? Why the @$%# didn't Robb just marry a Frey after he crossed it would've taken a day maybe two.. I mean come on!

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Why Jon Arryn didn't suspect of Littlefinger being his wife's lover/old flame?

He knew -or at least suspected- that Lysa wasn't a virgin ("Father said I ought to thank the gods that so great a lord as Jon Arryn was willing to take me soiled"). Even Cat realises that he accepted her because he needed a proven fertile wife in exchange of swords. And even if he didn't know, his wife simply asked him to give this guy she knows a job and he simply agrees? And when she asks to take him to court, he also agrees? ("Lady Lysa ignored that. "Cat never gave you anything. It was me who got you your first post, who made Jon bring you to court so we could be close to one another").

Why oh why Jon Arryn didn't ask Hoster Tully about him? Didn't he ask for his references? his family history? Who knew this guy? Where Lysa knew him from? Isn't he known to have been fostered at Riverrun? He simply accepted that Lysa, the woman he married and wasn't a virgin and was probably even pregnant before her wedding suddenly wants him to give some poor guy a job and he's ok with it because he's capable? Couldn't he simply send Hoster a letter asking him about this Peter Baelish boy before simply trusting Lysa?