Jump to content

Starting a sentence with conjunctions, why I think it is not necessary Cersei dies after her children


Gneisenau

Recommended Posts

Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you. Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds, she said. And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you.

Most people seem to think that since we get the golden shroud sentence* before the valonqar sentence that Tommen and Myrcella will die before the valonqar kills Cersei**. However I believe we should not read too much into the positioning of the sentences.

Notice that GRRM starts a new sentence with "and", as opposed to using it as a conjunction. In this case, I believe "and" serves a role similar to an adverb therefore if Maggi had more formal style she might say something like

In addition, when your tears have drowned you, ....

Futhurmore, when your tears have drowned you, ....

So Maggi is just introducing new information, and in particular Maggi is not making any claim as to which event will come first. Therefore I believe is reasonable to not be convinced that Cersei must die before Tommen and Myrcella do.

*For the purpose of this thread I am assuming the common interpretation of gold shrouds to mean Tommen and Myrcella die.

**I am assuming the interpretation of Cersei getting killed by the valonqar.

At any rate I don't think we can assume the "golden shrouds" comes before the "choke the life out of you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree. What do you think those drowning tears are all about--they are about Cersei losing the only things that really matter to her--her 3 children.

I don't think Cersei loves her children, or at the very least she doesn't love Tommen, since she made Tommen whip a boy (Tommen is not sadistic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought the Valonqar was going to kill either Tommen or Myrcella. I figured they were going to die but at the hands of others.

I don't think anyone thinks the Valonqar will kill either Tommen or Myrcella. The question is whether the Valonqar might kill Cersei before Tommen and Myrcella are already dead (by whatever means kills them). I think not, that the Valonqar will kill Cersei only after she has seen all 3 of her children die before her (drowning in her tears). But no one is suggesting that T or M are killed by V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that matters to Cersei is power.

Which she really only has through her children. Lady of Casterly Rock is small potatoes compared to the throne.

If she loses her children, she loses her power. She cries a lot (whether over the kids or the power is immaterial). She gets killed by the valonqar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to parse the sentences this closely, what do we make of the fact that the valonquar will choke the life out of Cersei after she's already drowned? Does she drown and then become reanimated? Cersei Strong anyone?

The valonquar is Tommen, and I believe that Cersei and Tommen feed each other "the strangler" poison, in the wake of Cersei losing her trial. It will be Cersei's final mad act. Evidence? Sure:

- Maggie explains that Cersei will basically be strangled by the valonquar - little brother (Tommen)

- "The Strangler" is a poison drawn from the leaves of the Summer Isles, but fermented with ASH

- Tyrion foreshadows Cersei's doom saying, "your joy will turn to ASHES in your mouth"

- Joffrey, the craziest of his 3 siblings, is killed by "the strangler"

- Cersei, the craziest of her 3 siblings, will be killed by "the strangler"

- Cersei has already stated she would rather die than be judged

“Stannis may take the city and he may take the throne, but I will not suffer him to judge me. I do not mean for him to have us alive.

- Cersei has demonstrated how fiercely she is attached to her children. Her sentiment is basically, "if I go, my children go."

- Cersei wants, and mostly has, done everything opposite to Tyrion. With this understanding, she thinks this:

“... (Tyrion) could be under the floor even now, listening to every word we say and making plans to open Tommen’s throat.”

Cersei thinks Tyrion would "open Tommen's throat" By way of being opposite to Tyrion, Cersei would "close Tommen's throat"

- Cersei, at Tommen's wedding feast, even sees omens of him dying similarly to Joff:

My son is safe, Cersei told herself. No harm can come to him, not here, not now. Yet every time she looked at Tommen, she saw Joffrey clawing at his throat.

- But why would Tommen willingly take poison? Because he's meek and weak willed, observe:

“Tommen is not Aegon the Unworthy. Have no fear, he will do as I bid him.

When Tommen throws up at Tywin's stench (poison), he tells his mother "I'll do better next time"

- Each of Cersei's children will die by poison (Joff by the Strangler, Myrcella by Darkstar's poison blade, Tommen by the Strangler)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The valonquar is Tommen, and I believe that Cersei and Tommen feed each other "the strangler" poison, in the wake of Cersei losing her trial. It will be Cersei's final mad act. Evidence? Sure:

- Maggie explains that Cersei will basically be strangled by the valonquar - little brother (Tommen)

- "The Strangler" is a poison drawn from the leaves of the Summer Isles, but fermented with ASH

- Tyrion foreshadows Cersei's doom saying, "your joy will turn to ASHES in your mouth"

- Joffrey, the craziest of his 3 siblings, is killed by "the strangler"

- Cersei, the craziest of her 3 siblings, will be killed by "the strangler"

- Cersei has already stated she would rather die than be judged

- Cersei has demonstrated how fiercely she is attached to her children. Her sentiment is basically, "if I go, my children go."

- Cersei wants, and mostly has, done everything opposite to Tyrion. With this understanding, she thinks this:

Cersei thinks Tyrion would "open Tommen's throat" By way of being opposite to Tyrion, Cersei would "close Tommen's throat"

- Cersei, at Tommen's wedding feast, even sees omens of him dying similarly to Joff:

- But why would Tommen willingly take poison? Because he's meek and weak willed, observe:

When Tommen throws up at Tywin's stench (poison), he tells his mother "I'll do better next time"

- Each of Cersei's children will die by poison (Joff by the Strangler, Myrcella by Darkstar's poison blade, Tommen by the Strangler)

First of all you are assuming that Myrcella is already dead. There is no evidence for this.

Second you are leaving out the part about the valonqar "wrapping his hands" around Cersei's throat.

You're trying to fit the text to the theory instead of the theory to the text. If Tommen is killed by poison it will be sweetsleep, so he won't suffer. this has already been set up in the text as an easy and peaceful way to bump someone off. Even if Cersei was crazy enough to kill Tommen, she would never give him the strangler after seeing how Joffrey suffered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider: it's ambiguous who the 'their' the third sentence (gold shall be their crowns...) refers to. From a purely grammatical perspective it could refer to Robert's six-and-ten children rather than Cersei's. Or it could also refer to all nineteen of them.

For what it's worth...

Except that it's not remotely possible for Robert's sixteen kids to all be crowned. Cersei had a set of twins killed while Robert was still alive, and she had Barra killed, and who knows how many others. That rules out his sixteen as well as the combined total. And really...sixteen or nineteen people wearing gold crowns in Cersei's lifetime? Even in a fantasy series I don't think that would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're trying to fit the text to the theory instead of the theory to the text.

This has got to be my most hated saying on these boards. Fitting the "text to a theory" or fitting a "theory to the text", is the exact same thing.

Granted, I've noted your points, and there is merit i.e. weak myrcella connection

However, you're judging my idea off of your literal interpretation of the prophecy. Now, taking the prophecy literally is fine, but it doesn't mean you can discount my metaphorical interpretation. And it certainly doesn't warrant a "you're ignoring ___" comment.

How about ignoring:

- Maggie prophecizes that Cersei will die via being strangled

- "The Strangler" is a poison made from ash

- Tyrion foreshadows Cersei's doom in saying "your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth"

None of this resonates with you?

I didn't twist any text, I just did like I always do, and cited passages which I thought were applicable and gave my thoughts.

Again, I find merit in your counter about Myrcella and Tommen. But my interpretation of how Cersei will die is pretty damn strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow (paraphrases of prior comments)



1."oh I ever thought the valonquar is supposed to kill Tomen and Myrcella too."



2."Oh if were gona get literal how will she get choked after she's already drowned?"



3."Cersie doesn't care about her children, just power."



The fact that this is what people have to offer in response to this quote is just perfectly indicative of why the majority of discussions on here are progressively unproductive/nonsensical/pettily quarrelsome.



First we have the complete misdirect with someone meekly accepting a premise that was never suggested; Followed by utter ridiculousness, you really think "when your tears have drowned you" means to literally drown? Catelyn Stark drowned in her tears before her end, it clearly means something to the effect of when you've suffered greatly to the point of depression and or manic lunacy (both of which Cat experienced). That part isn't even close to comparable to the literal imagery which follows it. And then third and finally, we have the absurd character opinion and accusation to start a pointless debate within a debate


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has got to be my most hated saying on these boards. Fitting the "text to a theory" or fitting a "theory to the text", is the exact same thing.

Granted, I've noted your points, and there is merit i.e. weak myrcella connection

However, you're judging my idea off of your literal interpretation of the prophecy. Now, taking the prophecy literally is fine, but it doesn't mean you can discount my metaphorical interpretation. And it certainly doesn't warrant a "you're ignoring ___" comment.

How about ignoring:

- Maggie prophecizes that Cersei will die via being strangled

- "The Strangler" is a poison made from ash

- Tyrion foreshadows Cersei's doom in saying "your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth"

None of this resonates with you?

I didn't twist any text, I just did like I always do, and cited passages which I thought were applicable and gave my thoughts.

Again, I find merit in your counter about Myrcella and Tommen. But my interpretation of how Cersei will die is pretty damn strong.

No, fitting the text to the theory is not the same as fitting the theory to the text. Each has a different starting point. For the record my most hated phrases on these boards are "that would be bad writing" and "that's fan fiction."

This isn't a prophecy (which are always extremely vague and thus open to a great deal of interpretation). This is a fortune. Except for the one Valyrian word in the mix, it's not really hard to understand. You will marry the king ended up being Cersei literally married the king. She literally had three children, while her husband had up to 16 (I'm sure more will be popping up). She'll be replaced by a younger and more beautiful woman. That's just a fact of life for a woman like Cersei. Her children will have golden crowns (either hair or actual crowns), and golden shrouds (one down, two to go).

Maggy says that Cersei will be strangled via someone wrapping his hands around her throat. She doesn't say "the valonqar will strangle you." And she's been pretty accurate about everything else so far.

I don't recall anything in the text that says the strangler is made from ash. Could have forgotten or missed that bit, I suppose.

I can discount whatever I like. No one has to agree with anyone else in the world, let alone on the internet.

I'm not saying there's zero merit in your theory, just that I'm not convinced. If you turn out to be right, I'll be the first to congratulate you on figuring it out when the rest of us were hung up on other ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, fitting the text to the theory is not the same as fitting the theory to the text. Each has a different starting point. For the record my most hated phrases on these boards are "that would be bad writing" and "that's fan fiction."

This isn't a prophecy (which are always extremely vague and thus open to a great deal of interpretation). This is a fortune. Except for the one Valyrian word in the mix, it's not really hard to understand. You will marry the king ended up being Cersei literally married the king. She literally had three children, while her husband had up to 16 (I'm sure more will be popping up). She'll be replaced by a younger and more beautiful woman. That's just a fact of life for a woman like Cersei. Her children will have golden crowns (either hair or actual crowns), and golden shrouds (one down, two to go).

Maggy says that Cersei will be strangled via someone wrapping his hands around her throat. She doesn't say "the valonqar will strangle you." And she's been pretty accurate about everything else so far.

I don't recall anything in the text that says the strangler is made from ash. Could have forgotten or missed that bit, I suppose.

I can discount whatever I like. No one has to agree with anyone else in the world, let alone on the internet.

I'm not saying there's zero merit in your theory, just that I'm not convinced. If you turn out to be right, I'll be the first to congratulate you on figuring it out when the rest of us were hung up on other ideas.

Just because the first part is more or less literal, does not mean the entire fortune is literal. But I am struggling with matching the language to pobeb's theory (and I consider pobeb a friend, so this is more a question than anything else). The exact language that is relevant is "the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you". I am struggling to understand how if Cersei dies from poison, that it would be considered--even metaphorically--the "valonqar" wrapping his hands around her throat. The poison is not the valonqar and it would be the poison wrapping its "hands" around her throat. So while some of the other connections seem to be there in terms of the poison being called the strangler, etc., I am having trouble reconciling that aspect.

Maybe I am just too influenced by the strong desire to have a scene in which Jaime kills Cersei with his bare hands--one real and one gold--wrapped around her throat. Dying of poison would deprive me of that strongly desired image coming to "life" in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) No, fitting the text to the theory is not the same as fitting the theory to the text. Each has a different starting point. For the record my most hated phrases on these boards are "that would be bad writing" and "that's fan fiction."

2) This isn't a prophecy (which are always extremely vague and thus open to a great deal of interpretation). This is a fortune. Except for the one Valyrian word in the mix, it's not really hard to understand. You will marry the king ended up being Cersei literally married the king. She literally had three children, while her husband had up to 16 (I'm sure more will be popping up). She'll be replaced by a younger and more beautiful woman. That's just a fact of life for a woman like Cersei. Her children will have golden crowns (either hair or actual crowns), and golden shrouds (one down, two to go).

Maggy says that Cersei will be strangled via someone wrapping his hands around her throat. She doesn't say "the valonqar will strangle you." And she's been pretty accurate about everything else so far.

3) I don't recall anything in the text that says the strangler is made from ash. Could have forgotten or missed that bit, I suppose.

I numbered your points to make them easier for me to address:

1) All theories are derived from the text - that's the "starting point". As such, there is absolutely no distinction between "fitting the text to a theory" and "fitting a theory to the text".

2) Also, asserting a literal stance over Maggy's "fortune" is simply wrong. Maggy also says Cersei will be drowned by her tears before she is strangled. If we took that literally, Maggy is saying "you will die, then you will die." See why taking it literally can be misleading? If you don't give her fortune some metaphorical leeway, you simply can't explain the last half of what she foretold - though I do agree that, up until that point, everything is pretty literal.

3) Maester Cressen explains the process of making "the strangler" in the ACoK prologue:

It was made from a certain plant that grew only on the islands of the Jade Sea, half a world away. The leaves had to be aged, and soaked in a wash of limes and sugar water and certain rare spices from the Summer Isles. Afterward they could be discarded, but the potion must be thickened with ash

I am struggling to understand how if Cersei dies from poison, that it would be considered--even metaphorically--the "valonqar" wrapping his hands around her throat. The poison is not the valonqar and it would be the poison wrapping its "hands" around her throat. So while some of the other connections seem to be there in terms of the poison being called the strangler, etc., I am having trouble reconciling that aspect.

I'm still puzzling it together. I know I stated that Tommen would be the best candidate for the "valonqar", but that's only with the assumption that "valonqar" means "younger brother" - of which I'm not entirely convinced. I doubt GRRM would have added "valonqar" if it simply meant "younger brother". Why wouldn't he just have Maggy say "younger brother" instead of it being translated by a septa of questionable reliability?

imo, "valonqar" translated as "younger brother" is probably a red herring. This is an idea made stronger if you believe Cersei commits suicide with "the strangler" poison in wake of her trial; all of which has a precedent in the story.

If "valonqar" actually means "poison" then Maggy is predicting Cersei's death by way of metaphor.

Tough to say, really. I will admit to both you and Lady Blizzardborn that, outside of "the strangler" and ash connection, my theory isn't very strong, and it's definitely due to this particular section of the fortune. Trust though, I will dedicate a massive amount of research to this... as soon as I'm done with the "Trial of Joy" theory and "Catelyn kisses Jon" theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my own mother tongue, "drowning with tears" is one of many figures of speech which have only a figure-of-speech meaning. I can think of a dozen right now all related to human emotional stuff. Though I wouldn't be able to translate them.

Hence, I wouldn't take that as proof that "literal" interpretation isn't mandatory.

At the same time, I frankly can't see why you two can't agree that your interpretation choices are personal assumptions with equal dignity, and both with same chance to be revealed correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...