The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones
Large You Win or You Die Poster
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Syrio Forel =/= Jaquen


  • Please log in to reply
338 replies to this topic

#1 Clumber

Clumber

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:26 PM

Sorry to trouble you, but I do not have a Game of Thrones with me to use but someone I am talking to is asking for a page reference to the bit of information disproving Syrio being the faceless man Arya meets on her journey towards the wall.

So if someone could give me the quote and page number where Ned meets with the gaoler and schedules for the 3 men in the black cells to be given to the Night's Watch, it would be very helpful.

I have looked through a few of the old threads already but I did not see anyone give a direct quotation of the pertininent information, though I am positive it exists.

#2 Greyjoy Rebellion

Greyjoy Rebellion

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:45 PM

Read the boarder SomethingFunny's post about halfway down:

http://asoiaf.wester...showtopic=32010

#3 The hairy bear

The hairy bear

    Honey in the summer air!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,135 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:45 PM

I don't have the books with me right now, but the quote you are loking for is not in AGOT. It's in Feast. You can find this bit in the Jaime chapter were he is questioning the undergaoler Longwaters.

And just to reiterate the title of the thread, Syrio Forel =/= Jaquen. It was always a bad and unneeded theory to begin with. :P

#4 Clumber

Clumber

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:58 PM

In AFFC? I don't have that one either atm. Just the middle two. Damnit.

And @ greyjoy, I read his post but it does not give the referance I needed, namely the page number and exact quote where the gaoler says how many prisoners were there that Ned ordered.

#5 Greyjoy Rebellion

Greyjoy Rebellion

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 03:06 PM

In AFFC? I don't have that one either atm. Just the middle two. Damnit.

And @ greyjoy, I read his post but it does not give the referance I needed, namely the page number and exact quote where the gaoler says how many prisoners were there that Ned ordered.


I don't have the page number, but how is this not the exact quote you are looking for:

"There were three others, common men, but Lord Stark gave them to the Night's Watch. I did not think it good to free those three, but the papers were in proper order. I made note of that in a report as well, you may be certain of it."

#6 israfel070

israfel070

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:46 PM

Page 121 in the US hardcover

#7 WeirGhost

WeirGhost

    Freerider

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 06:31 PM

Bad and unneeded theory? enough of that stuff......

Not sure i believe syrio = J'aquen but all you haters out there don't have as solid a case as you all claim....at least i dont think you do, maybe someone can clear it up fpr me. But even if J'aquen was already in the black cells, y does that matter. COuldnt anyfaceless man have just killed J'aquen and turned into him? whether it was in the black cells or whether it was when he was being transported........

WHy doesnt J'aquen just break himself out anyway? shouldnt have been to difficult for him at any point in the journey to break out from captivity......

I think it would make sense for Syrio to become J'aquen and use it as a way to test Arya.

Like i said i'm not a believer but im not a pompous hater either......

#8 israfel070

israfel070

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 06:58 PM

Wait, so now Syrio=Jaqen, but really =another FM since Jaqen's dead???

:bang:

#9 Ser_not_appearing_yet

Ser_not_appearing_yet

    Forsooth

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 07:06 PM

I think the theory could still be true. Like someone said, i think the faceless men 'steal' the identity of those they kill. Or something.

#10 Jon Targaryen

Jon Targaryen

    Crouching Direwolf, Hidden Dragon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,399 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 12:57 AM

Not sure i believe syrio = J'aquen but all you haters out there don't have as solid a case as you all claim....at least i dont think you do, maybe someone can clear it up fpr me. But even if J'aquen was already in the black cells, y does that matter. COuldnt anyfaceless man have just killed J'aquen and turned into him? whether it was in the black cells or whether it was when he was being transported........

I suppose that is possible but it begs the question of why a Faceless Man would insert himself into imprisonment.

WHy doesnt J'aquen just break himself out anyway? shouldnt have been to difficult for him at any point in the journey to break out from captivity......

Apparently he couldn't as he almost died in captivity. But perhaps he could and was waiting to ...

I think it would make sense for Syrio to become J'aquen and use it as a way to test Arya.

If he did so, he had extreme discipline in waiting to escape or an extreme desire to test Arya if he imprisoned himself for real.

#11 Errant Bard

Errant Bard

    Insane precursor of bad business

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,729 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 01:11 AM

at least i dont think you do, maybe someone can clear it up fpr me. But even if J'aquen was already in the black cells, y does that matter.

Read this thread, all pages... please, I think it gives somewhat of a comprehensive view of usual arguments.

Of course, threads like this appear at regular interval, so there is no need to reiterate once again for the moment.

I'm not certain it is judicious to insult other boarders because they disagree with your theory, too.

#12 The hairy bear

The hairy bear

    Honey in the summer air!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,135 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 03:17 AM

Bad and unneeded theory? enough of that stuff......

Not sure i believe syrio = J'aquen but all you haters out there don't have as solid a case as you all claim....at least i dont think you do, maybe someone can clear it up fpr me.


It's an unneeed theory because everything has already been resolved in the books. Syrio is dead. Jaquen is a Faceles men who got caught and thanked Arya for sparing his life. If he wished, George could finish the books without including any reference to any of them and everything would still be accounted for.

It's a bad theory because it raises more questions than it answers: Why a faceless men would like to change their place with a prisoner? How could Syrio survive against armored men with a wooden stick? If he had been captured, why wasn't he murdered like the entire Stark houshold had been? And why no one mentioned him afterwards? If Jaquen had been Syrio, would he have left Arya alone in Harrenhal? It's a bad theory because it's only motivated by the fact that Syrio was a cool character and people would like him to be alive.


You are entitled to want it to be true. You even might believe it tho be true. But it's still a bad and unneeded theory. If you read the threads that EB has indicated I'm sure you'll get more justifications to it.

Edited by The hairy bear, 05 June 2009 - 03:22 AM.


#13 Aplomb

Aplomb

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 09:51 AM

It's a bad theory because it's only motivated by the fact that Syrio was a cool character and people would like him to be alive.


It boggles my mind how illogical this statement is, and yet how often it is made.

Any Syrio = Jaquen theories cannot be motivated by love for Syrio and a desire to see him alive, because if true it negates the existence of Syrio as a living character. He'd be fake, a fraud, the facade of a mummer who either made him up from scratch, or worse killed the real Syrio before taking over his persona.

To accept the theory, you have to except that there never was a Syrio in the first place, or that if there was he was killed and replaced before the fake "Syrio" pretending to be him ever appeared in the books.

#14 Shemy

Shemy

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:00 AM

In other news, the emperor in star wars did not die. Oh sure we seen him in a circumstance where death was 95% sure. But he's a sith damnit. For all we know he could have floated at the bottom when he was pulled over and is just biding his time. We didn't see him die!

:D

#15 Szar

Szar

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:04 AM

It boggles my mind how illogical this statement is, and yet how often it is made.

Any Syrio = Jaquen theories cannot be motivated by love for Syrio and a desire to see him alive, because if true it negates the existence of Syrio as a living character. He'd be fake, a fraud, the facade of a mummer who either made him up from scratch, or worse killed the real Syrio before taking over his persona.

To accept the theory, you have to except that there never was a Syrio in the first place, or that if there was he was killed and replaced before the fake "Syrio" pretending to be him ever appeared in the books.


That's not correct at all. While it does make Syrio a "facade", it simply transfers the coolness factor Syrio had to Jaqen H'ghar.

You also do not consider that many people do not think theories through to their logical conclusion -- if they did, we wouldn't have nearly so many crackpot theories as we do.

In any case, this particular theory has been covered extensively, and there is almost no grounds for Syrio Forel to even be alive, yet alone a Faceless Man.

#16 WeirGhost

WeirGhost

    Freerider

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 02:12 PM

Man, i have to go about this nicely i think for anyone to get my point.

WHy cant people who havent read those over analyzed , dissected threads just talk about this stuff on our own for a while. It seems like some of the vets imply we are wasting their time by talking about something they have already discussed in full before. Im not going to read those threads, and if i want to start a R +L=J thread without having read the 5 year old epic threads, why cant I......did i miss a rule book ? This is why there should be a separate forum for people who are just joining.

No offesnse, but im not just here for information and to read......

OK obviously if syrio = j'aquen then Syrio was probably just another victim of this faceless man...... i am pretty sure it goes both ways as far as who the faceless man can turn into, someone they killed or someone else.....It was only my understainding that Jaquen was the alchemist who is now Pate based on the descrption given in front of arya of j'aquen's new face and by Pate of the alchemist........ First of all, Syrio, J'aquen and the alchemist were all pretty bad ass cool characters,......

And its not my theory im not even sure im in favor of it, due mostly to the points that JON T pointed out....ive struggled with why choose a prisoner......and how did he really escape, but considering the powers J'aquen showed, if this theory was true, GRRM would have a lot of room to work with here.......the prisoner part could have found J'aquen escaping through some tunnels and and needed a way to escape the city wthout killing an innocent, so chose a prisoner, he killed for Arya but that wa payment, and obviously working for someone in Oldtown, so killing there would be on the job.

PLaying devil's advocate but stop hating and let people discuss, especially something that IS NOT COMPLETELY RESOLVED IN THE BOOKS.....

Sorry HAIRY but you make no sense, nothing i can do about that

#17 iheartseverus

iheartseverus

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,494 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 02:31 PM

Man, i have to go about this nicely i think for anyone to get my point.

WHy cant people who havent read those over analyzed , dissected threads just talk about this stuff on our own for a while. It seems like some of the vets imply we are wasting their time by talking about something they have already discussed in full before.

PLaying devil's advocate but stop hating and let people discuss, especially something that IS NOT COMPLETELY RESOLVED IN THE BOOKS.....


I so agree, Weir Ghost. I'm always startled when I run across a post that tells a member thier post/thread is pointless, redundant, because 'I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT.' Uhhhh...? A little too much 'I' strain going on there? Or worse, when a veteran member simply posts a link to a previous thread. There's still so much I want to discuss about these books--to discuss, mind you, not simply to read or to be lectured to by self-appointed 'experts.'

So, there's lots of us still out there--discuss away! Discuss away!

#18 Errant Bard

Errant Bard

    Insane precursor of bad business

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,729 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 02:31 PM

It's that it's surprising that one should wish to discuss something, especially theories, and at the same time wish to stay ignorant about it. It's as if pas arguments somehow lost their their worth if typed before one's arrival on the forums.

because 'I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT.' Uhhhh...? A little too much 'I' strain going on there? Or worse, when a veteran member simply posts a link to a previous thread.

That's misrepresenting what happens, stop playing the victim by setting up strawmen.

"I've already discussed it" doesn't happen, mostly, except in threads where the argument becomes cyclic, and when it does it's termed "we have already discussed it", to put back discussion on track.

Linking of relevant threads... happens within a specific context, to provide more data for the current discussion, not to erase discussion. I don't understand why it's bad, when one asks "could someone clear this up for me", like now, to link to something that clears it up.

As for the useful knowledge, such as the SSM or past disproofs of some theories, how does discussing without linking, quoting or evoking them enrich the discussion? We know facts, genius ideas, and we're either supposed to rewrite everything or not use the resource at all? That's mind-boggling to me.

About the "I" strain, I can bandy that around, too: after all, those who don't wish to read what they are not involved with from the start seem to think the world revolves around them a bit too much. Then they end up burning books.


(okay, about that last thing, I mostly kid :leaving:)

Edited by Errant Bard, 05 June 2009 - 02:57 PM.


#19 Aplomb

Aplomb

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 02:54 PM

That's not correct at all. While it does make Syrio a "facade", it simply transfers the coolness factor Syrio had to Jaqen H'ghar.


The issue is being falsely accused of clinging to a possibility that Syrio = Jaquen, simply because we think Syrio is "cool" and wanting him to live, when the possibility if true means there is no Syrio. And you are wrong that any coolness would transfer to Jaqen because there is no Jaqen either. There is no Alchemist. There is no longer any Pate. There is just a FM, who can appear cool or lame as hell (see Pate) depending on need.

You also do not consider that many people do not think theories through to their logical conclusion -- if they did, we wouldn't have nearly so many crackpot theories as we do.


So you agree it is illogical, which was my point, which would mean I am correct? Then why did you begin your post saying "that's not correct at all?" Maybe I am missing the point.

In any case, this particular theory has been covered extensively, and there is almost no grounds for Syrio Forel to even be alive, yet alone a Faceless Man.


In your opinion. Which I disagree with.

#20 WeirGhost

WeirGhost

    Freerider

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 03:42 PM

Wow, surprised you don't get it. Staying ignorant? How could this be clearer...i'd rather do my own investigation.....if you want to take the time to explain the things you rather i read in a 3 page post fine, freedom of speech join the discussion and i will read what you have to say.....but to be honest, id rather discuss a few things with some people, get the foundation for some ideas about the books mysteries, and then do a reread...... not read the "over analyzed dissection threads" on every subject out there....dont get me wrong i wish i had read the books and was a part of that discussion but........ there is no need for anybody to be in here...telling the originator his thread is needless and a waste of time, or people saying im ignorant for not reading their thread from three years ago instead of discussing it amongst people who just jumped in the pool .........

Y'all are way more Cersei than you are Ned