Jak Scaletongue

Members
  • Content count

    908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Jak Scaletongue

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Hogwarts
  • Interests
    History

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. Technically, in the patriarchal feudal society that is Westeros, Lyanna's permission is irrelevant. Rhaegar took Lyanna without Rickard's permission (as far as we've been told in the books). That's all that matters - regardless of Lyanna's feelings, whether she went willingly or not, without Rickard's permission it IS, legally, technically, kidnapping and rape should he choose to pursue it as such. Which he did.
  2. Dying quickly and peacefully, or even dying of a quick slice to the jugular, is a more "respectable" death than dying horribly in a mining and/or lava accident. And there's no guarantee that you'd die if you create an "accident" - maybe you'll just get injured and have to wait days before you finally die of thirst or starvation. Praying for a nice, clean, quick death over a slow and painful death is preferred even today (hence all the "Death with Dignity" groups/laws/etc). Plus what SeanF said; it's hard to kill yourself mentally and it's hard to kill yourself because of lack of access and privacy.
  3. Hecate would be the perfect fit! She's a goddess of liminal spaces, the in-betweenness. Guardian and Warden are cognates as well. The idea of Hecate is basically the idea that opposites aren't necessarily an either/or relationship. One can have a guardian who serves as a prison warden. A gatekeeper is there to open the gate...but the gatekeeper can also refuse entry. Hecate's herbs can help or harm. She can point you in the right direction or the wrong direction at a crossroads. Same with her dogs, they can warn against danger or be the danger. I don't see why the weirwood can't be both a prison and a gate for the consciousness inside it. They're trapped in one sense, but it opens up an entire new world in another.
  4. I'm only going to quote one of the short one, cause it's not terribly important! I was always under the impression that cyclone/typhoon/hurricane was a large matter of language (and the attempt to Anglicize unfamiliar words). Cyclone was coined by an Englishman in India using Latinized Greek (hence the "c"'s instead of "k"'s; see below) to describe a specific storm he witnessed. Hurricane was originally Spanish "huracan" from an Arawak word to describe the storms in the Caribbean. And Typhoon is a little more complicated! Typhon was a Greek god but he was more about "whirlwinds" in general not simply just the storms, but it was the Portuguese who brought the term to Europe to describe the storms in the East Indies but it's suspected that the Portuguese were influenced by the word "tufan," and variants from Arabic, Persian and Hindi and likely learned the word from Arabic sailors. Though there's also a Cantonese word "tai fung" may also have influenced the word; though whether it directly influenced the English, the Portuguese, the Arabic, or the Hindi word is unclear or unknown. For your perusal from the Online Etymology Dictionary http://etymonline.com/index.php Sorry. Language fascinates me, and the borrowing and bastardizing of foreign words is always fun!
  5. Definitely look into Hecate! She's fascinating! She was variously associated with crossroads, entrance-ways, light, magic, witchcraft, knowledge of herbs and poisonous plants, ghosts, necromancy, and sorcery (Wikipedia). The necromancy and sorcery part caught my eye the other day (I was bored and went down a wiki hole...) and dogs are considered her familiars. She's akin to the Roman Janus, what with guarding doorways and entrances (though her Roman equivalent was considered to be Trivia [of the three ways; tri + via. Not the "trivia" we use today!). On that note, Janus might worth a look into also, for similar reasons; he's the god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, and endings (according to Wikipedia). He also had some influence in war and peace, being the deity of beginnings and endings he was often invoked (along with others) when declaring war (the beginning) and peace treaties (the end; as well as his association with boundaries, which were often spelled out at the end of a conflict). This quote about Hecate stuck out to me the other day, too: As a goddess expected to avert harmful or destructive spirits from the house or city over which she stood guard and to protect the individual as she or he passed through dangerous liminal places, Hecate would naturally become known as a goddess who could also refuse to avert the demons, or even drive them on against unfortunate individuals.[79] It's something that's often overlooked, but ALL the Greek deities (and Roman) weren't guaranteed to help you, no matter how well you worshipped or what you gave them. Not only Hecate, but ANY deity could simply refuse to grant protection. That's something most Christians* don't think about....the idea of a god hearing but ignoring your pleas is NOT something we like to think of but it was a very common idea in polytheistic religions. The gods have no obligation to help, even if you do everything "right." *Basically anyone who hasn't specifically practiced another religion. Even if you've never gone to Church, chances are REALLY good you've learned the religious reasons behind Christmas and Easter and stories like Noah's Ark and David and Goliath, even if it was just from your childhood friend who DID go to Church! Christianity goes far deeper into our subconscious as a society than we assume. Just look at how people treat sexual assault victims; they're either perfect, pure virgins who must be protected or dirty whores who got what they deserved. And the whole "you won't have sex with me, so you must be a whore" namecalling some asshats feel is necessary (I never understood how that worked....unfortunately the last time I got called a whore for NOT having sex with a guy was before I'd really grasped the hypocrisy of the statement. Only unfortunate because I'd REALLY like to tell that asshat off now!)
  6. If you've read the most recent spoiler chapter, the bolded part is not so unlikely. Or at least, I can understand how someone got to the end of that chapter and concluded something like this. Naturally, once we have the WHOLE book, it may not be so likely (well, it IS Euron, so maybe it will turn out likelier....) There was already more people present than we suspect. "They" implies at LEAST two people at the tower, still alive, while Ned was with Lyanna. Howland and...someone. Could be more than one someone too, "they" just implies more than one up to...well, infinity really but I doubt all of Westeros was there. But there MUST have been at least one more person besides Howland Reed present at the Tower, or only "HE would have found him still holding her body..." Maybe it's just Howland holding baby Jon, but maybe not. There's no mention of anyone else, except for that "They". That's were most of those crackpots come from. And who the HELL takes a pregnant woman ready to burst to the middle of fucking nowhere without a gaddamn Maester? Or at LEAST a midwife! It's little things like that that make me question how much and whether Rhaegar really *loved* Lyanna or was just using her. No Maester at the ToJ? He didn't care if she lived or died, as long as his baby did. Provided a Maester/midwife/woman who had done this before/etc. for the woman carrying his baby? Then I'll believe he cared about her. But if you all think we should stick to ONLY what's written on the page? Then Lyanna in the middle of nowhere with no one but three Kingsguard to help her give birth means, to ME, that Rhaegar was a piece of shit that didn't care about Lyanna as anything more than an incubator. But if he's so dead set on making sure she actually does give birth to a healthy baby, regardless of how he actually felt about Lyanna, he'd provide a Maester or midwife in case shit hits the fan during childbirth! What if the baby had been breached (butt-first)? Ain't no Kingsguard gonna save the baby! You'd need a Maester, someone who actually knows where and how to cut a baby out of the womb, not some knight taking a guess based on what he knows about killing people! If there really WAS a baby born at the ToJ, then there HAD to be a Maester or midwife present...or else Rhaegar's a pos that didn't care whether the mother OR the baby lived. A Game of Thrones - Eddard I "She should be on a hill somewhere, under a fruit tree, with the sun and clouds above her and the rain to wash her clean." "I was with her when she died," Ned reminded the king. "She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father." He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it. "I bring her flowers when I can," he said. "Lyanna was … fond of flowers." The king touched her cheek, his fingers brushing across the rough stone as gently as if it were living flesh. "I vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her."
  7. I understand the impulse to question whether GRRM *intentionally* omitted something or not. I subscribe to a LOT of crackpots that rely on precisely that. But this *particular* instance smells to me like "Lyarra Stark Syndrome" on GRRM's part than an intentional omission. He did *imply* who Domeric's mother was, and at the time of writing I feel like GRRM assumed (wrongly, as he did with Ned's mom) that it would be enough. Maybe it WILL play out as important and I'll be wrong - whatever. I have a seven year old, I'm used to it. But nothing in your OP has convinced me that it's anything more than GRRM overlooking a dead mother that didn't die giving birth to a main character. And I feel like the only reason Barbrey Dustin is on Roose's side at all is because she "hated" the Starks (I think Barbrey Dustin's gonna parallel Theon; they both "hated" the Starks yet wanted to be one and have done their damnedest to bring the House down yet don't get the satisfaction they had hoped for, etc...). Who knows, maybe once you've decided to share what you think is really going on I'll get it, but for now, *personally,* it seems like it was just overlooked. Now, to quote myself: Not sure how I could have made that clearer.....
  8. I don't see how it matters. We never even learned that Ned HAD a mother (besides the obvious - he clearly had to come out of *some* woman) let alone her name until TWOIAF. Maybe it will turn out to be a plot point - or maybe GRRM just overlooked it and assumed everyone would figure it out with the context given. He seemed damned surprised that people cared about knowing who Ned's mom was, even though she plays literally NO part in the story. I'm putting this theory into the "GRRM forgot" until there's better proof than the author simply overlooking it. Basically, nowhere in the books does it even allude to Ned's mother. Are we then to assume that Ned and his siblings grew out of the heart tree? Hell, even the Sept of Winterfell gets more mentions than Lyarra Stark. What else are we to make of the complete absence of ANY mention of a previous Lady Stark before Catelyn? We assume she was dead before the Rebellion started, but we don't even know THAT! We assume Catelyn never met her, but how do we know she wasn't? No one mentions her AT ALL. EVER. Domeric *could* be the son of either the first or second wife - but I feel like GRRM just overlooked telling us *which* wife because Domeric's mother is completely irrelevant. Domeric, even dead, has more bearing on Ramsay's story than either of his potential mothers. All that WE, as readers, need to know is that Domeric came out of a woman who was married to Roose Bolton and then died 15ish years later - before the story even starts. Which of the wives he came out of is irrelevant. On that note, I'd certainly LIKE to be told who Domeric's mother is conclusively. But I feel like that "reveal" is going to be of the underwhelming type we experienced when GRRM realized we gave a fuck about Ned's mom. **I know it wasn't directed at me, but I would like to note that I *did* read the OP. It's fishy, I'll admit, but I still think GRRM just overlooked it. We thought the lack of Ned's mom being mentioned was fishy too, and that was completely irrelevant to anything in the current story (besides clarifying why there wasn't more Stark cousins running around - they closed up the family tree with a marriage between cousins).
  9. William and Harry were known as William Windsor and Henry (Harry) Windsor in the army. But no one else (ie. civilians) bothers, cause once you put the "Prince" in front of their first name, their last name becomes irrelevant because everyone knows who you're talking about. Hell, tell someone that "Henry Windsor" did something important and they'll never know who you mean! Most people forget his real name is Henry, not Harry, let alone remember he's a Windsor! Hell, refer to him as Prince Henry and you'll confuse a ton of people! Basically, the use of any surname for official documents makes it an official surname. That's how all surnames came about in the first place, the royal family just didn't need an "official" surname until more recently than the common folk...but when you're naming every other kid John or Mary, surnames among the lower classes become pretty important pretty quickly! When you can toss a "Prince" in front of the kid you named John though, the surname was less essential before the age of paperwork and bureaucracy! But "creating" a surname for official documents is *precisely* how to get a surname, whether you're royalty or not. Did you know that in Canada it is completely legal for a person (or married couple) to completely change their surname simply by filling out some paperwork? I could go from "Scaletongue" to "Lannister" as quickly as it takes to fill out a shit ton of paperwork (so in my case....a few years...I procrastinate....). For any name change not related to marriage I believe you also have to go in front of a judge to make it official - but a married couple can create a new surname without too much headache (I'm not sure if the judge is required in this case or not). And you can put whatever surname you want on a newborn's paperwork, they don't actually require you to use one of the parents surnames. I imagine the rules are *similar* elsewhere, especially elsewhere in the Commonwealth, but I've only ever done a Canadian birth certificate for a baby and a marriage name change...and I didn't go all crazy, mostly cause I didn't know I could until too late! LOL! Chances are my mother would have talked me out of it, though! Which is probably why most people don't create new surnames....parents can be a pain in the butt! ETA: Yup, William and Henry Wales (cause their dad's the Prince of Wales). Not Windsor. But still a surname, and official by virtue of being on official documents. Though admittedly, royal surnames are likely to change faster than civilian surnames. William could be "William Cambridge" if he wanted to be, though depending on whether he's got to do as much paperwork as the rest of us he may not bother because, theoretically, he'll be the Prince of Wales soonish anyway (as the heir to the throne if his grandmother ever dies!) so I certainly wouldn't bother...but like I said, I procrastinate, so by the time I finished all the paperwork to be "Cambridge" I'd be "Wales" again! LOL!
  10. I've always thought there should be a parallel to weirwoods somewhere. I kept leaning towards the black-barked, blue-leafed trees but you're right that they don't appear anywhere besides outside the HotU (except as Shade of the Evening). But your point about the persimmons and the IRL link between persimmon trees and ebony is fascinating! I'm not convinced, completely, mostly because I feel like Shade of the Evening is a parallel to the weirwood paste Bran eats...and the Shade comes from those weird trees at the HotU....and they've got similar effects on the drinker....at least, Bran and Dany describe the taste similarly...and I suppose it did open her to whatever visions she was given.... You make a lot of good points, and it's fascinating! But there are still a few pieces missing to fit everything together (and that's not your fault! We need more books!)
  11. I don't know that the knowledge of Roose dealing the killing blow to Robb is *irrelevant* exactly, but I don't think it would drastically alter the Northern Lords strategy. There's no such thing as too much information when you're planning rebellion! And it would be a handy piece of info for those Lords who may be sitting on a fence...(those few, like Lady Cerwyn, aren't really on the fence. They're more like "I've got no men to fight, what the hell else am I supposed to do but smile and nod?"). But I don't think it's a *crucial* bit of info for their plans. They're taking Roose down whether he dealt the killing blow or not. There's got to be some middle ground between "crucial, essential information" and "completely irrelevant" - that's where I'd place this tidbit; somewhere in between "crucial" and "irrelevant."
  12. I'ma just type : Following and come back when I'm not at work! Later!
  13. You're awesome!
  14. I've also seen it speculated that Wylla the wet-nurse was there too. I suspect there were a few people present that didn't die.
  15. Here's the link. We get into the Walys Flowers at the ToJ on the second page, but the whole thread is pretty interesting. I don't either, but it's certainly better than re-hashing all the foreshadowing for R+L=J!