• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Orphalesion

  1. Just saying if she kills those people, who have been nothing but welcoming to her and who have been humanized in terms Arya understands and emphatically cares for (father-child relationships) then there's no way she can claim any moral high-ground anymore.
  2. Glad they finally had him own up to his crime. Just a pity that giving them a burial won't bring them back to life and all...
  3. Well there used to be the "Composite Azor Ahai" crackpot/parody theory. Basically everyone who is speculated to be Azor Ahai fuses together into one giant dude who then is Azor Ahai. Except Stannis, because nobody wants to fuse with Stannis. Edit: There's also a ham (or ham substitute) involved.
  4. So not liking Jaime continuing to be Cersei's lackey. They really hate his character, uh? Like the look of all those battles, gives me hope. Blech, more Dorne... Yay! Mellisandre! And yet they managed to do the exact opposite and turned what was a very interesting, intelligent and sensible (if minor) character in the books into a laughable cliche that wouldn't be out of place as a villain in "Xena: Warrior Princess".
  5. 1) Well and I suppose some people prefer sociopathic, angry Squirrrels, huh? 2) Well thank heavens she's nowhere near Arya's "level" and I hope she won't sink quite that low. 3) Being carried around Westeros by a succession of people and being handed everything displays initiative? Note: No these statements do not completely reflect my view of Arya, but if you can make sweeping generalization about fans of one character, I can make sweeping generalizations about yours.
  6. No, Rhaegar is dead and no amount of html-coloured text will change that. No matter how many colours you use or what random words you choose to point out.
  7. I don't think it's a sense of GRRM owing us anything. But a customer has the right to be disatisfied with a product or a product's lack of foreseeable release. So far I was dissatisfied with whatever DWDFFC was supposed to be and with the lack of WoW. I borrowed DWDFFC rather than buy them and don't really see myself ever purchasing them. None of us have signed a contract when we bought GoT that we have to buy or like whatever GRRM produces or is involved with, or did we? Personally I'm at a point where I don't even care about the books anymore and am ready to accept the TV Show as the ending to the tale. Sure it has its flaws (its horrible, horrible flaws) but it's not like the books are this flawless epitome of perfection some make them out to be. And for me WoW certainly doesn't warrant all those years of waiting for me. I mainly want it released so that all those book purists who are occupying the Nile over Jon's parentage can stop with their whining. So yeah, wake me up when DoS shows up and I might, possibly, perhaps be mildly interested, until then I watch the show. As for the spinoffs: I'd be [pretty exited for anything tha6t isn't a continuation of the current storyline. I'd particularly love me some Dunk and Egg (but only if Duncan is played by a good looking actor!) Robert's Rebellion would be alright. But I would not want anything solely focused on the Night's Watch because 1) Ewww the Night's Watch ewwwwww 2) There's no women in pretty-pretty dresses on the wall and I like seeing gorgeous period costumes in fantasy and historical media. 3) The show would be under the delusion that the NW are the "good guys" or in any way admirable.
  8. First of all you don't need to be a "well-read guy" to be familiar with something as basic as the Pied Piper. Unless the definition of "well-read" has been downgraded severely since I checked last time. What else does count as "well-read"? Knowing who Poseidon is? Second of all...no. Not only does nothing in the text so far hint towards your theory, but you also rather haphazardly disconnect, mix and match elements from the tale and ASoIaF to suit your conclusion.
  9. To be fair, it's Oberyn, there's only two kinds of people: people who'd fuck Oberyn if they had the chance and people who don't exist. Kissing and sex are two different pair of shoes. Somebody can be an acceptable target of affection, but when it goes really down you realize the person is too familiar to you for that. Margaery and Loras have no sexual desire for one another, plus as others said in the book we never hear Margaery say anything close to "How about my brother gets you started?" And even on the hsow it was more "How about my brother gets you started and then you fuck me?" and NOT "Let's have a threesome with my brother, I want his dong!" They aren't related and she is posing as his daughter.... Jon and Daenerys would be aunt and nephew, which happened in real world history, even if it wasn't seen as acceptable as cousin merriage. Jon and Arya are cousins, which would be very acceptable in a society like that because it'd would keep lands and titles in the family. Sorry, but what kind of stupid and asinine statement is this? Last time I checked not only was ASoIaF popular around the world. Plus I am really SICK of this attitude some people have that everybody is/should only be knowledgeable about the culture and history of their own country/area. What should he have done to make Westeors palatable to Americans? Make them act like WASPS from Long Island? Also, "Oh my! How dare an author write something out of the comfort zone of his immidiate audience! He might make them *gasp* he might make them think!"
  10. No matter what some fringe theories are trying to say, the seasons are magical in nature, so the life cycles if plants and animals likely are as well. As to what people eat: there's such a thing as winter crops, which can be farmed in the ugky part of the year. Plus thew southern part of Westeros doesn't get that cold, Dorne might actually become more fertile and quite pleasant in Winter.
  11. No not really. The former sounds like "typical guy with blueballs" the latter sounds like "I'm in charge, and I know it" So imho the chapter would have actually worked better from Arianne's POV and Dorne would have had less of its weird "random POV roulette" I'd rather get a look into the mind of a smart character manipulating a stupid one than into the mind of a stupid character getting manipulated.
  12. Right now? 0% on both accounts. Once the Endgame starts? Who knows...
  13. I highly doubt that if the Wildlings knocked on one of the Walls doors and said "Hey Night's Watch, we'd like to live under the protection and laws of your King, wanna let us through so that we can settle somewhere down south?" that they would be taken seriously or granted their request. So no, the Wildlings don't have a choice.
  14. Yep, there was no way for Robb to win that one; spare Catelyn and his prima donna bannermen throw a hissy fit about him being biased, execute her and his prima donna bannermen throw a hissy fit about being a kinslayer and about executing 1) Ned's widow 2) The dowager lady of Winterfell 3) a highborn woman period. The Westerosi interpretation of honour and justice doesn't exactly make sense, as Jaime's title of "Kingslayer" shows. Besides, can you imagine what executing his mother would have done to his reputation outside the North? There were already stories about him being a Werewolf who ate his prisoners, what were they going to say about him if he had sentenced his own mother to death?
  15. Doesn't make it any less evil... And really why is the idea of the mustache twirling "evil for the evilz" villain so prevalent? Where, outside of extremely poor fiction, fan fiction or parodies does that trope even get used?
  16. I would take that post more seriously if it didn't also ask for the removal of Walder Frey because of his "good cause". First of all, he did it for one reason; because Robb had slighted him, which is not exactly a "good cause". Second of all; he still violated the Guest Right, which is very, very serious business. I'm not one of those rabid people who clal for the extermination of the Freys and I can admire the Red Wedding as a relatively bloodless ending to a horrible war, but butchering your guests is an act of evil. I would call it amoral, not evil, same with her murder of Dareon. She shouldn't have done either of those things and I hope she will have to atone for them at some point. The difference between her and characters I would call evil is that she doesn't seem to take pleasure in causing pain....yet. Though yeah I can agree with putting her somewhere on the very bottom of the list, together with Robb and Stannis. But if we count any instance of murder, then the list is very, very, very long. Don't dismiss that, are you forgetting that the orange caused a permanent stain? (OT: isn't it weird how some people try to force double and triple meanings into every little detail in the series yet I have never heard a theory to a supposed meaning of that stain? Why doesn't that symbolize Sansa being a secret Targaryen or something?)
  17. True that. Still I don't consent to the idea that moral greyness should be solely defined by whether an individual or group thinks they are in the "right", that would make the world too easy. I will consent to the moral grayness of the Others the moment we 1) Are shown that they indeed are capable of rational thought, and thus morality 2) we are shown Others (not failed wights, like Coldhands) who speak or act against the plan to kill humans (for whatever reason they might have) ^That's actually a victory of yours and other people here, you guys got me so far as to consider that, perhaps, maybe, there might be something, possibly not-pure evil about the Others. So because war exists it's okay to sacrifice newborn infants? Seriously? Also where does it say that the Wildlings are on their side of the Wall voluntarily? Plus, why do you automatically assume I approve of nation states or resource wars, or the idea of mandatory conscription?
  18. She's apparently also more evil than Cersei, Quyburn, Khal Drogo, Littlefinger etc. Please correct me on this, you know her better than me, but I don't think Arya has ever been actively malicious or cruel to anybody? She has done amoral actions, but evil?
  19. Why are the Dothraki missing from your list? They do all the nasty things the Slavemasters do and actively destroy others who don't live according to their believes and for loot and profit and think killing members of their own tribe is a great entertainment at weddings. (Is it because they are bootiful nature peoplez? Because no, they really aren't, such an overpopulation of grazing animals is not healthy for an ecosystem.) And where are the Ironborn, a whole culture based on raping and plundering? The Tickler? Tywin? Littlefinger? Lysa? Craster? Cersei? Quyburn? I mean I don't like Arya, but calling her "evil" is a huge stretch (especially putting her down as "more evil" than the ones I have mentioned), same with Mirri Maz Dur (Oh no! She killed the horse rapist who slaughtered her whole village and destroyed everything and everyone she knew and loved! What a bitch!) And what "evil" thing (aside from the theory that he might have done something to upset the Others) has Mance Rayder done? I mean if we put those three on there, we might as well declare 80% of all characters in the novels "evil".
  20. On Craster, who says it is really cohabitation? Putting the obvious problem aside that said cohabitation apparently requires the sacrifice of newborn children (though, granted, we don't exactly know what they are doing with those babies) who say it is a conscious contract from the side of the Others? For all we know (which is very little) we could also speculate that the Others have a machine like, programmed mind and when they sense a human settlement, like Craster's, they go into a mode that forces them to kill a human, even if it's just a swaddling baby, crying in the woods. The "sacrificed" babies might just be distractions to slake the Others' "killing mode" and then it takes them a while again to scan the area around Craster's, by that time a new "sacrifice" is put in place. Entire communities have survived by that type of lucky coincidence in our history and attributed it to all sorts of supernatural phenomena. Which still isn't a very morally "grey" course of action. "Let's kill thousands (and mutilate their dead bodies to fight as our mind controlled zombie minions) because some old story says one of them might, possibly, perhaps, come after us! That's a reasonable course of action, right?" One could argue that a more moral course of action would be to build defenses and hone their skills in case said (supposed) prophecy does come true. Sure, except that launching an aggressive internecine war based on something as flimsy as a (supposed) prophecy isn't exactly grey. Plus, I will ask again how that idea differentiates Martin from other high quality fantasy authors? Also I'd argue how much Ramsay or Gregor think they are doing the "right" thing as opposed to just not caring about what the "right thing" would be (but I suppose Gregor had bad head ouchies, which, of course makes raping women to death "morally grey" )
  21. That's true, she was arguing they can't "truly" believe in the Seven because they practice incest, didn't she? Which is of course rubbish. People can and do believe in a particular religion and still break or ignore some of the the religion's commandments. Just one example: while the New Testament is fairly vocal about marriage being between two people and permanent, it took a long, long, looooong while for that to become the norm among the common people in Europe, looooong after christianization. And an example that's perhaps closer to the Targs: The vast majority of medieval Kings believed in a very strict, very unforgiving hellfire and brimstone type of Christianity and still mad their mistresses, often parading them around right in front of the public eye and paid the court bishops to testify that their type of infidelity was alright because it was a "King's privilege". Really, nothing different than the Targs with their sister-wives.
  22. Well the Targaryens aren't a homogenous mass with a hivemind. Their many generations feature a wide range of different personalities and it stands to reason that some of them genuinely believed in the Seven and some of them were cynical, really some individuals might have even felt drawn to the Old Gods, the various remnants of the aboriginal First Men believes (such as the Drowned God) or the various religions from Essos and elsewhere. Though even the cynical, secular or downright atheist ones (if any) would have kept up an appearance of piety and ceremony because the Faith of the Seven is very important to a majority of their subjects. Even today a ruler who steps up to the podium and flat out says something like "Fuck the Church" would not go over very well. The question is why Aegon and the Sisters adopted the Faith of the Seven and here I genuinely think that Aegon and his sisters didn't believe in the Seven, but adopted their worship outwardly to seem less foreign and alien. The same might be true for their adoption of other Westerosi customs such as banners and the outlawing of slavery. Sure they have Dragons and can enforce their will if needed, but in Feudal Realms it's often easier to conquer a title than to hold on to it and consolidate your power. The conquering Targaryens had to make concessions to Westerosi culture if they wanted to have their peace, otherwise it would have just been non-stop Dragonfire and war until Westeros was just as scorched and barren as Valyria post-doom. So it's easier to just kneel before some statues and recite some words. Also quicker. But it's perfectly possible for Aegon to be an agnostic, atheist, follower of any sort of Valyrian or Essosi faith and for Baelor being a devout follower of the Seven at the same time. It's even possible that Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya had differing views on religion and/or faith.
  23. Yeah let's kill off one of the two most important characters. I can relate to not liking her storyline (I'm not really a fan either) but killing her off between books would make the whole storyline pointless. Also I think the problem was not that you said you didn't want manifested gods in the storyline (I don't want that either) but that you chose the unhappy wording of "Theistic garbage"
  24. Yeah with Westeros' fetish for continuity and aversion to any sort of change my best guess is that the woudl still be a divided collection of kingdoms of about the same border with little, if any change. They'd kill each other ceaselessly in pointless wars over some border region or another. I thin Harlan would eventually have been overthrown because in Westeros it takes something like a dragon to bring about a permanent change in rule. There was also the Crownlands being a weak and ravaged border region that was continuously fought over by the surrounding kingdoms, the Iron Born being free to rape and plunder all along the West Coast, the wars over the Dornish borderlands. People act like the Blackfyre rebellions were frequent (which they weren't by Medieval standards) per-conquest Westeros probably hardly saw a summer without war. There was a LOT of fighting going on. The conquest I would argue actually improved the situation of the kingdoms. It wasn't exactly a vital or necessary improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. It allowed for safer, more unrestricted travel, it made it posible for certain kingdoms to "specialize" more than they could have as independent states and it got rid of borders that in 5 of 8 examples didn't make one lick of sense to begin with. As to "now everybody has to participate in every war"....not really? Right now the Dronish and the Vale have both managed to stay out of and stay untouched by the WoT5K. Granted that's about to change, but with what's bout to go down, there could be a hundred kingdoms and they'd all be effected still. And are we really no gonna argue whether it's worse to have one war or three simultaneous ones?
  25. I doubt they actually will be important by the common understanding of the word. They'll be Glorfindel important. Bard II important. Radagast important. i.e. they'll be doing something in the background we will hear about through envoys or some such. Something that's important to the internal story logic and that works to make the world coherent. But at this point I fairly doubt they'll be part of the on-page action. The only thing I could see would be them jining up with either Aegon or Daenerys in an attempt to safe Margaery if her trial goes south. And even then they'd basically be Maege Mormont and Greatjon Umber to Jon Con, Faegon or Daenerys.