Darkstream

Members
  • Content count

    2,406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Darkstream

  1. @The Weirwoods Eyes Well look at me preaching to you with my elementary break down of the types of magic. I now see that the conflation was that of my own foot and mouth. I really enjoyed your assessment of the various types of magic and find your thoughts on MMD very intriguing. I figured I would respond to you on this thread instead of the other as this is a great thread that I think deserves a bump. I firmly believe Val has a huge and important role to play at Jon's side in the future, and fully support the premise of her elevated status, and that of her possibly being a woods witch in training - wherein I must give credit [email protected] Fattest Leech who had originally enlightened me of this possibility. Anyway, I think you have done a great job at further supporting this in my mind, and wanted to commend you on a wonderful op.
  2. I'm not one to give much creedence to the adage, possession is nine tenths of the law; You may have been in possession of my title first, however from the moment this thread was created, I was destined to be the winner. It is known.
  3. Yes, I would agree. And not that I had doubted you, but I did do a quick search just to see how often Ned frowns, and it's seems that he really does tend to frown quite frequently, in many different circumstances. And I would admit, when pondering Ned's reaction, I did have his promise to Lyanna in mind, and his thoughts of broken promises. However, he did specifically refer to Cat, so I do think that it is less likely that this is such a dire thought that would make him break off, or suppress it. ...But still cannot say for certain as we still do not know what these broken promises are, and if they involve Cat or not.
  4. I agree that your interpretation is certainly plausible, and as I said in my original post, I do tend to lean in this direction. However I am in no way certain, or feel like anything you have presented can be claimed as proof. Ned is recalling what we can reasonably assume is a sorrowing and regretful action or decision. I think the interruption in his thought could be explained by his reluctance to even want to think about whatever it is that he was about to ask forgiveness for; Whether due to guilt, denial, or that it's just to painful or shaming to think of. Basically, he suppresses this thought and just looks up at the tree in an expression of disgust or shame in himself as he had compromised his honor, thus his frown. So yes, I really think this passage could work fine, even with no interaction on Bran's part. Let me ask you, if he was reacting to Bran, why the frown? This doesn't seem like an appropriate response to me. I would think he would have a curious or quizzical expression if he had thought he heard something. Don't you agree? @ravenous reader Ha! Here I go again, trying to get a handle on them ellipses.
  5. I fear your defensive disposition has led you astray. My comment was in no way meant to nitpick. You had just provided the passage verbatim, so it's not as if I was accusing you of mis-representation - it was quite obvious that you were paraphrasing. Like I alluded to above, it was reading your comment directly after the quote that made me consider this. You know, kind of a 'cause and effect.' While I would say what you propose is plausible, I do take issue with the bolded. What you put forth as certainty and prove, I find to be very ambiguous. Let's take a look at more of that passage than just the one line for some context. A Dance with Dragons - Bran III Now let me modify this passage to remove Bran, and what you would posit is the cause, and see if it still makes sense. Ned's actions here seem completely natural and plausible, even though what you claim to be the cause of those actions has been removed. It is by no way certain that Bran had any effect on the events that took place in this scene.
  6. So let me just jump in here and engage in a little advocacy for the devil if you would, as I do tend to concur with your interpretation of this. However, when I was reading this quote, and then your comment right after it, I noticed you used the determiner, 'the' instead of 'a' as is used in the actual quote; Which for some reason caught my attention. It seems to me that if GRRM had used 'the' it would be quite straight forward, however the use of 'a' makes this comment seem a little more ambiguous to me. This is more of a question than an assertion, as I am by no means an expert in linguistics. Perhaps @ravenous reader would like to offer her opinion on this, as I would say she has as impressive of an understanding and command of the language as I've seen. Now it can be argued that a whisper in the wind would be inaudible, as well, a rustling in the leaves would be unnoticeable - just a noise that would blend in. Could this not be a poetic way for GRRM to say that despite his efforts, Bran's attempt to reach out to his father was unsuccessful? And his voice was not what caused the wind, but was essentially drowned out by it. Ps: oh and I guess as I can't be considered a 'lurker' anymore, it should be ok for me to comment on this. I must say that I find both sides of this little spat being had on this thread to be utterly hilarious. As I see it, there were NO winners. And MacGregor, obviously there is a history there between you and MD, so I'm not going to pass judgment there. However, I must say, you going after @Bonkers as you did was uncalled for. He/she was clearly trying to be friendly with you, and only trying to make light of the situation, and really didn't deserve the response that you gave.
  7. Easy, it wasn't her's, because she originally stole it from me.
  8. I've taken the liberty to amend your post a little; Now it is appropriate for this sub-forum.
  9. Jeez, I wonder what are your thoughts on the sentiment of the following statement? A Storm of Swords - Davos V . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?" "Everything," said Davos, softly.
  10. This to me sounds like a seamless transition into the society, as per the history of Westeros over the past ten thousand years or so. How are the Wildlings any different than any other faction that already resides south of the Wall? I know I would certainly prefer the likes of Mance, Tormand, and especially Val as my neighbors over the likes of Tywin, Roose and Ramsey, etc.
  11. He knew. Game of Thrones - Eddard VII "I am sorry for your girl, Ned. Truly. About the wolf, I mean. My son was lying, I'd stake my soul on it. My son … you love your children, don't you?" A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII "Have you forgotten how wild you were at his age?" "It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head. He's the King, It's not out of his hands. Jaimie had several of Ned's men murdered, and assaulted the hand of the King; Extremely serious crimes. He could have sent out a royal decree calling for the arrest of Jaimie - If not for his head. And I'm aware of why he couldn't do that, but that shouldn't be a problem for a King who has made several strategic allies through his commendable diplomatic savvy. Just so I'm sure I understand you correctly, 'cause it seems to me that I'm missing something here. Are you saying that Robert, the King...Robert, would have been arrested by the Frey's, on Cat's orders?!? I'm sure I must be reading this incorrectly. The thing about your argument here is that you are not making a case for someone who has made intelligent and advantageous alliances through his supposed diplomatic skills. What you are describing is someone who has been used, taken advantage of, and is now a powerless puppet of those whom he made these diplomatic relations with.
  12. I agree. I believe!
  13. Jesus man!! Are we still having this argument? Yes, obviously she didn't order it. That's why Pycelle had to deduce this from the look she gave him. Really, what's your point? What are you getting at? Does it matter? She had a part to play in it. She wanted him dead, and that is the reason Pycelle let him die...Just as we should do with this discussion. Yes, as per my quote:. 'Robert is clueless and/or dismisive of all of this.' Or are you trying to say he was aware of everything? 'Cause if you are, you would be wrong. Perhaps on some level he had some suspicion of certain things, but he certainly didn't know everything. And he wasn't really clueless on how to handle it. He was dismisive of most of it, and really didn't give two F*cks.
  14. Hey!! Have you been talking to my wife?
  15. Thank you, I appreciate the apology. Peace.
  16. True, I see my victory about 400-1000 posts down the road. And you didn't even make a full minute this time.
  17. @The Weirwoods Eyes I see, fair enough. Indeed, I would be very interested in reading your thoughts on this. I'm assuming I can find it in your profile?
  18. I'm not sure being in the lead for three minutes can be classified as winning.
  19. You seem to be conflating the various types of magic and resurrection that we have seen so far. Essentially, we can brake down the types of magic into four different categories. (1) Fire magic, that of Rhllor; used by Melisandre, Thoros, and Moqorro. (2) Earth magic, that of the Old gods and the Weirwoods. (3) Water magic, which we haven't seen yet in the main novels but know of from the World book; used by the Rhoynish. (4) Blood magic, which we have seen used by Maggy the Frog and Mirri Maz Durr. Now we obviously don't know very much about these Magics, and they may very well turn out to be derived from the same source, however at this point we cannot classify the resurrections by the red priests/esses as the same to that of Mirri. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It has been made quite clear that both Beric and Cat have suffered severe side effects resulting from their resurrections. Would you please clarify why you believe this not to be the case. I would posit that If indeed Jon happens to be revived by Mel, or methods derived through Rhllor (which I personally don't believe will be the case), I think it's fair to assume that he will suffer some sort of side effects.
  20. While I fully acknowledge that this is often the case with individuals dealing with trauma and stressful situations, we have to keep in mind that this is a work of literature, and allthough GRRM is very meticulous with the details, he is not going to always account for such things. I find it unlikely that he has deliberately skewed Renly's statement of how long it took them to get back. Also, in these cases, it would be more common for one to perceive time incorrectly by the minutes or hours - especially right around the time of the of the incident happening - but to mis-remember how long a two day trip took to the extent that is going to have any effect on the time line in relation to this discussion isn't very probable. And let's say we do account for some inaccuracies in the story we are given, the sequence of events happening are close enough to each other that it's really not going to make a difference. For instance, let's say it only took a day for them to get back instead of two days. Cercei still has to send out this message, and have it find and reach Lancel, and then have him implement this plan, all within less than a day. And let me remind you of a comment you yourself just recently made. I think it is fairly safe to assume that there is no way Cercei could have put her plan in effect after the conversation with Ned. Ah ok, my mistake. I can accept that then.
  21. Well I'm not sure what you find controversial about Sweetsunray's post, it's just a strait forward timeline. Perhaps you mean the implications are controversial? I don't see option a being very likely, so I'm going to have to go with b. However, what I'm sure won't come as a surprise to you, I cannot agree with the bolded. I would suspect that the business with Jon Arryn and Stannis, and even Bran perhaps, is what spooked her.
  22. @devilish Here, check out this post by Sweetsunray. She has broken down the time line.
  23. Oh really? Please do direct me to these posts, I would love to see them. You obviously aren't thinking of the right person. Or perhaps you're confusing Targs with d$d? I do hate me them two with quite a passion, but I assure you, I don't hate any GRRM created characters, or families. That's exactly what you've done. Your argument is off topic, and clearly not the point of this discussion. It's quite obvious that your are extremely bias, and can't handle seeing a discussion about the rightful heir that doesn't involve Dany. As I am just feeding into your bs, this will be my last response to you. Good day.
  24. Ha, defensive much. If in fact that was what I was trying to do, it clearly would be working. And believe me, if that were my desire, I could do a hell of a better job than that. I told you, I'm just giving you a hard time; I was fucking around with you. You have no idea what my opinions on the Targaryens are, or the Baratheons for that matter. You want to come on this thread and attempt to derail it with the same old, tired, irrelevant argument that that is used to derail dozens of threads, fine, don't cry foul if you get a facetious response. Fyi, usually when someone replies with 'indeed', that means they are agreeing with you. And the real reason your precious Targ is not the rightful heir, is because her family lost it by rights of conquest. The same method they used to gain it.