• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About OwloftheRainwood

  • Rank
  1. First you must concede the narrative is not over and there are enough pages left for significant development, and GRRM has a penchant for red herrings and killing likable characters. Arguing Dany, Jon or anyone else as immune to demise is dubious. That said, the characters intended to gain maximum reader sympathy are: Dany, Tyrion, Jon and the Stark children. The safest one seems to be Dany, followed IMO by Arya and Bran. Tyrion's kinslaying makes me think he may not survive. There is another sense of "main character" in that their decisions and machinations have significant consequences in the story. In this category, you can't ignore the shrewdness of Varys, Tywin, Baelish, nor the incompetence of Ned/Robb and Cersei/Joffrey.
  2. These are all possibilities, for some reason my inclination is 2 or 3.
  3. You definitely did, and did not use "if" or brackets in the post I quoted so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You are ignoring and discounting actual textual evidence from POV characters in favor of at best shaky circumstantial evidence. Is it impossible that LS = KLT? Of course not, and it would be awesome if she is but actual textual evidence is rather limited, and favors Ned. Again, I'm not a partisan for either character, the story is great either way, it's weird how tribal readers get on these issues.
  4. We do have evidence, per Ned's POV: "Lyanna might have carried a sword, if my lord father had allowed it." Weird how you assert one can't make a positive claim without evidence, then you do literally the same thing.
  5. Rickard Stark forbade his daughter from carrying a blade, so I find it incredibly unlikely that he was like the Red Viper or Lord Tarth who openly allowed their daughters to train. We know Lyanna is good at beating her little brother with sticks and beating squires who had good reason not to fight back against her, daughter of the most powerful lord in the North. As I've said multiple times - I could be wrong and I appreciate the narrative if it turns out either way.
  6. You need a booming voice to command men in combat. Both Jon and Ned POVs allude to Jon Arryn teaching Robert and Ned to use a booming voice for purposes of command. So yes, it is a valid point in his favor. Bare in mind that I said this argument could go either way. My mind is not made up until we know more, if we ever do.
  7. I think this lack of formal training and the "booming voice" are the biggest problems for LS = KoLT. It's possible Lyanna was able to beat three knights in her first jousts without formal training. It seems implausible. I will say it would be interesting if that is how Lyanna and Rhaegar connect after Aerys demands the KoLT be unmasked. It seems less textually supported than strongly desired by a segment of fans, part of me wants LS = KoLT to be true too. Textual evidence of Ned's booming voice and Lyanna's lack of training make me lean in Ned's direction. The Reeds' surprise that Ned never told Bran the story is also telling. I could be wrong, but Ned seems more likely.
  8. Will all Freys die? Probably not, there are a lot of them all over Westeros. A better question is whether or not the Freys keep the Twins and remain powerful and politically relevant. My hunch is the Freys lose significant power, and even the Twins with many Freys dying. The kinslaying taboo seems very robust in Westeros. The North remembers, and their tenuous alliance with the Lannisters sans-Tywin does not bode well for them either. Perhaps Dany actually returns to Westeros and exhibits fervent hatred for the "usurper's dogs" including Starks and thus could view the Freys in a positive light and ally with them as a result. I find this very dubious.
  9. Sansa was extremely entitled and it showed in AGOT, the incident with Joffrey on the Trident and her decision to reveal Ned's plans to Cersei after Robert's death epitomize her character flaws as a result of her privileged background and status. She was one of my least favorite characters in AGOT, her naivete drove me nuts, but then again she was very young. Since then, she had to grow up quick, I hope she doesn't remain under LF's influence for the rest of the series.
  10. Yes, had House Baratheon kept it together, the dynamics would've been very different. Some argue the Blackfish played a major role in Robb's victories as opposed to inexperienced Robb being a military genius. This is also why I'm not a Stannis apologist. He's got a great story arc, but his stubbornness forces.him to push his "rightful" claim despite having almost no friends and a tenuous heir situation with Shireen. Some sense of "honor" or "justice" are catastrophic for both Stannis and Robb. I don't think ASOIF will forgive Stannis' kinslaying. I agree in general - I don't know if it was literally "the day Renly died" but just the consistent disunity in House Baratheon after Robert died and the collapse of the Baratheon-Tyrell alliance. It wasn't Tywin's military brilliance that won WO5K, but his agile political maneuvering. It wasn't lack of military ability that doomed the Stark-Tully forces, but Robb's immense lack of political acumen.
  11. Yes. Theon is a failed turncloak, killed two kids to cover up his own incompetence. Sure, he has sympathetic elements, but for me murdering children to save face is a bridge too far, no matter who your parents were or how you grew up. It doesn't mean he's unsympathetic or the worst of characters on level of Ramsay, the Mountain or Euron. Nor does it mean he is not an interesting character. Unless you're a hardcore Theon apologist, it's very difficult to smooth over his epic character flaws: arrogance, incompetence and frankly he's just not that bright.
  12. Yes, with major caveats. You have to set aside variables outside pure military acumen. Ned and Robb were not deft political operators and the Starks suffered severely for it. They could not compete with Tywin politically, especially without the Baratheons. At the same time, it's hard to dispute the martial prowess of the Stark-Tully forces. The Greenfork would've been a toss-up. Perhaps swift action after the Battle of the Camps could've caught Tywin outside of Harrenhall, that and the trap ruined by Edmure were Robb's best chances. Could Robb have won? Sure. Think if the Baratheons kept it together and the Baratheon-Tyrell alliance joined with the North-Riverlands forces against the Lannisters. Not to mention the Lannister-hating Dornish. They would've gone the way of the Reynes. I'm not convinced House Lannister survives the series.
  13. Of course, I never said Theon had it easy or there are not explanations for his flaws and crimes. I'm saying those circumstances do not absolve him of his cruelty or stupidity. Mitigating cirumstances do not erase murder. Usually, mitigating circumstances refer to the sentencing phase of court cases and it doesn't mean you get a pass - you might get your sentence reduced. I get it, you like Theon and you're going to be his apologist. I'm not, but I think he's an interesting character worth discussing. Is he evil on the order to Gregor Clegane or Ramsay? Probably not, but he made some grave mistakes that are not so easily dismissed and he will continue to suffer for them.
  14. I would say the difference is volition and the reasoning behind the action. Nowhere did I say Theon "doesn't get to have a reason". Theon has his reasons for targeting and murdering 2 specific children: covering up his own stupidity in the incompetent attempt to seize and hold Winterfell. He intended to kill those boys to cover up weakness. I'm not aware of Robb committing murder to cover up his own incompetence. Is Robb innocent? Of course not! His war against a sadisitic, sociopathic and illegitimate child king led to the deaths of many, but I don't recall him committing murder like Theon. That's why I find it silly to be an apologist for any one character, or defending them no matter what, they're all flawed.
  15. Shenanigans. Concocting a plan to murder two children to cover up one's own stupidity is not the same as unintended war casualties. By that logic, basically any head of state anywhere that ever fought a war is the moral equivalent of a child murderer.