• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Rank
    No One

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York
  • Interests
    stuff....also, things

Recent Profile Visitors

6,393 profile views
  1. I would honestly be inclined to believe you here if death wasn't a risk for Theon. He has been begging for it for quite some time. The rescue of Jeyne is a win win for him. If he succeeds he regains some bit of his former self. If he fails he dies.
  2. I am sorry, sometimes I type quickly and don't really get my thoughts in order and then put them out. More or less, what you say here is exactly what I meant. The comparison to Jamie was just to underscore the point. I couched it in terms of Theon wanting to go back to his formerly repugnant self unlike Jamie wanting to grow into the man that he wished he had been before he forgot who he was. With the initial question "has theon become a better person" I merely stated that better and worse are very fluid in this world except for when it comes to real extremes. Hell, there is even a sympathetic story for the mountain. But as far as character growth Theon only wants to become what he was before which is a moral flaw in my opinion. I do like that you saw he wasn't even theon for much of it. That is, of course, exactly right and an angle I didn't consider.
  3. I think @Lady Dacey is exactly right. Calling someone "good" especially in asoiaf is a really sticky thing. You would, in order to do this, have to first lay out an objective moral system that works in this universe and I believe that is impossible. What you can say about Theon is that he has certainly become more well behaved. But a beaten dog behaving well is in no way representative of his moral growth as a character. Think of the difference between Jamie and Theon. Both were mutilated (though admittedly Theon seems to have got the worst of it) but Jamie's character arc since he was, uh, unhanded, has been through introspection whereas Theon's character arc has been through submission. Even as he regains some part of himself it is only in opposition to Reek and in turn Ramsey. Theon isn't trying to GROW and be a better man than the Theon prior to his taking of Winterfell. He is trying to GO BACK to the way he was before his imprisonment and torture. Whether or not this is "good" or "bad" or "evil" or whatever is impossible to say and truly irrelevant in the end. What is important is that Theon is idealizing a former version of himself unlike Jamie who is trying to become a better version of who he was prior to his misfortunes.
  4. I will discount Jorah because he was an anointed knight which means he had learned to joust, but I can't argue about Brandon and Jory. I never picture Northerner's jousting though. I suppose it is possible that Lyanna has some training in the joust. It still seems totally implausible that a 12 year old Lyanna would be up to Jousting with squires even if she was an excellent horseback rider. I def concede your point as you have made it clear, but I still find it unlikely that she would have been trained in the joust and been trained well enough to beat three separate squires. The best I can give you is moving it from impossible to unlikely in my mind, but well argued for sure. A million apologies! you are 100% right. I am at work and not thinking straight, but totally my fault. Here you are incorrect. This is like saying it isn't hard to hit a homerun against a major league pitcher, you just have to make solid contact with the ball in the right position with the right part of the bat. It may seem like a simple thing in physics, but I assure you that charging down a knight with lance in hand and landing a shot good enough to unseat him is not only not easy, but for someone with no training nearly impossible. I would find her beating them in a sword fight or melee more plausible I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your concept of the skills required for a joust. There were tourney's and champions for a reason. This was a sport of skill (as opposed to the melee) and precision. Saying that anyone with balance can do it is like saying that anyone who can run fast can be a pro running back. AS before, I totally apologize. Of course it was the knights and not the squires. I had a moment in the brain box and I thank you for pointing it out. It is suggested above that any good rider with balance could joust but even assuming that she could, without formal training, charge past the nerves, support the weight of the armor, hold, much less aim the lance, hit in such a way that the force doesn't break the lance but knocks the other rider down AND keep her seat all at the same time she would still have to do it all against the westerosi version of pro athletes. Is it possible? Sure. This is ASOIAF. But I am going to need some seriously convincing evidence or the word of grrm himself to really believe it.
  5. Your point is 100% correct for the trope. The one and only problem I have with Lyanna being knight of laughing tree is that she so soundly defeats three squires and not just in a fight but in jousting. It would maybe be easier to believe if it was a melee. But jousting is a skill that is a) taught to squires by knights and b ) not taught to northerners. I would imagine that even a full grown, seasoned Jon Snow would have trouble unseating a amateur jouster like a squire in the same way that Michael Jordan had problems playing baseball or Shaq had problems acting. Her age, her size and her gender not withstanding, there is no reason to think that a person with zero training could unhorse not one (maybe get lucky) but three separate squires in a tourney
  6. I would gladly give up my trophy for the books
  7. that TWOW and ADOS will ever be published
  8. Touche The labeling of "the arrogant" has always seemed odd to me. Makes sense. Thinking about the title it occurs to me that I never fully understood how the Scots used "The Bruce (Brus)" Like Robert the Bruce. What did it mean to be The Bruce of something. I swear I read the wiki and still don't get it. Wonder if this might be at play
  9. Why did Tyrion go to Harrenhall? Because that is where Hoares Whent.
  10. SweetSunray this is EXACTLY why I post things here. It never would of occurred to me that there was even a possibility of the female name being taken. Awesome.
  11. I think this is the most reasonable explanation for the use. So there is "a stark of winterfell" which is a stark family member and "The Stark" which is the lord probably kind of out of fashion First Men way of saying it with the Clans and the Free Folk. But then this brings up my other question: If it is the case that house Stark comes from Bran the Builder who was the grandson of Garth Greenhand (and I know it is a big IF but I buy it) then when Bran got to the north was there A Stark? How did Bran become The Stark
  12. It really is something that bugs me. Regional thing is possible and would account for a few issues, but not all of them
  13. Because the founder of that house, the Bronze king, was named Royce so it makes sense. I am a believer that Garth was BotBB's father and BotBB was, in turn, Bran the Builders father. You are right, it is speculation, but I think the internal logic is coherent and pans out. That argument aside, the hypothetical still stands If Garth is Brandon of the Bloody Blade's father and if BotBB is Bran the Builder's father then at some point Bran the Builder (or one of his children) intentionally took the name Stark as a surname and if so they must have did it for a reason. I grant that if Garth is not an ancestor then the question loses some interest though.
  14. I have often wondered this as well. Maybe it is just a northern way of speaking, but who knows. It would explain some problems and create others so I don't know. I think the way they use The Stark of Winterfell makes me feel that it is possible in the age of Heros that Brandon found The Stark of the north or The Stark of something and was somehow given that title and became, after building it, The Stark of Winterfell. So again, possible, but I just don't know. I do not like that there is really no satisfying answer. Of course @The Transporter is right that the name does describe the members of the family and is a way for George to let the reader know what to expect, but I just want more. Further, while Stark does accurately describe Ned, Jon and too a slightly lesser degree Robb, Bran and Arya it doesn't describe Sansa. Moreover, it doesn't really describe Brandon (Ned's Brother) and I have my doubts that Rickard was much like Ned. Other famous Starks like Theon the Hungry Wolf. This is an 8000 year lineage, the idea that Ned's personality is the norm is nowhere to be found really.
  15. Stark is obviously a surname but there are several occasions when it is used as a title as in "The Stark of Winterfell" which, unlike "a stark of winterfell" which seems to mean a stark family member in the line of the lord, seems like a title. The reason I ask is because I am wondering where "Stark" came from. Was Bran the Builder Brandon Stark? What about Brandon of the Bloody Blade? By rights he should have been Brandon Greenhand. At some point in the age of Heros between Brandon of the Bloody Blade coming to maturity and going out into the world and making his mark on it and Bran the Builder building winterfell the name (or title) Stark was taken and I was curious as to when, why, how etc. Most other names make sense. Garth Greenhand founding house Gardener, Lann the Clever with Lannisters, Durran and House Durrandon. That we really have no common sense reason for why Brandon would take the name stark short of the horribly unsatisfying "hey, sure is stark up here maybe i'll use that as a name" seems to be important to me.