• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About black_hart

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,162 profile views
  1. Yeah, contrarian topic time. As Jon Snow might have said: We simply don't know enough about them. But stating that is of course not enough, ... instead we pull out the poor misunderstood ice creatures in fear of global warming and subsequent melting. As this does not convince, we invent atrocities against them (although the text is abundantly clear that Mance Rayder has not been able to destroy even a single white walker). Some proposed new topics: Craster - a maligned voice for coexistence? White walkers - the 'polar bears' of Westeros? Human sacrifice and ecology - maintaining the equilibrium north of the Wall.
  2. In some way she reciprocates. He forced her to live on against her will when she attempts suicide by Frey. She now forces him to live on against his will.
  3. What is happening here is a deep reading uncovering ever more hidden mysteries and foreshadowmancing the content of future books by the clues given at present, in short esoteric reading. Similar things happened to other books people were obsessing about (mostly religious ones). This is all fun and games on some level, but I am somewhat disturbed by the erosion of critical thinking, selective reading and willingness to believe completely made up etc. this entails. E.g. one argument is that Joff says "Send a dog to kill a dog." and not as Tyrion remembers "Send a dog to kill a wolf." This is endlessly elaborated to undermine the credibility of Tyrion. This fine argument goes on unperturbed by the fact that the conversation is indeed about killing a wolf. With Tyrion undermined, however, the same conversation can be used to claim "Joff didn't want to kill anyone, just this direwolf." Again this goes unperturbed by the many instances in the books where anti-direwolf sentiment / wolf-killing is either foreshadowing or veiled expression of anti-Stark sentiment or even used directly as code for killing Starks. (Theon and the pups, the two Walders, death of Lady, Roose hunting wolves, Tywin Lannister / Walder Frey veiled communication about the red wedding etc.) Now with every sensible reading undermined people are starting to grasp for straws - you want to believe something after all - and you are presented with some alternative narrative that wouldn't convince anyone when presented in direct opposition to the normal reading. You can find a similar procedure in several of his theories: "X is unreliable.", "But Y is always wrong." or to the famous "Z is a big liar." so crucial to various Dorne/Dragonstone theories. A sad side effect of all this is that you stop enjoying the story as you once had. Joff sending the assassin is suddenly unsatisfying, because it doesn't involve the freemasons the dornish master plan or whatever. Esotericism is a drug, once you had it, plain reading doesn't do it anymore. And yes, the skill to conjure doubt from minor inconsistencies and then pull out a completely different narrative (w/ very little positive evidence on its own) out of this doubt is something very handy for lawyers, diplomats etc.
  4. Sometimes I wonder whether PJ does his channel in his dayjob... trying to see how far you can push a narrative and still have people buying into it. How selectively are you willing to read? How much are you investing in it just for contrarianism, shock value? How much "X is the biggest liar." and "Y is always wrong." is still convincing more people than it pushes away?
  5. Most moral: Many great acts already mentioned, but Syrio Forel standing his ground to safe Arya deserves mention as well. Least moral: Many horrible people mentioned, I want to add everything Petyr Baelish, Cersei & Dr. Frankenstein.
  6. Yet, they did. (Though I guess you are a lemon cream / Tyrion was the intended victim man.) What really concerns me is how you laugh off evidence from the book. You have multiple PoV's telling you Joffrey is known for and fond of letting people fight to death and one case where he clearly is commanding it, but you go all ... "young man shooting his mouth off, just a bit of bragging, nothing to see here and even if it is not relevant". I gave you three quotes, so: Does Joffrey let people fight to death? Yes or no? If it isn't relevant, why the denial?
  7. There is a type of crackpot that goes like that: 1. X is a liar. 2. X says it is raining in the Riverlands. 3. Having established that there is a drought in the Riverlands ...
  8. He transitioned from a date with Sansa to trying to kill her sister within seconds. Seriously, we have his fondness of duels to death stated as fact from two narrators (both Sansa and Tyrion), we don't see the duel happen on page, but we see enough. No evidence hmmph. Sansa VI, AGoT: Two knights came to him with a dispute about some land, and he decreed that they should duel for it on the morrow. "To the death," he added. Sansa: The king laughed. "My dog has a fierce bark. Perhaps I should command him to fight the day's champion. To the death." Joffrey was fond of making men fight to the death. Tyrion: Joff's fondness for making men fight to the death was trial enough; he had no intention of allowing the boy to taste the possibilities of burning them alive.
  9. Really? We are talking about Joffrey the Abomination, first of his name. The guy who personally shoots people begging for bread? Takes time in battle for personal sadistic pleasures (tossing prisoners over the wall) instead of being useful? Attacks playing children with a weapon? Tries to kill a girl whose sister he is dating (betrothed)? Calls execution mercy? Sends an assassin to a crippled child? Does justice by making ppl fight to the death for his amusement? This man is no danger to Margaery and only Littlefinger could be origin of that notion. Really?
  10. Imo there is a lot of wishful thinking in the OP (and why would Jon need three swords?), but I agree to this. Stubborn Stannis is indeed one of the few people I can imagine abdicating to someone he sees as legitimate.
  11. Given that Joffrey was killed at his wedding and Sansa+Tyrion framed for this murder (mostly by LF, but Tyrells had to knew about the hairnet as well) the obvious question is: Was a murder plot already planned at this point w/o the specifics? If yes then the Tyrell's had no intention whatsoever to follow through with their post-wedding proposal to Sansa. The whole investigation of Joffrey's character etc. looks different in this light, i.e. as part of setting up Sansa as scapegoat. Or the plot only went ahead because Sansa Tyrell was thwarted by LF blabbing to Lannister.
  12. I know. This is why I said Catelyn is the only sensible one.
  13. Around the parley there was still another option: Neither side giving up their claim, but the calling of a Great Council. That could have been the sensible decision avoiding war, whatever comes out of it. (Given his backing, Renly winning a Great Council is not even unlikely.) Some war would still happen between pro-council and anti-council (Lannister mainly) factions. Catelyn was plainly the only sensible person there.
  14. With Renly supporting his elder brother dutifully, the war might not even happen. Eddard Stark was about to declare Stannis king and fails in good part due to his own mistakes and Sansa's loose tongue, but the chance to act is wasted partly because Renly would not fall in line and only move to benefit himself. Stannis' later inflexibility toward Robb would not even matter. Whether the Tyrells would go against a Stannis-Renly-Stark-Tully (Riverlands already under attack) combination is far from obvious. They may dislike it, but such a coalition would have been much more formidable than what they faced in the given story. (Though of course there would be no story, if we get a Stannis succession, Eddard Stark alive as Hand of King and Arya taking lessons with Syrio Forel, Bran dating Shireen whatever ...)
  15. At least mention Loras Tyrell in this thread. The knight of flowers. Half the maidens dream of him ... but all they can hope for is a smile and flower.