• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

  • Rank
  1. ADWD character summary: Going to the wall: The missing eye:
  2. No they are wolves. The Tyrells are roses. The blue rose is only associated with Lyanna so far in the series. That's the connection between her and her progeny. Besides you forget that Bran is born after the war. He's too young to be Lyanna's son, who dies shortly after Rhaegar, just around the time the war concludes. Bran is not at the Wall. He is beyond the wall. Have you read the books? There's a near literal three eyed crow there, Bloodraven. Bran is not that yet but he is learning under him and one day might take up the mantle.
  3. Great choices. I don't know why people are choosing Stannis and Tywin. Tywin is a conniving brute who's only solution is to send Gregor Clegane to wreak havoc. We see this in the War of Five Kings and we all know how he won the favor of Robert B. If he ever faces WW, he'd be smart enough to identify a threat he can't defeat. He'd probably cut a deal like Craster. As for Stannis, he's extremely gullible and WW would just confuse him to death. It's also not just the cold weather that's the problem. WW have superior armor and weapons. Plus, one WW is seemingly able to take out a human knight without much effort, as seen in the very first prologue. So having a general who knows WW and their way would be necessary to win. So far, no one seems to hold this knowledge. Jorah understands the threat so he'll be quite well suited. Not sure if Mance knows about WW more than the rest of the crows. I'd go with Quaithe, the mage from Asshai because she seems to know what's going on. Or maybe she could be intel or something. Didn't the First Men team up with children of the forest to defeat the WW? So I guess I'd choose one of the children for the other general. Then I'd get Dany as the field marshal because, dragons, and bird's eye view of the battlefield.
  4. So what strong connection does Bran have to blue roses? He's the warg with the connection to weirwoods. We also know now that he ends up with the three-eyed crow. So how is he the blue rose growing up at the Wall? "Filling the air with sweetness" is something that happens at the Wall, not back in Winterfell. Obviously, the massive tomes of books are not all about Jon and his parentage. No one is contesting Bran's importance to the story either.
  5. a "wall made of ice" is pretty much The Wall. Bran isn't at the wall, Jon is. Why would a gate be represented as a tiny gap? What does Bran have to do with blue roses filling the air with sweetness? The signs here are obvious.
  6. Are you talking about women in the book or women irl? In any case, as others have pointed out, Stannis is a misogynist and maybe even a gynephobe. He's a typical patriarchal head in the same vein as Tywin and the elder Tarly. He's also a sort of a zealot who thinks too much of himself. While Stannis is considered "honorable" in terms of his military and lordly service, more so in comparison to his two brothers, his faults outnumber his good points. Additionally, Stannis is kind of stupid. May I point out the scene in ACoK when he pulls out "lightbringer": The scene is hilarious and is really all you need to know about Stannis. Jon Snow, on the other hand, is nothing like Stannis. He's smart enough to distinguish magic tricks from the real thing. Also, while he is proud, he is not overly vain and self obsessed. But what really distinguishes Jon from men like Stannis is that he can rise above the groupthink. Even if he is a bastard, he is still a lordling, but that doesn't stop him from being kind to Sam and other "low born" crows. He respects women even if he lives in a highly misogynistic society. He doesn't do things he believes are wrong, even if his society accepts them (he refuses to go to mole town for "digging" for example). But I don't know why women find Jon oh-so attractive as you say. It could be because he's younger than Stannis. I find Jon to be a pleasant character, but not a particularly attractive one. I would not take Melisandre's word for how alike Jon and Stannis are. We know just how wrong she can be.
  7. Going through the red waste was the only good decision that was available to her. It was either that, or go one of the other ways and risk getting killed or enslaved. It's not a decision she made impulsively (Jorah insists on it). Also, she follows the red comet because there's nothing else to do. And the Dothraki are superstitious, so following the comet keep their hope and faith intact (the reason for her vocal insistence on following the comet). In the end, it turns out to be the right decision. Whether it was coincidence or not depends. The red comet obviously has magical connotations in the books. And it was the bloodrider that followed the comet who finds Quarth, Dany's destination after that dead city. I wouldn't say Dany's decision in this regard is like jumping off a cliff. She faced an impossible situation and did the best she could. If she had jumped off a cliff, she would have abandoned the remains of Drogo's khalasar and sailed off to Asshai with Jorah. She doesn't do that. She stays with the elderly and the sick and leads them to safety. She's a bit like Nymeria (the Rhoynar queen) in this regard.
  8. Mine too! Arya is my all time fav POV character in the books! I can't even explain why. I got so absorbed in her POV in AFFC and I didn't even care that some other main POVs were absent (also DwD had come out when I started reading). I like that fact that she's a survivor like you mentioned. She's also really smart (in GoT, when they are on the way to King's Landing, Arya can enumerate the flowers they have seen). And she doesn't let anyone walk all over her either (beating up Hot Pie in ACoK). She also carries this anger and hatred inside, but doesn't curl up in the corner and cry about it. She has the only POV that's in all 5 books, so I suspect she's more important than we realize. I have Dany as my second favorite. Though she did really frustrate me in DwD (chaining up the dragons, ugh Daario), she has one of the most unique POVs in the books. She overcomes impossible situations, and is also a survivor, kind of like Arya. I mean, she's a young girl in a world that's really dangerous to young girls, but she ends up being the dragon queen. She also shows the ability to rise above prejudice that everyone else holds. Above all, she can empathize, a characteristic most other characters in the story lack. After that, I go with the direwolves and the dragons.
  9. I'm not sure I get your point about Elmina. If you are referring to the fact that it is really poor today (no grand structures) considering that it was a major trading port centuries ago? That's because it's was a colony. The cities in Slaver's Bay are not colonies. The Portuguese, Dutch, and later British used places like Elmina for trade, but never intended to settle. So they never invested in the cities themselves. I made the same point about Singapore before. Back in the day, Singapore was a major trading port for all the European trading companies. But that didn't result in Singapore seeing development parallel to, say, Lisbon. It was much later, following independence, that Singapore got rich. The case is different for Slaver's Bay, where the slavers trade slave in their native lands (they are not simultaneously colonists as well). So there's an incentive to build grand cities because that's their homeland. Well, slavery is always viable in an agrarian economy. Look at agriculture in general today. It's notably more advanced with machinery and whatnot, but who picks the strawberries? The agriculture sector in the U.S. is still heavily dependent on underpaid labor. Even in Latin America, parts of Asia, and elsewhere, farming is lucrative, but the laborers get paid pretty much nothing. The industrial north switched to machines replacing most of the unskilled labor. Would you say that the years and money spent researching these machines and building them are not worth the returns? The machines can work 24/7 and don't demand salaries. Companies save tons of money replacing people with machines. Likewise, having unpaid workers, whether skilled or not, who work all day is far more cost efficient than having paid workers who work shifts. If you are referring to the Unsullied, the super commando soldiers, of course they are worth the price that costs to train them, house them and feed them. They are trained soldiers. The cities and merchants in Essos are super rich, and they face serious threats like the Dothraki. They are not miserly when it comes to defense. In fact, it seems an area they tend to splurge in. Even today, rich countries and people spend freely for security and defense tech, and also soldiers. In GoT, Dany describes how Pentos spends on sellswords and Unsullied guards when the Dothraki turns up. Imagine how much more the sellswords would cost if they were as skilled, loyal and disciplined as the Unsullied. That's why the slavers bother to train the Unsullied. The ones they lose are considered weak and the stronger the bunch is, the more they are worth. I have zero knowledge of botany, but I do get what you are trying to say. I remember in ACoK, Arya eats corn on her way to the north. If Westeros is based on medieval Britain then where did the corn come from? How do they even grow it there? Details like that definitely raise eyebrows. GRRM probably didn't spend that much attention when he wrote some of the stuff. So we shouldn't either, I think. It's exactly the POV structure that made me think that he's showing not telling. There's no third-person omnipresent narrator, which would have sent the books spiraling into the telling category. In fact, the author's voice is totally absent. We see what the characters see, and we know what the characters think. We are supposed to put two and two together based on all that. That, for me, is showing not telling. And that's also what makes the books so immersive and feel so real.
  10. When I read the Slaver's Bay parts in the books, it reminded me most of the factors of the transatlantic slave trade from the school history books. I'm not actually making an highly educated historical comparison here. I'm sure there are similar to Roman and Arab slavery here as well. But people getting nabbed from here and there for the sole purpose of becoming slaves strongly apparels the transatlantic slave trade. Owning a human is expensive, but not if that human can be turned into a commodity that generates revenue that exceeds that cost. The Essoi slavers are doing that buy training slaves into being servants, farmers, or soldiers. Then they buy or rent them, making these slaves their main source of income. The slaves are their finished goods. American South shows that slavery is a highly viable and lucrative enterprise when you take the out the human factor of it all. The African slaves in history did serve as foot soldiers to British and Portuguese quite prominently as I remember. I have no idea about Elmina so I don't get the point here. I think GRRM is getting inspiration from many places from early to very late medieval periods. I didn't say hybrid economies, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I know GRRM is heavily basing this on medieval European history, but when I read about Braavos, the state founded by slaves, the first thing that came to my mind was Haiti, not a medieval European city. GRRM is a shower, not teller, so I think that allows him not to detail every single thing. We are to discern how things are. I mean, we know Ned was the lord of Winterfell, but do we really need to know how he collected taxes? I agree that nitpicking over some things is kind of senseless. What do you mean about the "way phenotypes follow surnames" or evolution of plants? Totally at a loss here.
  11. Yes, Braavos has no value as a trading outpost, and it's not like the they don't know it. A country or a place doesn't have to have value as a trading port to get rich in the real world or in ASOIAF world (Highgarden, Casterly Rock, etc). The comparison I made with Singapore was to illustrate that point. Obviously, a medieval made-up world doesn't have the same tech as in the real world. As I mentioned, Singapore didn't make its money being a trading post, it did so using financial instruments like investment banking you mention. Braavos tries a medieval fantasy world equivalent of this. That's how they got rich. You wondered why Braavos is rich when they don't have any natural resources and is located so far off the main trading routes, and that's the likely reason. Braavos does have other valuable commodities, like the purple dye that gets so famous. Also I forgot to mention Faceless Men. I know they are only one group, but we know they are world famous assassins that cost a lot of money to hire. The FM would be another major commodity Braavos has, like Swiss mercenaries in the middle ages. The slaves are their valuable commodity. It's like buying raw metal and turning it into a value-added commodity like steel pipes. I know it's a crude comparison but this is the basic economic model that sustains this region. Salver's Bay is like the middle man between the plantation owner and the African warlord. There's apparently high demand for the slaves in Essos, so how can they not profit? The slaves also provide unpaid labor to the slavers, that's more money saved. Can you maybe specify how this model is nonviable? It doesn't matter if the some of the boys die during training, because their lives are worth nothing financially to the trainers. They can always get more. The boys are only worth once they become fully trained Unsullied. What do you mean "economically unproductive"? They provide much needed protection to the highlords and rich states like Pentos. Threats like the Dothraki makes the Unsullied another invaluable commodity. The rich pay a lot to hire or buy the Unsullied. Also, the Unsullied provide protection to the slavers, so this is their army too. And it's an army they don't have to pay for. They only have to pay for the training, and selling and renting the Unsullied covers that cost. This again reminds me of the Swiss mercenaries (in the way of profit, not the training and the enslavement). I'm not sure about which slave soldiers you are talking about. I'm talking about the salve soldiers of colonial Portuguese. The Portuguese sent enslaved men to fight their colonial wars in places like South Asia. These slave soldiers were not paid, and certainly didn't get any benefits. They were not highly trained like the Unsullied, but they did get basic training. The Unsullied serves a similar purpose, where the slavers can own a deadly army without the typical costs associated with one. Are you talking about the price revolution? It was caused by several factors from what I remember. There was an oversupply of gold and silver, because Spain was mining the stuff in the Americas and sending them over to native land where the demand didn't match the supply. That is definitely not what is happening at Casterly Rock. What makes you think the Lannisters are mining "unlimited" amounts of gold? They have gold rich land and they sell this gold everywhere in the world. The worldwide demand clearly outweighs the supply so the metal remains precious. In addition to raw gold, they make stuff with gold, so value added commodities.That's why the Lannisters are filthy rich. By cash do you mean gold dragons? Lannisport trades with Essos and it is mentioned in the books. GoT even has a gold trader from Lannisport trading in the Dothraki western market. The Essoi ships have to go to Lannisport to get their gold. Being on the other side doesn't matter here apparently. Places like White Harbor are closer, but the trade there flows from east to the west where eastern goods are purchased by the Westerosi. So they don't get rich like Lannisport, where the ships come to buy Lannister gold. Maybe you are right, but I don't get how you are making these calculations. How do we know how much money partying costs in Westeros? Ned shows shock when he realizes Robert has put the realm in millions of debt. He clearly is an incompetent ruler. He doesn't even attend the finance meetings. Robert is negligent, ignorant and should never have been on the throne. Even he realizes it in the end. Ned's fault is his inability to stand up to his friend (and also underestimating political opponents. How could he seriously think that Cersei would tuck her tail and flee to Essos if her kids were in danger? She is the richest daughter in Westeros!) Lol. GRRM doesn't specifically detail the how the lord system works in Westeros either, but we do understand it to be a feudal system with landowning lords. He is not explicitly describing the economy in a similar manner, so why would it somehow not resemble a plausible historical economic system? I don't see any glaring plot holes here or even minor ones that are inexplicable.
  12. Braavos gets rich by trading in secret with Westeros and some other kingdoms for reasons that are actually important to the overall plot. (Being Secret City is very important to Braavos history, and also to the overall story about the fire magic thing). Obviously, they managed to achieve this without being in the middle of a trade route. I don't have much knowledge of ancient Venice, but Braavos reminds me a bit of modern day Singapore. Sure, Singapore is in the smack middle of a major shipping route, but that's not how they got rich. (When it was a colonial outpost, the pace was a real criminal-infested dump in fact.) The city state has absolutely nothing in terms of natural or land resources, but they got rich by playing at finance. TWOIAF mentions Braavosi made a special dye, that was their first major commodity, and they expanded. The trade routes were already established by the Valyrians, so Braavosi only had to get their goods there. And then, like Singapore, they got rich using financial instruments I suppose, mainly the Iron Bank. The original escaped slaves there were also skilled apparently, so it's not hard to believe that they managed to build something out of nothing. Also, Braavosi don't make their own ships as far as I remember. The original ships they got were stolen Valyrian ones, and afterwards they probably bought ships or the wood to make them. Obviously, the slave cities are based on the slave economy of America and Europe during the colonial era. The economy of the American south, for example, was entirely built on slave labor, and the south got really rich off that until the Civil War. The slavers own the slaves, they don't have to pay them. That's a lot of money saved on paying for labor. And the slaves do everything from farming to soldiering without getting an actual salary. Slaves are the in-demand commodity of free cities, and they sell chattel around the world so it's not hard to believe that they turn a major profit. We don't see many slaves in Westeros, but even some Westerosi buy them, like Patchface (but when they come to Westeros they are not legally slaves). Also, how can slave soldiers not be profitable? Maintaining an army is expensive when you have to actually pay the soldiers. But when you can just own the soldiers, like the arrows and the swords, you only have to pay for food, clothing, etc, and not a salary. The money and resources spent on training the slaves would be similar to training a non-slave army. And now imagine how much the slavers can save by not paying extra salaries. And the Unsullied are a highly trained force. Cities like Pentos, which are super rich thanks to trading commodities with the far east, apparently pay those slaver cities a lot of money to hire or buy Unsullied, so the bottom line is more than covered. Why would buying slaves not be profitable? The slave cities pay next to nothing for get the slaves from Dothraki and pirates and whatever. It doesn't cost anything for the slave grabbers to enslave people, and whatever they get in return for human chattel is profitable. For the slavers, they can pay little for slaves and then pay a bit more to get them trained, and then they have a highly valued commodity to sell or use. So I don't really see the problem how the slave trade can not be lucrative for places like Mereen. That's exactly the reason why such a horribly oppressive system endures. I highly doubt the gold mines Casterly Rock produces "unlimited amounts of gold." It doesn't get devalued because the demand across the world is bigger than the supply from this one place. Remember, The Lannisters sell gold in Essos as well. Also, Lannisters are rich because they control Lannisport, the main trade connection between the east and the west. The Tyrells produce the most food on the realm but I don't see them selling it across the realm. Westeros has an agrarian economy with small local farms. Tyrells probably sell some of the food, especially to nearby areas, but not everywhere. Food is a perishable good, while gold is not. That's why Lannisters can sell gold around the world and profit like crazy. As for the point you make about winter, the people are obviously not preparing for it. No one is storing food, the opposite is happening where farming land is destroyed by war. And the fact that Robert bankrupted the realm thanks to his negligence and ignorance about basic economy is not an in-story perception. We are told how much debt Robert puts the realm in so we are the ones making that connection. The Hound wins only 40,000 as the champion. Nearly 90,000 is spent on all the winners of various competitions. Well, if the Lannisters managed to give the crown 3 million gold dragons, 40, 000 is not enough to become the wealthiest man in Westeros overnight. Also, land ownership is the real marker of wealth in the realm, not currency. I don't remember the time period where these people spent the money. But if someone has cash on hand, it will definitely get spent, especially when they are aimlessly wandering. There are no banks in Westeros or a concept of saving cash. So the natural instinct would be to spend cash without risking it getting stolen (especially for a traveller). It's really easy to spend money at bars, even in ancient ones, because these places are just giant traps that get drunk men to spend money mindlessly. So it's not completely unbelievable that happens. Even the good majority of people who win lotteries today don't manage to keep their money. GRRM is not giving us a highly detailed account of the economic system in Westeros and Essos to draw definitive conclusions clearly. It's based on how economics were conducted in the medieval and colonial periods, so I don't really see how what he has written so far makes no sense.
  13. Some POV chapters, like Arya's, do mention what the common people think or feel about what the people in power do. It's mostly along the lines of "this is how things are". So that's already established. Having just one commoner POV would do terrible injustice the number of opinions being involved. GRRM may include like a prologue or standalone chapter coming from a commoner POV exclusively in the upcoming books, mostly to show what the war has done to things like the food supply and how that fares with the coming winter.
  14. How so?
  15. We get some commoner perspective from Arya's chapters, especially in GoT when she's at Flea Bottom.