• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LuisDantas

  • Rank
    Morituri Delendi
  • Birthday January 9

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    [email protected]
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3,216 profile views
  1. Yeah... he is basically your archetypical Mafia Capo, Westeros-style. He only rarely orders someone killed if he can convince an accomplice to do it on his stead. After all, he has a reputation to care for. Such a flower of a person.
  2. Why? Show Stannis never made a point of stating his relutance in refusing to kill Edric Storm, for one. IIRC he was not made to kill whole villages for R'hllor in ACOK either. Nor did he kill Cortnay Penrose out of personal convenience. And he did enjoy a lot of sympathetic scenes that canon Stannis has been denied, as well.
  3. Obviously, the show does not follow the books all that close - Sansa, Brienne, Jorah and Jaime among others are in places and situations that just can't be reconciled with the books. Also, Stannis himself has made it very plain that he does not care much about his odds of winning; he just does whatever has a better chance of not leading to a loss, regardless of risk or dishonor. That is true even in the TV show, which booted out the barbecue-maker of the books to present a fanfic family-friendly version of the character in his place. Far from making it clear that Stannis will win, ADWD makes it rather very clear that he is close to total ruin. His soldiers are resorting to cannibalism to avoid starving to death. He does have a couple of cards in his sleeve, but certainly nothing that ensures his victory or even his survival for long enough to face the Boltons. Also, this is medieval battle. Not the most predictable of things to begin with. But it seems to me that the real issue is that the trailing two episodes of season 5 made it clear that even the show version of Stannis, sanitized as he is, is still not honorable nor a particularly central character, a revelation that many people seem to have trouble with.
  4. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    I am still waiting for some source on that policy. Which, really, is difficult to accept, to say the least.
  5. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    Come to think of it, plot-relevant actions should overrule spoken words anyway. TWOIAF I have yet to read (gimme a couple of weeks). It does seem to be something of a special case, though.
  6. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    No, that is indeed what I meant. By your understanding, there are no actual characters appearing in TRP, TPATQ, nor TWoIaF. That is of course accurate by a certain perspective, but is more than a bit self-defeating as well. Rhaenyra and others do appear in TPATQ in a meaningful way, even if it can be suspected of inaccuracy. In order not to be much too loose about what constitutes an appearance, I suggest as a starting point that a character must have his words spoken in the first person somewhere in the tale, and it must be during the timeframe of the main story. So, for instance, Prince Daeron Targaryen (who spoke about Tessarion) has an appearance in TPATQ, as do all of Rhaenyra's sons except for Viserys and Visenya, while her father Viserys I (who dies early during the time frame and is mentioned many times) is only mentioned. Another character that is mentioned as opposed to making an appearance is Alyn of Hull. Going by those criteria, though, Addam of Hull would IIRC not be making an appearance despite having unquestionably been an active part of the tale, to the point of being decisive to the overall plot beyond any reasonable controversies. That does at least feel unfair. So what about: "A character's status in a book or tale should be recorded as mentioned if either the narrator or any of the characters with speaking parts mentions him unequivocally, preferably by name. If the character also has speaking parts, even if brief, or is uncontroversially the performer of actions with plot significance during the timeframe of the book, then he qualifies as having made an appearance instead of simply being mentioned, unless there is uncertainty that he was significantly involved." That would mean, for instance, that the "real identity" of the Three-Eyed Crow has not made an appearance in ASOIAF before ADWD, although he has been mentioned before that. We would have to reconsider if he is somehow an impostor, of course. So, for TPATQ, that would make these character qualify as making appearances (among others, of course): Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen, Aegon II Targaryen, Aegon III Targaryen, Lucerys Targaryen, Jacaerys Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen, Alicent Hightower, Aemond Targaryen, Rhaenys Targaryen, Roderick Dustin, the Seasnake, and most of the dragons (including Moondancer, but excluding Morning and the eggs). Mentioned, among others, would be Harwin Strong, Viserys I Targaryen, Borderline cases would include Rhaena Targaryen (I don't think guarding the eggs had plot significance) and Baela Targaryen (qualifies for an appearance IMO, given the events late on the tale). Lord Manderly participated only indirectly by sending his sons, so I count that as an mention for him and appearances of Medrick Manderly and Torrhen Manderly.
  7. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    Thanks for the clarification. Between the known frequent use of unreliable narrators in ASOIAF and the survival of somewhat conflicting accounts of the Dance, I suppose that is a fair call, but yes, some explicit statements for reference could be a good idea. It is also slightly frustrating, since it basically means that (for instance) only Archmaester Gyldayn appears in TPATQ despite it not even being about him. Maybe we could agree on having a separate status for such characters as Princess Rhaenyra who go well beyond simple glancing mentions? Something like "featured", "narrated", or even "spotlighted", perhaps?
  8. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    Thanks. It is actually surprising to me that there is even any discussion on this matter. I suppose being used to ebooks has its disadvantages. Where can I check that policy?
  9. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    I am reading The Princess and the Queen and I edited Roderick Dustin's entry to reflect his appearance in that tale, only to have it reverted into a mention instead. How does that work?
  10. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    I would agree if the range of page numbers of the whole book (or tale, in the case of Dunk & Egg) were not given. Edited to add: Taking a single page reference with the full page range of the chapter or tale and doing a very simple subtraction, rule of 3 and addition is after all enough to come very close indeed to the exact page even in editions in other languages in pretty much all cases. That is just not worth giving up when the values are already known. When they are, then removing the page references becomes a matter of choosing to throw away a slightly inexact reference (rarely if ever away from the mark by more than a couple of pages, if that much, regardless of edition) in order to have no reference whatsoever. That... just does not make any sense IMO. It is throwing out the baby in order to keep the water. And more than slightly disappointing for one such as me who painstakingly produced what, frankly, was very much an useful piece of information just to see it sumarily and unfairly disregarded with no discernible justification.
  11. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    I can't say I follow. Having the range of page numbers of the tale or chapter along with the page number itself pretty much removes any disadvantage from edition variation, and not having any page number makes the task of finding the actual reference quite the chore.
  12. The ASOIAF wiki thread

    Should we refrain from including page numbers in the references? I have several times now included them when I had them available, most recently in the Uthor Underleaf and Leo Longthorn articles. I was consistently careful to include the page range of the specific edition I used. Yet, to my considerable dismay, it seems that pretty much all of those were edited out rather uncerimoniously. I am trying to understand why that would be desirable, but I have failed so far. Any thoughts?
  13. Who has the most right to the Iron Throne

    By birthright? At the time of ACOK's start? It is actually Joffrey, unsatisfying as that answer is for pretty much everyone. The Targaryens lost their claim to the Baratheons by right of conquest. The only challenger to Joffrey's birthright is of course Stannis, but there is the little matter of a complete lack of proof. Stannis could conceivably call for a Greater Council, similar to the one mentioned in Jon's first ACOK chapter. That would make his claim lawful, but is a dicey proposition at best; it is ultimately a call for arbitration based on political popularity, and it is not at all clear that Stannis is well-tolerated enough by the Westerosi Lords to have an actual chance, even in the absence of, as Tyrion puts it, "a very large (Lannister) army" to twist the balance towards Joffrey's claim. So in practice Stannis is as much of an attempter of claim by right of conquest as Renly, Balon, Daenerys or Robert himself. Unfair? Perhaps, although I have no desire whatsoever to see Stannis succeed or even survive. But such is the nature of throne birthrights: they just don't make any sense.
  14. How would you rate episode 305?

    I really disliked the blunt attempt at absolving Stannis of any guilt. It made him seem too much of a fool and too much of a tool to be believable. Stannis has never been quite that naive.
  15. Stannis humor

    Celtigar, indeed.