The Drunkard

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About The Drunkard

  • Rank
    i've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,916 profile views
  1. Aemon was never in danger

    Prior to sending them away he heard a wounded queen's man mutter something about "two kings to wake the dragon", and Aemon confirmed that there was power in king's blood and suggested worse things than burning kids had been done by better people in the past. Characters who dislike Melisandre alsotend to assume the worst and take drastic action to counter whatever it is they suspect her of doing(Cressen tried to poison her, Davos thought she caused the loss at the Blackwater and wanted to cut her heart out because of it). So, given the regard he holdsAemon in and the distrust he has for Melisandre, he probably took this more seriously than he should have and just wanted to evac every possible king's blood candidate. For their part Mel and Stannis never mention burning Aemon or the wildling kid, or this "two kings" thing, and nothing they do before or after suggests they were heading that way.
  2. It really sucks to be Stannis

    Again, GRRMis not saying he believes himself righteous, or that he's righteously indignant, he's saying "[Stannis] is a righteous man" because he knows about the Others and responds accordingly. The definitions that you want him to mean simply do not make sense in the context of his statement. Putting the Others ahead of the throne is not an issue of fairness, indignation,belief or w/e else will appear in the next post. It's understanding that the "real issue" is more important than the civil wars, and because of thatStannis is elevated above similar historic figures.
  3. It really sucks to be Stannis

    Good, moral, justified, etc, are all synonyms for righteous. Indignant is not. (fyi, "righteous indignation" is an example of how righteous can be used in a phrase; it's not something with the same meaning) It's clear what GRRM meant: Stannis understands that the real issue lies north of the Wall, and for that he is a righteous man rather than just another variation of some controversial historic figure.
  4. It really sucks to be Stannis

    That interview has nothing to do with the one where GRRM names Stannis righteous for understanding that the Others are the real issue. While you may very well disagree with GRRM, he considers Stannis righteous (i.e. correct, good, moral) for that realization. Suggesting that he means "righteously indignant" or w/e because of his relationship with his brothersis plainly false, given 1) GRRM never calls him indignant, 2) Robert, Renly, etcare never mentioned 3) GRRM wasn't discussing how Stannis feels he's been treated, but how Stannis reacted to learning about the Others.
  5. A better claim then the girl Myrcella?

    Stannis, Tommen and Myrcella are the three possible claimants to the throne.Stannis is too hard, Tommen too weak, and Myrcella's claim is too easily contested (as she's a 1) female 2) child 3) with a brother). He doesn't need to know about Arianne's plot, he's just ruling her out. The three heads thing probably just refers to Aegon'sTargaryen sigil. He doesn't seem to support Dany in her own right, and I doubt he knows anything about prophecy.
  6. It really sucks to be Stannis

    The context of that quote makes GRRM's meaning obvious. Despite whatever else he's doneStannis understands that the Others are the priority, and he's righteous (i.e. correct, good, moral) for putting the fight against them ahead of anything else.It has absolutely nothing to do with how he feels he's been treated by Robert, Renly, etc.
  7. It really sucks to be Stannis

    Storm's End is significant in that it demonstrated his insane determination, not his tactical prowess. Whileother competent commanders could hold the castle against attack and keep their men disciplined, notmany would still be holding out at the point where they're eating boot leather and book bindings. It's clearly impressive given the reputation he got from it, just not tactically (he didn't do anything wrong, there's just not much chance to show off).
  8. Theon giving fake Arya away

    Well, Theon isn't the only reason they're accepting the marriage. Roose outnumbers them, has a Frey army supporting him, and has plenty of their family members down at the Twins as hostages, so even if they don't believe they have to pretend to or risk being destroyed. Wyman brings this up regarding the Red Wedding: he doesn't believe the werewolf story and the Freys know it,but he has to pretend regardless or they'd kill his son. Theon himself just adds a layer of legitimacy. It might not be definitive but it's something, and likely to sway at least a few people.
  9. Well, I disagree about that constituting "nothing", and thus find it unlikely GRRM planned it that way. As to the purpose of Stannis - it's clearly more than that. He's an important character in his own right (GRRM wouldn't have spent so much time on Stannis deliberating over his relationships, kingship, sacrifice, etc if he wasn't), and he'll havea role to play in the story beyond stalling the Boltons for Jon. He's only just been given the means to defeat the Boltons and become a power again (ravens, Iron Bank), his final decision regardingShireen seems a long way off given 1) their locations 2) there's no upcoming situation severe enough for him to burn her, and there's his role in the slayer of lies prophecy that can't happen until Dany arrives. So, while I agree about the eventual comeback, I disagree on the timescale. I don't see Stannis and co. being swept away quicklywith Jon seizing control and leading a Stark restoration by the end of the book. That hugely undervalues the importance of everyone who isn't Jon and is an unrealistic turn of events besides.Rather I imagine Stannis will lead the war against the Others for a time and Jonwill take the reins when he fails/Dany kills him.
  10. I doubt it.He says nothing happened, andStannis building an alliance of northern lords capable of holding off the Boltons and keeping the north in civil war 5 years isn't nothing.More likely, I think: he broadly wanted what was happening now to happen at the end of the gap, but couldn't reconcile the characters doing shit all for years prior to it, which contributed to him scrapping the idea. eta: will add/respond more later, need to be somewhere.
  11. This isn't consistent with what GRRM says about the five year gap in relation to Jon/Stannis. He spoke of how in King's Landing so much stuff had happened over the 5 years that he was basically writing non stop flashback scenes. Then, in the North, he had to write about how nothing had been happening... he actually imitated Jon Snow, saying "It's been a slow 5 years here... at the Wall... hanging out with Stannis... but now a bunch of stuff is about to happen!". It seems as if Stannis at the end of the five year gap was going to be in the same place as Stannis at the start of ADWD. At the Wall, preparing to overthrow Roose.
  12. Poor Stannis! and the Manderly Umber Coalition

    They're not going to turn on him.The clan leaders are too quarrelsome and divided, according to Jon and the Glovers, toeverunite without an authority figure to lead them (Starks of Winterfell in the past, Stannis currently). They aren't going to turn on Stannis unless he does something major to offend them, and that's not going to happen given the consideration he gives their beliefs and counsel in the Asha and sample chapters.Wyman's a dead man waddling, and there's no indication that his son is deceitful/callousenough to use Stannis and throw him away.Robett's grateful that Stannis liberated his castleand restored it to Sybelle and expressed his willingness (along with Wyman) to jump ship. Mors already offered to join, should Stannis meet some trivial demands (a head and a pardon).The lordless smallfolk who joined after Deepwood aren't going to turn on the king that rallied them and led them to victory against the Freys/Boltons for the sake of some noble's ambitions. Jon certainly won't (especially if Stannis is propping up Rickon). Furthermore they'd bedepriving themselves of the best commander still standing and a blank cheque from the Iron Bank with which they could reinforce and resupply the North in preparation for the Others. It'd be a dumb move.
  13. Melissandre spoilers included

    I suspect it's the former, but that the magic isn't particularly different either way asthey're all functionally immortaland don't have the same needs as other humans.Melisandre differs in that she doesn't seem to suffer from the same 'emptiness' as Beric and Stoneheart, but I'd explain that with her never having died. She was a live human who tapped into fire immortality, they were corpses given it.
  14. It really sucks to be Stannis

    "You are not Robb, no more than I am Robert." The harsh words had blown away whatever sympathy Jon might have had for Stannis. "Ilovedmybrother," he said. "And I mine." Stannis in the prologue is at peak bitterness. His reflections elsewhere (in addition to the above quote) show that he pretty clearly did love Robert. He wanted his approval, envied the relationship Ned had with him, and is still dreaming about him well into ASOS.
  15. I disagree with that.In private he's quite derisive of the sword, so I can see him parting with it if he felt his deception hinged on providing the enemies with proof.If he wins, he gets itback. If he loses, it doesn't matter anyway. As to the Boltons, the letter itself claims that they have the sword and not the body, so whoever wrote it doesn't seem to find that factsuspicious. Given they didn't question the intel in the first of the Karstark ravens, I imagine if they received another detailing Stannis' defeat, with the sword as a claimed trophy, they would accept it as true.