littleRickon

Members
  • Content count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About littleRickon

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vienna
  1. yeah, but so was an alive Jamie. The question is was there a third option Robb didn't see. How is it that Robb captured the son and heir (at least in Tywin's view) of his opponent and gets exactly zero benefit out of it? How is it the Starks are afraid of retribution against Sansa if they harm their hostage, yet Lannisters got zero retribution for killing Ned? What's the point of a hostage when the other side plainly just ignores the fact that he even exists?
  2. I agree with everyone who argued killing Jamie would have not been a good option for Robb, mostly because 1) honor is one of his defining traits and why the North rallied behind him and 2) the consequences. Still, I think doing nothing with Jamie was maybe an ever worse option. I felt that the killing of Ned, the head of house Stark, by the Lannisters while the same Starks hold a member of their family should have had some consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of having a hostage at all? Having Jamie should have meant they can't touch Ned, and since they did, an answer was required. Killing would have been too much IMHO, but a hand or even an ear could have sent a message to KL that harming Starks means harming Jamie. I think this would have made KL safer for Sansa, not more dangerous. As it played out, we never see any of the Lannisters overly worried that Joffrey's aggression towards Sansa could mean retribution on Jamie - and they seem to be right, having already executed Ned without paying for it. While mutilation isn't overly full of honor, one could argue that mercy was still served by not killing him for Ned, and they would have created more of a need in the Lannister camp to get Jamie back. Tywin just writes Jamie off as soon as he's captured (to the disgust of Tyrion), but strategically, he thus devalues Jamie's worth as a hostage tremendously. Robb basically gets zero return for capturing him. Dangling parts of Jamie before the court would make Tywin's neglect for him much more visible, and thus serve to undermine his rule. If your lord just casts aside a son as soon as he's captured, what will he do for you when you need him? tldr; don't kill Jamie but send the court a part of him as a revenge for killing Ned
  3. how to win Blackwater Bay: 1) give command to your best Captain, even if he doesn't have all his fingers 2) ...? 3) profit
  4. I think this is exactly what GRRM said in one of his interviews. Again, sorry, I don't have the reference, but I distinctly remember a thread where they talked about him saying that the seasons haven't always been messed up - and might not always be. In that line, people got used to count in (normal) years, developed habits like name-days etc. Then, when the seasons became irregular, they kept those names and traditions, but turned to the lunar cycle as the measure for time progress. While the concept of years is a problem for any explanation of seasons, I don't think it's specific to the "arbitrary orbital velocity" model. We know that seasons can last "years", yet the concept of a year is (at least for us) based on the passage of seasons. That contradiction is right there in the source material, and any explanation will have this flaw.
  5. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Doesn't mean we can't try to make sense of it. I was interedted to know what's the minimum change from reality (the magic) that allows you to explain the seasons in Westeros. My answer: Kepler's second law doesn't hold - instead the planet moves around the sun at whatever the speed it "magically" wants. That explains what we see while keeping in line with what we know, like "the days were already getting shorter". I agree, it's not a terribly relevant topic. As a physicist, it's something I like to think about. Putting together the clues, even the ones the author didn't put in intentionally, is fun. But yeah, it's not like we will discover another hidden layer of meaning here.
  6. I would have to get my books to quote exactly, but I'm quite certain there is a passage that reads "already the days were getting shorter". I think it's good old Ned in AGoT and leads to him realizing once agaon that winter is coming. If he thinks this, and no one has seen a long night in millenia, then it's reasonable to deduce that this is a regular phenomenon with all winters. Thus, axial tilt exists.
  7. without axis tilt, why do the days get shorter? That is, if you are looking for an "occams razor" scenario that is as close as possible to non-fantasy reality. Of course no one could actually prove that planetos isn't the center of that universe, and their sun moves around them at non-regular intervals... I don't want to strawman too much here, but if you think that the celestial mechanics of Westeros are somewhat similar to ours, then "days getting shorter" (which we have textual evidence for) means axial tilt. At least I don't know any other sensible reason for the change of sunlight hours per day.... Now if only someone would take a boat to the southern hemisphere (hemispheros) and see if the north's long night is the south's eternal summer....
  8. that's a cool simulation but I don' think it explains irregular seasons very much. Also we never have anyone in the story mentioning another sun, let alone two. Given how much we hear about the red comet, you'd think someone would mention that. This topic has been discussed a lot. I really think there is not much else than "magic" that we can use to explain it. GRRM certainly hasn't had anyhting scientific in mind when writing it and I don't think something can be constructed ex post. We have a clear reference that the seasons are still linked to the duration of days, so there is an axis tilt, and the progression of the planet through it's orbit is what's driving seasons, not some other celestial bodies or the distance to the sun or something. It's just that the progression on the orbit is highly irregular. If GRRM was a science nerd, the book would have opened with "let's assume that Kepler's second law doesn't hold true in this world" and the book would have been poorer for it...
  9. nice catch with the parallel. I still think though that for Dany that whole thing played a much bigger role to her plot. And there were conversations about it. Jorah the Explorah talks about how he will never forget that day, and so on. She also did not just step out of the fire unburnt, but with dragons. And that certainly became the main theme of her arc. Mother of dragons blah blah. Even Tywin talks about the dragons - even if just to announce his disbelief. I felt the Dany moment was handled fine in both show and books. It was a literal wonder, an impossibility, and it had a lot of fallout and people reacted to it and it changed the world. Jon's resurrection, on the show, lacked that impact for me. We just get a quick reference that the wildlings now see him as a "God", but that's about it. He quits the NW because he's technically served for life, but doesn't have to explain that to anyone. The North either know about his death and just aren't curious enough about resurrection to ask about it, or they don't know and just don't care he deserted. And it's not just the North - even the characters around him don't really react to it. Does Sansa know? Does she care? Not on screen. Davos, who told everybody over and over that Stannis was the one true king because he had a sense for duty, doesn't mention it to anyone when advertising for Jon. Melisandre never talks to anyone about how she didn't think that she had any powers left but still resurrected this guy, obviously making him AA reborn. Everybody is just so "meh!" about it. For all the show's done with it, the resurrection could have been replaced by a simple desertion of Jon and the North tolerating it because of some invented precedence a la "Lord Commander Usayne Bolton was allowed to quit the NWs 2000 years ago when blah-blah-blah happened". I guess what I'm saying is when you bring out a freaking resurrection in a show that sees itself as grounded fantasy, then you better make a big deal about it.
  10. I agree that this is a big-ass dropped ball right there, but I still feel it is more of a consequence than a cause. Jon Snow not being labeled a deserter and not ever explaining his "I served one life, that's all I swore" logic to anyone is just a companion of the bigger "the show brought Jon back from death and then never cared about that" arc. I really don't understand from within the show why they made him die and then come back. If it is only to release him from his NW vows, there would have been different routes to go. Mostly it seemes now it was to create a shock in the season finale and then another by bringing him back. Why they didn't explore any of the consequences of those completely unusual and thought-to-be-impossible events is beyond me. Every conversation Jon has should turn around how the flying f he came back to life, what that means for him, what that means for everyone. Lady Mormont should have asked. The Glovers should have called him a liar about that. At the very least the northman should have acknolegded him when pronouncing him king. The UNDEAD wolf he is, not the white. It should have been dominant - and it should have been good TV. I want to know the feelings of the people in this world who are talking to a dead guy. Can you imagine a show like breaking bad doing something of this magnitude and then just completely ignoring it afterwards? GoT has always been about a fantasy world where the fantasy is not commonplace - where dragons and white walkers are judged to be tales for children by the most knowlegable characters. Where seeing a shadow baby born changed a man forever. Yet the north doesn't care they are following a zombie. It was like "ah, the red player rolled a 20 on the resurrection spell, nice!" I don't want to show bash too much. Season 6 had some problems, and a lot of brilliant scenes. The last two episodes were awesome (9 more for the technical aspects, 10 for the plot and characters). Yet the ignoring of their biggest plot point in the north was a downer for me - but far from the biggest. So to answer OPs question: the biggest ball dropped was definitely Arya in Braavos, with the climax being her getting stabbed in the belly, seeing the knife being turned, her falling into a dirty river, with all the worlds bacteria waiting to infect her open wound and her subsequent walking around the city and being healed by a hobby doctor and some good sleep. Everything Arya after that felt pointless, because I saw that girl get stabbed to death and it just didn't do anything.
  11. Arya was for season 6 what Dorne was for season 5. Rushed, pointless, illogical. After the stabbing, anything with Arya seemed unbelivable to me, because I saw her get literally deadly (slow, painful too) wounds and just shrug it off. So the impossibility of her baking the pies didn't surprise me. It was a nice nod to the books, a shocking moment, but overall took away from what was otherwise a fantastic episode.
  12. I agree that dragons always should have an easy time with wooden ships. But actually, book canon tells us otherwise. For reasons totally beyond me, "the Princess and the Queen" tells us how not only one, but I think two dragons go down attacking the combined fleet of the three free cities. It's as simple as "fly too low, get entangled, drown", and "lucky shot by giant x-bow"... Dragons are far from invincible, at least in tPatQ. Aegon's 3 seem much more commanding, but they were a lot older when he finally attacked Westeros after waiting something like 30 years....
  13. How was the male Stark line unbroken for thousands of years? There are the wildling stories, the raider king who fathered a Stark and got killed by him, and there is the time they were down to the women (George, please give us the She-Wolves of Winterfell soon) who fought, endured and then continued the line. And it's not even that unusual for the north, think Mormont. Is it possible that the fictional medieval universe is more friendly to women as the real modern universe, as in the former it's just an "unbroken line" of Starks and nobody cares if it was always the male line?
  14. I don't think the "test" applies here. HS threatened to go after Olenna, Marg's grandmother. Does he expect her not to ask her to leave? She openly begs her to leave, in front of Septa Unella. The rose is only to let Olenna know it's part of a plan. But the begging her to leave part was done in all openness. And how could HS fault her for it? She didn't give intel to an enemy. She just told her grandmother it's not very safe. If HS isn't a complete hypocrite he can't fault her for that...
  15. The guy who two episodes back had the big reveal that it was miraculously him behind the murder of a very important character in S01E01 talks about people dying on chamber pots and then another two episodes later a very important character dies on the chamber pot and the unsullied are not going to suspect him? seems misleading to me.