King Brandon Ice Eyes

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About King Brandon Ice Eyes

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Books, movies, fiction in general, music.

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Brandon Ice Eyes

Recent Profile Visitors

1,617 profile views
  1. I am not disagreeing with you. I meant understandable more in the veins of explainable. It is perfectly cohesive with their personalities that they would do that. The fandom that loves Stannis tend to take his side because they believe an younger brother overstepping the line of succession would foment future dynastic problems. I don't necessarily agree because the circumstances prompted Renly to flee KL and search for allies to save his life. Meanwhile Stannis was in Dragonstone gathering his own army and listening to Melisandre. He had a weaker army but a supernatural force by his side. Like Dany has for example.The timing was terrible and it wasted a great opportunity to get rid of the usurpers Lannisters once and for all.
  2. Stannis is not greedy and ambitious in the traditional sense. I think he means it when he says he doesn't want to be king per say. But his pride, bitterness, wounded ego and feeling of being unappreciated by almost everyone are overwhelming forces that define his personality just as much as his adherence to duty. He would never back off and let Renly be king, specially after Renly got Storm's End instead of him. Neither he would accept Robb taking half his kingdom. Renly was confident in his superior numbers and charm to win allies. His original enemies were the Lannisters but he wouldn't back off to Stannis either. So there you go. Two intelligent, formidable forces that could crush the Lannisters squabbling with each other for understandable reasons (given their personalities) with tragic results.
  3. Stannis in the book, for starters, has a great intellect. He is knowledgeable of history, politics and into critical thinking, despite his adherence to the law. He has a dry wit about him that make him one of the funniest characters. He is very complex, compelling and tragic. Personally I am drawn to these kind of characters that are doomed to fail, despite their best efforts. He also has this kind of dark, insulting and insensitive attitude that would be insufferable in real life but makes him kind of "the bad guy among the good guys". I enjoy that even the Lannister fear him for his merciless demeanor and experienced militarism. (in the books, he is an anti-hero. In the show, they went for a villain instead. A conflicted villain, but a villain nonetheless).
  4. So today I found out about how Alexander Siddig handled the sudden death of his character and the way the producers warned him about it. He is not harsh and certainly not offensive to D&D, which I think it's the best way to go, of course, but he does seem to sense how pointless the character and the whole storyline was. Another one for the gallery of relatively baffled actors among the cast. I'm not involved in neither criticizing, bashing or praising the show. I manage (sometimes) to appreciate the little good things hidden beneath some disliked decisions they made during the last seasons. In general the characters I appreciate the most don't have too much screentime but some of their scenes I actually memorized because I love the characters so much... so mixed feelings, that is what I have about the show. Anyway any thoughts about Alexander Siddig's interview. Links below:
  5. I imagine that is possible. Are there any passages in the books though indicating there are other nobles with last name Stark in The North besides Martin's word on it? We know they have closer kin in the Vale so the other Stark might be very scattered and unknown. Nevertheless I find it odd that we have such a vast family tree in recent history for houses like the Lannisters and the Tyrells and just a main line for the Starks and Baratheons for example. Rickard and Steffon had no brothers and no uncles? If they did why didn't we hear something about them yet?
  6. With so many houses existing in the brinks of extinction during the last events in the books how is that possible that houses like the Boltons managed to survive thousands of years? Now House Bolton is elevated to a position greater that it ever had before but there are no lesser branches to carry out their name if Roose, Walda and Ramsay die, which is very likely. I know the War of the Five Kings and its aftermath represent a conflict of great magnitude but at the same time the period after the Conquest consists of years of relative calmness and fewer wars compared to the constant squabbling we had before. How is that possible that such belligerent houses managed to maintain their legacies while in the present some of them are in such a poor state?
  7. You are both spot on. Yet me in my naive mind didn't expect this sort of reaction from "reviewers" (however intellectually shallow and ethically void they may be). To write such garbage about a show they were supposed to scrutinize. Sure I expected such things from twitter from random users who just watch the show occasionally. After all, there is no accountability. But this is just mind-numbingly stupid as the reviewer who praised Sansa's decision to cover Littlefinger because "hell, he helped (!!?) her so much. I'd sure stick with him too!" blatantly forgetting that he is the prime reason her life was destroyed in the first place. Seriously? "Bordeline misandrist heroes"? "Misandrist utopia"? I think "sociopath 'feminism'" is really the best term to describe this shit. Not even the "straw feminism" portrayed in embarrassingly cheesy exploitation movies begins to cover it. Are people wanting to turn into real life caricatures? It's cringey, disturbing and patently ridiculous. They are no better than the absurd crowd that had a boiling, misogynistic hate for Skyler for daring to oppose her drug dealing, murderous husband. I love that a scene in which three innocent, reasonable men are butchered by vicious, remorseless and hypocritical child killers that happen to be women somehow corroborates the on-going theme that "men are the worst". What!?
  8. I didn't say I approve what he does. He is a villain that doesn't grate me and I find him compelling.
  9. Considering he hasn't done anything really impressive since season 3 and he is constantly pushed away to give Ramsay the foreground does anyone think he is going to survive this season? D&D really didn't make an effort to establish him as a formidable foe in the eyes of the audience. He is being absent in two of the major battles in his domains: first in the Dreadfort when Yara attacked and then in the "battle" of Winterfell", which was even more insulting (not as insulting as what was done to another certain character in the same event). He manages to shut up Ramsay a few times but the two last scenes they had together highlighted that Ramsay is getting increasingly pissed and disrespectful towards his father. I hope I'm wrong because he is one of the few alive characters I still enjoy seeing on screen.
  10. It wasn't better, yes. I never said Roose Bolton (who, by the way, already showed clear signs of deflection when he took Harrenhal *) is an upstanding guy. For the last time, my whole point is NOT that the northerners are kinder than the westerners; is that their leader (Tywin) is much more cruel than Robb so he assigns the worst scum to perform the important tasks. Crimes of such magnitude committed by the northerners in the series were never accompanied by Robb's direct tutelage, as far as we know. On the other hand I have lines that prove that Tywin condoned and stimulated the rape of women, as well as directed renowned war criminals to terrorize the land, and was aware of the tortures while in Harrenhal, which count as pointless cruelty, considering the victims knew nothing about the Brotherhood's whereabouts. He also sanctioned the Red Wedding, which was a massacre who decimated most of the northern army. Robb could be as well "paying them back in kind" in terms of resources, like described later in the text. One of the main reasons to invade the Westerlands was to draw Tywin away from the Riverlands, luring him to the West. Stealing his gold and resources and taking strongholds is reason enough to change his course, it would seem. You can devastate a land by stealing and destroying its riches, burning fields and taking strongholds. A line from a guy doesn't prove that Robb (not some random soldiers and independent units) went to the same lengths to ensure his success and presided acts of sheer barbarity. Pillaging is effective in itself. When the smallfolk can not reap and sow in their lands that weakens their landlords. The knights should plunder the goods, seizing flocks and cattle from the country people. It makes the smallfolk lose faith in their governments and many of them flee for the nearer stronghold, weakening the armies resources as well. Of course this is very predatory and will spread famine (and, no, I don't agree with it). It still not as bad as massacring and torturing people with excruciating refinement. (There is also the fact that the cattle taken from the West was brought to Riverrun, which would help the smallfolk in the region. Tywin had no such intentions when he purposefully terrorized the Riverlands.) There is no reason to believe Robb would condone needless acts of brutality as long as he could prevent it. It goes against the characterization GRRM gave him and a single line will not simply revert it unless we have direct access to the details of what actually happened there under his command. That is not to say that Robb is wonderful and saintly. Far from it. I don't care if people despise him. But I can see him much more as a member of the awful system they have and Tywin as exceedingly horrible. Tysha, his father's mistress, Elia and her kids, the Reynes and Tarbecks can attest if examples from the Wot5K don't suffice. There are degrees of awfulness. And while comparing acts doesn't serve to exonerate the lesser evils (nor it should) it does serve to highlight the lengths of the worst among them. The point about Saltpans is that it was so savage that it drawn attention from a lot of people outside the region. No atrocity of such degree is said to take place in the Westerlands. You would think Cersei and Jaime would hear from it and pay attention to it, considering it is their homeland. On the other hand we have Joss' account that what happened in his village was very similar to Saltpans in a smaller scale. Like I said, killing deserters serves a purpose of discouraging such act, and Ned never shit upon the laws of the Night's Watch. Tywin killing Masha Heddle serves no purpose and if he was going by your reasoning, he did shit upon the laws of guest rights when he condoned the Red Wedding. When the government conspires with and rewards those who commit serious crime, the government is complicity. No, the difference is that Stannis doesn't encourage rape and unnecessary killing, so the likes of Suggs are more restrained than people like Gregor, who can get away with anything because of Tywin. *And Robb didn't know how cruel he was, nor that he was a rapist, so claiming that Roose is a rapist doesn't counter my argument, that was never that Roose is fine and mellow. The fact is that Tywin had a perfect notion of what a savage Gregor is.
  11. 1. The torture-fest in Harrenhal is conducted with Tywin there. Were he oblivious to what was happening? 2. He promised pardon and rewarded the Boltons and Freys for the Red Wedding. Tyrion points out Frey would never act without Tywin backing him up and his father doesn't deny it. He was communicating with them with letters. He is also responsible for the massacre, not just a benefactor. If you deny it, you are the one who is inventing feeble excuses to whitewash your character. It's blatant. Catelyn's actions can be added context. GRRM himself mentioned it was a "grey area" and she never intended to hurt anyone (except Tyrion if he was indeed proved guilty). I may be wrong, but it seems to me you only care about results. I'm not reading a History book, so characters' motivation are much more important to me in a fictional world. And so far Tywin hasn't displayed any redeeming qualities except dedication to his family's name and his love for Joanna. Therefore he is presented as scum and we readers should therefore perceive him as scum. You can like him all the way. But the whitewashing is too much. 3. He ordered Gregor to attack the smallfolk. Gregor is a monster. Tywin has no doubts about his nature and that he is going to commit atrocities a regular soldier wouldn't do. Unless Tywin is a moron. And he isn't. “Let them,” Lord Tywin said. “Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork.” Here he sends the worst free-rider company in the world to plunge along with two proven sadists. if he doesn't think they will resort to the worst acts of pointless cruelty he is insane. No, I'm not being melodramatic. Those men's reputations speak for themselves. The report from Joss is a horror show. With Amory Tywin doesn't even have the excuse of sending a competent man. Amory is never shown doing anything particularly smart, just vile stuff. Tywin even remarks later that he is obtuse. “Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like-goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest.” This quote proves he condones rape and sees it as not only collateral damage in a war but something to be stimulated. Robb is responsible for a lot of shit as well. He chose to prolong the war after all. That alone is worthy of criticism. The Stark are no saints. Still they are closer to the image you try to pass of your regular lords that don't have the well-being of the smallfolk as their priority in a war. Robb is willing to indirectly cause damage to their lives if he believes he has to avenge his father and cut ties to a corrupt government. In peace times they (Ned and his family) are actually quite merciful and in no situations we see them prone to commit any acts of atrocities. With Tywin, however, is always overkill after overkill if he can get away with it and if it gives him shortcuts. Or when he wants "to teach his son a lesson". There are harsh, very elitist and ruthless lords in the series, men who display little empathy. Stannis is one example. However even he punishes rapists and calls "evil" an attempt to punish Celtigar's disloyalty by slaughtering his people in Claw Isle. “I shall bring justice to Westeros. A thing Ser Axell understands as little as he does war. Claw Isle would gain me naught... and it was evil, just as you said. Celtigar must pay the traitor’s price himself, in his own person. Even he who is known as merciless doesn't sink so low. Meanwhile Tywin thinks: they took my son? Let's butcher peasants that have nothing to do with it. He also rewards rapists and mass murderers in his army greatly if that serves his cause, as he rewarded the Freys and the Boltons and pardoned the Westerlings for helping to perpetrate a heinous act. This proves Tywin doesn't give two shits about guest rights or anything that doesn't favor him directly. But, no. According to you and your bias Masha Heddle is the true criminal in the eyes of the realm for not stopping a thing that was beyond her control. What about Cersei then? She slaughtered Stark's household in the Red Keep. No one mentions guest right because a lot of them adhere (or pretend to adhere) to the official narrative that Ned was a traitor and things escalated. But Masha Heddle should have stopped Catelyn, the daughter of her liege lord who never hurt anyone in her inn? Please, either way, Tywin giving his full approval for the Red Wedding proves he doesn't care if guest right is broken (and in an spectacular fashion), so his murder of Masha is petty, hypocritical and not justified at all. Your quote about "paying back in kind" is followed by a list of actions committed by the northerners that concerns the tactics they were using. Slaughtering civillians was not mentioned. If "pay back in kind" is word for word what it means then we can't have gold mines being taken, because as far as we know they don't have it in the Riverlands. So it was an invasion, a campaign but it doesn't mean that everything that happened in the Riverlands (orchestrated by Tywin) also happened there (orchestrated by Robb). You also don't have no proof of vicious men rising up in Robb's army, except Roose Bolton, who was chosen for his cunning. For the last time: I don't deny many, many northern soldiers have committed heinous acts but we don't have no information of Robb using this kind of people to do his biding for this very reason. I'm not ignoring evidence. Tywin uses Gregor and many others. He knows exactly what they are. Shit, Gregor is rumored to have killed his family, is a known rapist and child killer and Tywin puts him on top. Oh, and Suggs' cruelty displayed so far is still much, much more subdued than Gregor's and the rest of Tywin's mad dogs. He may be just as bad but he certainly isn't a renowned monster in the Seven Kingdoms. Saltpans is first mentioned in King's Landing, in Cersei's chapter. It wasn't treated as a mere local occurrence.
  12. Everyone knows Roose Bolton as a cold, hard, cautious and cunning man. No one knows him as a rapist, a child killer who would never shy away from committing unspeakable atrocities (at least by the time Robb gave him the command). Tywin knows exactly what Gregor is. Him and the whole realm. The situations are not comparable. Of course he uses him because he is huge and a good fighter as well. One thing doesn't change the other. Tywin sees great use in a sadist like Gregor just the same. It's just a line. It's not a proof that he employed the same unbelievably cruel tactics to hurt his enemy. And then there is the rest of the quote. He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford’s host had fallen back on Lannisport. Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they’d inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn’s Deep, and the Pendric Hills. Ser Wendel laughed. “Nothing’s more like to bring a Lannister running than a threat to his gold.” No mentions about killing babies, torturing peasants or raping people as tactics to spread fear. I'm not denying that there were many casualties and that the smallfolk suffered but the targets described here seem to be the land, the resources, the gold and the enemy's armies, not the civillians. If Robb had done anything close to what people like Gregor did, people would probably comment about it. AFFC is a book that focuses mainly on the Lannisters and we never hear about specifics and detailed acts of cruelty committed by Robb and his allies in the Westerlands. If its people were as decimated as the Riverlands I think we would hear it. We hear a lot about Saltpans, for example, which was very similar to the acts done by Gregor, Amory and their men. Of course Robb and his allies were pissed and wanted to hurt the enemies in their own land. It doesn't mean they employed the same brutality as Tywin did. Innocent people were raped and killed, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean Robb and his allies supervised or instructed these acts. Burning fields, killing soldiers and stealing resources hurt your enemy just fine. Stannis castrates his men for raping; that doesn't mean he is seen as a less formidable enemy. He still hurt his adversaries without sinking to Tywin's lows. You don't have to find ways to sadistically murder civillians to conduct warfare. On the other hand we know that Tywin ensured the Red Wedding, that he presided the constant torture in Harrenhal, that he ordered Gregor to massacre peasants while disguised to trick Eddard into a trap.
  13. You have no quote that points to Robb directly ordering a brutal massacre to occur. I have three massacres conducted under Tywin's consent during the Wot5k. We have the murder of Elia and her children that is well known in the whole realm. We have Tysha. We have Masha Heddle. We have the Reynes and the Castamere. I don't claim that there aren't horrible people in Robb's army or that he is above any act of ruthlessness. Seriously, my whole point was about the motivation of using such soldiers as prominent generals, an act that Robb doesn't do as far as we know (who is the equivalent of Gregor Clegane in terms of renowned brutality in all Westeros?). I claimed that Tywin is the one who uses and rewards these kind of people for this very reason (I know he uses people for their competency too, but the fact he has such a criminal as his right hand in the battlefield is no coincidence). I know that Tywin is way more cruel than your average lord and that he is a horrible person and the narrative proves that repeatedly despite the whitewashing some fans try to do. Gregor Clegane is infamous in the whole realm, as well as Amory Lorch. Vargo Hoat and the Brave Companions only set foot in Westeros because Tywin employed the nefarious mercenaries in the first place. There is no instance in the books when Robb hires men or sends men to do a task because they act like psychopaths. He does because he sees them as competent, cunning, etc. His tactics are never shown to be as foul as Tywin. In TWoW we may find otherwise but for now we have no reason to believe Robb was just as brutal as Tywin. Robb was no saint either but nowhere near Tywin in terms of villainy unless proved otherwise. The characterization each character had till now points to Tywin showing unmitigated cruelty when he can get away with it and it serves his purposes and Robb being way more merciful in the instances we know he has control over. See Osha, for example. There is no dancing around this fact. Catelyn and her allies would say Tyrion was arrested. And they would be just as right, which is not the same as harming someone. Tyrion wasn't physically harmed. As far as Masha knew he would be brought to King's Landing to wait the king's justice. You brought up that the northerners were killing themselves in Winterfell. Does anyone mention guest right in this occasion or hold Robb, Roose or their commanders responsible for breaking this sacred law just because one Bolton soldier killed a Cerwyn? No, because at worst they were negligent. Masha as well is not responsible for actions that happen despite her will in her inn, actions that didn't even constitute maiming someone and may or not be lawful. If a suspected criminal is discovered under a roof he can not be arrested? I'm sorry but promising pardon and reward for a bunch of men to massacre hundreds of people in their roof is being a culprit. The fact that Tywin is not physically present at the moment doesn't mean much. He was still perfectly aware that he was enabling one of the most reviled acts in the world he lives in to take place. Few people in-universe say it out loud but it's pretty obvious to everyone with a functioning brain that Tywin was behind the Red Wedding. He is a criminal and guilty as charged.
  14. 1. I never claimed the westerners were crueler than the northerners. I don't believe that. I claimed that Tywin's way of conducting war, which includes choosing what kind of men he wants to use for specific reasons (terror, mayhem, etc.) is way more brutal and crueler than Robb's and the majority of lords in the time the main narrative takes place. You have no quote that points to Robb directly ordering a brutal massacre to occur. I have two massacres conducted under Tywin's consent. 2. Prove what? That Robb wasn't behind the acts of random soldiers? Why would he do that? It doesn't have a purpose and it's cruel. They would not be deserters. They would be soldiers committing a crime that Robb would most likely never hear about and if he did he would never find the culprits. 3. Not merely the absence of kindness. Basically the extreme opposite of kindness according to her metaphor. 4. Robb never employed let alone rewarded Ramsay. He doesn't say Ramsay's supposed actions in Winterfell would keep him from being executed for his past crimes. When he knew about the facts, Ramsay already had brought Theon and the remaining household of Winterfell to the the Dreadfort. He would deal with it after returning to the North and we don't know how he would have acted. Not legitimizing Ramsay would keep him from being the second most powerful person in the realm and giving free range to his proclivities without having to hide his acts from higher authorities. We see him doing this in ADWD. The Lannister enabled him. They shouldn't being cooperating with Roose in the first place. They knew he was a traitor and also rewarded him because he was doing their dirty task. So that excuse doesn't work.