LordStoneheart

Members
  • Content count

    8,912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About LordStoneheart

  • Rank
    Husband of the Damned

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Hanging Tree

Recent Profile Visitors

2,450 profile views
  1. This is one of those times where I think death of the author is needed. That quote is not at all in line with what he wrote. If anything, I would say it's a full ret-con if he really thinks that. Which ordinarily wouldn't bother me, I don't really have an issue with retcons for small things, but that one is too far. He might as well have said he was a truly compassionate and good ruler. With brown hair. And is actually female.
  2. Immaturity kept me away, immaturity brought me back. :)

  3. Unrealistic long time span

    It doesn't bug me. It's fiction. Cop out answer? Maybe. But really, fiction just invites cop outs for things, something GRRM as a television writer would know all about.
  4. Bitterblooms

    I didn't truly appreciate this one until I learned it was based on the song "Suzanne." Then I listened to the audio book and really like Kim Mai Guest's telling. At first I thought it was one of GRRM's weaker efforts, but it's well thought out and beautifully written.    "You've always been my lover, Shawn..." 
  5.   Could be, but they could also be wrong. Time will tell. Either way, it isn't their call to say whether they're right and others who disagree are wrong.
  6.   I have not once said in this thread that Daenerys is AAR. But you suggested thinking so was "ignoring the text." Actually, the Ned and Dany as AAR could be similar in that regard. The people in universe certainly think it's so, but the readers think differently. I brought up Jrogon because that literally is not in the text anywhere.   The people who think Daenerys is AAR are not ignoring the text. They're reading it as is.
  7. That's the exact type of overanalyzing I'm talking about.     But they as an organization are called Faceless Men.      The funny thing is it can be tears or tears. Because in the actual RW chapter, they are also called red tears.   It might be important to point out that GRRM said not too literal, which doesn't mean "not in any way literal or even close to literal ever."
  8. "dreamt a man without a face waiting on a bridge that swayed and swung." "I dreamt of a roaring river and a woman that was a fish. Dead she drifted, with red tears on her cheeks, but when her eyes did open, oh, I woke from terror" "I dreamt a wolf howling in the rain, but no one heard his grief. I dreamt such a clangor I thought my head might burst, drums and horns and pipes and screams, but the saddest sound was the little bells." I'd consider these all pretty literal.
  9. We'll just have to agree to disagree then because those examples to me are pretty easy. Granted, I didn't catch every one of them on my first read but most of them I had some sort of guess about. I was speaking of a reader's perspective, but even so I had never thought it would be Arya because of her concurrent Braavos chapters. Just didn't seem feasible. I didn't guess it was Alys, but "a girl" is about as generic as a prophecy description as it can get.
  10. Nearly all of the Ghost of High Heart's. Some of Bran and Jojen's dreams. You might call those smaller prophecies though. Mel's two big ones from Dance seem extremely obvious. Girl in gray? It was a girl with gray eyes like Arya. Daggers in the dark? It was daggers in the dark (cloaks). I consider those two very literal and very easy the first time through. EDIT: Unless, of course, you think Alys is not the Girl in Gray and Daggers in the Dark refers to something else like Kevan.
  11. I wouldn't say he thinks "exactly" like that, especially considering some of his prophecies in universe are quite 'literal' and 'easy.' He's also said that he doesn't write solely to shock people, and the majority of the "its too obvious, here's a different theory!" theories seem to stem from exactly that.
  12.   I don't think "too obvious" is a good way to look at any prophecy, because readers do not all come to the same conclusions. And GRRM isn't just out to shock people and go in the opposite direction of expectations. Many would say Jon's parentage is too obvious, yet that's not going to change. And as far as the end of the first book goes, the biggest issue the series has started in the prologue so I don't think that limits the prophecy in any way. Plus, Jon and Dany were both born before the books started, so either way the prophecy has been in place to go off for a long time. Thematically, it makes sense for the first book to end with the prophecy being fulfilled and revealed later, at least as much sense as waiting way longer to reveal it completely.
  13.   2 answers 1. Daenerys as AAR is within the text, regardless of your opinion that it's just a red herring. She is straight up called AAR by a few characters. I'm not saying that can't be a red herring but it is not some wild mass guess that has no basis in the text. As far as the books are concerned, she is actually one of the only two candidates, along with Stannis. He's a much more obvious red herring.   As far as me "knowing" better, I know you're completely unfair when it comes to anything Daenerys, so I thought it was funny that you've said Jon getting Drogon isn't farfetched yet thinking Dany is AAR is "ignoring the text."
  14.   Meanwhile, back at the Wall with Jon riding Drogon...