The Ned's Little Girl

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About The Ned's Little Girl

  • Rank
    With rings on her fingers and bells on her toes
  • Birthday August 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cloud 11

Recent Profile Visitors

1,149 profile views
  1. I think it was when you said: and and (the bolding was added by me) I'll just quote myself here and then move on. No "must or mustn't" about it. No accusations either. I'm done here now.
  2. Why not? People are at liberty to regard the books any way they wish and they are also at liberty to say so on the internet. We do still (so far anyway) still have free speech on the internet, don't we? Why not? Can't someone just think something or someone is boring? And then say so? Why isn't "I think this is boring" a valid argument in and of itself? I believe it is valid. Now, does that make for an interesting or fruitful discussion? No, not likely. But so what? Free speech, again. I would argue that someone is rooting their objection to what they read in the books. They read the story and didn't like some aspect of it. The story might have pleased them had it been written differently, but it wasn't. The OP doesn't like Arya's story. Their dislike is based on how Arya's story was written in the books. I don't assume they dislike Arya because they also dislike The Grapes of Wrath, just as an example. I'm going to go back to my point about free speech. Is it your right to determine what is proper discussion on this forum? I don't think it is. You are, of course, perfectly at liberty to avoid or ignore any discussion you find useless, but you might want to think twice about asserting that your opinion (yes, opinion) about what is acceptable for discussion be adhered to by everyone.
  3. But in the end, an opinion is just that and only that. There really cannot be any text that supports or refutes a person's personal reaction. Even if someone makes the argument that Arya's Essos arc has nothing to do with the central plot, for example, that is also an opinion (unless the person arguing that point is GRRM). Because no reader can know that at this point how that arc will affect the rest of the story. And GRRM wrote that arc into the books so it's pretty clear that to him it's important to the overall story, otherwise it wouldn't be there. But pointing out a plotline's necessity can't do anything to change a bored reader's mind, because the necessity of the plotline isn't what they are bored by. I'm sorry, but this is just not possible. A personal opinion is what was being expressed by the OP and the basis for their opinion is that they are bored by Arya. There is simply no objective rationale (like text) that can support or refute a person's individual opinions. It always boils down to "I just don't like it" or "It's really interesting to me", no matter how much text is quoted. Always.
  4. How is it possible for there to be "textual evidence" that a fictional character is boring, unless the textual evidence is supposed to convey that the character actually is boring? In that case, it's not exactly a controversial idea that can be refuted by evidence. Even textual evidence, supposing it exists, can be interpreted differently by a different reader who could argue that the text makes the character interesting. I don't see how someone maintaining that they are bored by a character can be anything other than an opinion (with the exception of a character deliberately created to be so).
  5. I'd be wary of relying too much on historical precedent. Of course he looked to historical events and characters as inspiration - as a starting point - but that's no reason to assume that he will then follow the course of those same events in his story. GRRM is telling his own story, the one he wants to tell.
  6. Wikipedia seems to know. So, it was not so much a title as an indication of the head of the clan; the person who would speak for the clan, negotiate on its behalf, be held responsible for its collective behaviour, etc.
  7. No, Robb Stark would not be considered to be Tywin Lannister's son-in-law, nor is Robb any more related to Tywin after the Tyrion/Sansa marriage than he was before that marriage. Tywin's death was provoked entirely by his specific sins against Tyrion, not by any generalized sins against the gods old and new.
  8. This hardly rises to the level of "revelation". If you had described it as "shocking my-own-personal-opinion", then that would be much more accurate. Even if not all that shocking. More seriously, even if your foreboding comes true and all the main characters are killed by the end of the saga, that would be pretty frickin' awesome. I'm sure GRRM will do it justice. Bring it on, George!
  9. Your first two quotes are when Arya = The Blind Girl and the other is from Jon's perspective. Perhaps being not-Arya is what is different? And in the Jon vision, perhaps his using "cousins" is a hint to the true (biological) relation between him and Arya (although I would argue that they are brother and sister in every other way).
  10. Please note that I never said Tyrion wasn't raped nor did I say he wasn't a victim (he definitely was). I said only that he had a choice whether or not to comply. His reasons for choosing to comply are all too understandable and forgivable. However, he still had a choice and he still made it. I read the argument all the time that Tyrion "had no choice" to do what he did (this applies to his marrying Sansa as well), the reason being that the negative consequences negate that choice. That is wholly wrong, in my view.
  11. For Tyrion, there was always a choice. Even if the consequences of refusing to comply would be dire (and in Tyrion's case I'm pretty sure they would be dire), that doesn't remove the fact that he had the choice. The one who didn't have a choice was Tysha.
  12. Not sure if you mean a viable option for Sansa or for Tyrion. Tywin did say that if Tyrion refused the Stark girl then he (Tywin) would find another wife, perhaps among the lesser houses. So there were indeed other viable options for Tyrion (which kinda weakens the case that Tyrion was forced into marrying Sansa). But I can't really agree that Tywin had other options in mind for Sansa. Firstly, there isn't really any indication in the text that he "would have" come up with something, that's purely speculative; and secondly, the only other options brought up were only done so for form's sake. The fact that the other 4 (4!) bridegroom possibilities other than Tyrion were clearly impossible seems proof enough of this. I think that's doubtful. Kevan is of the exact same mind as Tywin on pretty much all matters. So if he says Lancel is not up to the job, then it is because that's Tywin's opinion also. Remember as well the pressure on Tyrion to consummate with Sansa, to make the marriage binding. If Lancel is unable to right away, then that's a problem for the Lannisters. Actually, I don't agree that it was a different situation. As regards Tyrion being duplicitious, it's pretty much the same situation, by saying one thing but at the same time either privately meaning something else (in the case of Jaime negotiations) or offering a false choice (in the Sansa case) because he knowingly cannot guarantee the offered outcome. And in trying to determine whether Tyrion is sincere or not, I'm not sure it matters what Sansa's most likely reply would be. The question is, is Tyrion making a good-faith offer to replace himself with his cousin? I'm coming down on the side of "No". Besides, if what he really wanted was to save his brother, he absolutely had the option to negotiate with the Starks in good faith and actually accomplish the exchange of Sansa for Jaime. However, he chose duplicity and bad faith instead.
  13. I think it's dangerous to take Tyrion's word for this literally, since there are several good reasons not to. 1) When the discussion of Tyrion's marriage occurs between him, Tywin and Kevan, the idea of Lancel (or other Lannister prospects) is brought up but Kevan pours cold water on all of them by stating that Lancel would be unable to consummate and the 3 others are unavailable due to being prisoners of the Starks. Clearly, these other options for marriage to Sansa are not meant to be taken seriously. Tyrion immediately grasps that, thinking "Tyrion let them have their byplay; it was all for his benefit, he knew." 2) It's pretty hard to believe that Tyrion would have the authority to offer Lancel's hand in marriage to Sansa. He's not Lancel's father or guardian; he's not even acting Hand of the King any more. If he promises something he can't deliver, it's a pretty safe bet that the promise cannot be made in good faith. 3) We readers already know that Tyrion can be duplicitous and promise one thing while meaning another thing entirely. Remember he promised to negotiate the exchange of Sansa for Jaime, but he absolutely was being dishonest in that, to the point of disguising some soldiers as "negotiators" with orders to bust Jaime out by force. 4) We only read of Tyrion's "offer" of Lancel in Sansa's POV, so we have no way to determine his sincerity. If he said this in his own POV, we might have some clue if he was saying this for form's sake or if he truly meant it. Even if in his thoughts he was sincere, reasons 1-3 above would be cause to doubt him.
  14. Book readers wouldn't see that either.
  15. It is enough to say that, yes indeed. But there needs to be a reason to regard something as a different thing than it is on its surface.The purple serpents are a perfect example. Clearly, we don't have maids with literal purple serpents for hair so that's a clue that we readers should look beyond the literal meaning of the words, should regard that description as symbolic. Another good example is the Ghost of High Heart's description of the dead Catelyn Stark as a woman who was a fish. The words make absolutely plain that they aren't to be taken literally because a woman who was a fish is simply not a thing. Plus, on top of readers having a reason to look at the written words in a sense other than literal, the symbolism of them has to make sense. Which both of those examples above do, when the symbolism is decoded. So, my problem with interpreting "a girl in grey on a dying horse" as symbolism, rather than what the words straightforwardly say, is that there isn't any indication or reason for the reader to look at those words differently than the way they are written. They absolutely can be literally true, which the examples I gave above can not. Decoding "a girl in grey" to mean a girl who is currently residing in a city that has a lot of grey coloration is pretty tenuous and also doesn't make much sense. Same with the horse: it's either dying or it isn't. If it isn't dying, why is that word used and what state is the horse in? What does the descriptor "dying" mean, if it doesn't mean dying? And if it does mean spiritual death or becoming No-One, why is it applied to the horse and not to the girl (since Arya is the only one in the story undergoing that very process and representing her as a horse has a lot of problems with it)? I guess my question boils down to, "What reason do I have to believe that these words are symbolic, not literal?" I don't actually see a reason to believe that. It seems to me that the vision's simplest form is the truest: a girl dressed in grey clothing riding on a nearly-dead horse. Could have been Alys Karstark and already happened. Could be Jeyne Poole and is imminent. Could be Arya Stark and is yet to happen (although not in the way that was described in the OP). TL;DR I don't see any reason to read Mel's vision in any way other than literal and the examples given in the original post showing how the girl is Arya Stark in Braavos don't add up, and if the vision is regarded symbolically it makes even less sense.