The Ned's Little Girl

Members
  • Content count

    1,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About The Ned's Little Girl

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Cloud 11

Recent Profile Visitors

1,223 profile views
  1. My goodness, we've gotten a long way away from "Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys".
  2. "Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." Besides, there's Ned's promise to Lyanna on her deathbed, which we don't know what it is but it could be something powerful and important enough to tie Ned's hands in this matter (of telling Jon).
  3. Why does that matter? A vow (or promise) is not one thing when made by a Royal and another thing when made by a private citizen. A vow can be broken by anyone, no matter their status in society. A broken vow is just as broken when done by a King/Queen as by a private citizen.
  4. Yes, it's been argued that Theon killing Bran and Rickon is a form of kin-slaying. I think it's primarily based on the Hooded Man calling Theon a kin-slayer. I don't remember if anyone else calls him that.
  5. The way I've understood it is that guest right protection extends throughout the duration of the visit. It begins once the guest has partaken of the host's food and drink. But Wyman Manderley showed that it continues until the visit is ended; thus, the giving of a gift of horses by him to the Freys on their departure from his hall was meant to show definitively that their protections under guest rights had now ended.
  6. The postings so far seem to be "opinions I hold that are unpopular with the community".
  7. I only brought up Ivanhoe to counter your seeming idea that Rhaegar carrying the flowers to Lyanna on the lance somehow meant it was a hostile gesture, or a warning gesture or something. I don't believe that it was such a gesture; I think it's common in literature about knightly tournament adventures, of which Ivanhoe is a classic, almost a prototype. Although, I would also argue that Rhaegar dropping the flowers into Lyanna's lap only enhances the phallic symbolism; more specifically, sexual intercourse symbolism, which wasn't terribly subtle. That's probably why nobody was smiling about it.
  8. Have you ever seen Ivanhoe? I'm thinking of the 1982 television one with Anthony Andrews because it's the one I'm familiar with. Ivanhoe enters the tournament as a Mystery Knight under an assumed name. When he wins the first day, Prince John awards him a crown to present to the day's queen. The prince asks Ivanhoe to present his lance and the prince slips the crown onto the end of the lance and makes a suggestion for an appropriate recipient. Ivanhoe then rides right past that lady and awards the crown to his fiancee by lowering his lance enough for her to take the crown off the end of it. I think that was the standard way of doing these things. Also, there's definitely the phallic thing that Ygrain mentioned.
  9. Nobody "deserves" to have a throne.
  10. The Bloody Cloak. It's crackpot, but I love it.
  11. Have you ever seen As You Like It? Or Shakespeare In Love? Or Some Like It Hot? Or Mrs. Doubtfire? Or many others too numerous to mention wherein a character disguises him/herself as the other gender in order to hide or to do something they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to do as themselves? It's actually a very common trope in books, movies and stories.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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).