Ferocious Veldt Roarer

Members
  • Content count

    4,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Ferocious Veldt Roarer

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 08/08/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,214 profile views
  1. I just know what Stannis Baratheon would've said to that.
  2. I hoped that "M" would stand for "Mance Rayder", or "Manderly, Lord Wyman".
  3. Actually, he did not. Brandon Starks of that world get trials. Kings who disregard that see their kingdoms pulled out from under them. First, hardly relevant. Second... If you did it without due process, then the word isn't "executed", it's "murdered". Which, even in your America, is a crime.
  4. To the general point of the thread: I, myself, follow the policy of "reasonable doubt". That is: doubt when there are direct signs in the text with "Hey, something fishy here!" written on them. Contradictions, like. But nothing in the books makes me think that Jaime got it wrong, it seems in perfect harmony with other relations we have. I don't subscribe to the Cartesian principle of doubting everything. There's no end to that. Duel? Certainly. If one can duel the king, then why not the crown prince? Maegor the Cruel and the captain of the Warrior's Sons fought a trial of seven - but the king was the challenger. Challenge? I don't know. We know for a fact that Tyrion Lannister was not a knight. Nor a lord. His right to a trial was never questioned by anybody (and he stood trial twice, both among very unwelcoming crowd), so I see no reason to question Brandon's. "Terrorism"? ZOMG. Call it, I don't know, "The Terrible Awful". The word you're using fits really bad.
  5. Sure thing. Obvi. I mean, there must be a reason why all the lords of the Dreadfort have those pale eyes, rite? (They do, don't they? I mean, it is written somewhere?) Yep. It is a well-established fact then when you're wearing someone else's skin, leeching is a must. Because that blood thing. Flawlessly reasoned. Actually, all good horsemen are closely related. And we all know about Bethany and Brandon, amirite? Nudge nudge, wink wink? It is known. The evidence supporting it is conclusive. Right. The family tree and the line of inheritance is perfectly clear there, kudos to your diligence. It had to be Roose, I'm sold. Almost. Only one question, though, just a formality, but a necessary one: what Littlefinger had to do with all of it? And if the answer is "nothing", then, sorry, I can't buy it. A Littlefingerless theory is a bad theory.
  6. Below the search results, a tiny, barely visible footer appears, with contact information: https://www.reddit.com/user/mrdziuban [email protected]
  7. The Roose and Ramsay dynamics is eerily similar to the Sith. "Always two, there are. No more. No less. A Master and an apprentice." - with the apprentice, one day, trying to destroy the master and take his place. Ramsay trying to off the daddy seems inevitable, and Roose is acutely aware of that. Lord Roose isn't terribly impatient for that day to come, and, I'm pretty confident, plans to be the survivor of that game. All communication between Roose and Ramsay (or Roose and Theon, which, from Roose's POV, would be the same thing) should be interpreted in that light.
  8. Well, there's the neat A Search Of Ice And Fire tool. This passage, specifically, I found using one of the names as query. The first time he had seen Castle Black with his own eyes, Jon had wondered why anyone would be so foolish as to build a castle without walls. How could it be defended? "It can't," his uncle told him. "That is the point. The Night's Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible. The Night's Watch had nine hundred and ninety-six Lords Commander before Jeor Mormont, most of them men of courage and honor . . . but we have had cowards and fools as well, our tyrants and our madmen. We survive because the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms know that we pose no threat to them, no matter who should lead us. Our only foes are to the north, and to the north we have the Wall." And it is the one and only appearance of Marq Rankenfell in the series. (And Robin Hill and Tristan Mudd, too).
  9. I'd give a cautious "yes, unless the stuff from other books is used to support some crazy, prestonish theory going against the actual logic of A Song Of Ice And Fire". However, this is exactly how the stuff from other books (and not only other books by GRRM - there was a fellow using "The Wheel Of Time" for the same purpose) is usually used. Therefore, count me in the "Nay" column.
  10. A good question: why? I hope some serious evidence follows. Sadly, no evidence follows. Disappointing, yet not really surprising. I personally think that the (way too common) threads, following the "X raped Y and I have no evidence to support it" pattern, are disgusting. (The additional lack of appeal of the "Aerys and Ashara" variety is the absolute absence of any connection between those two. Has the author ever put Aerys and Ashara in the same sentence? Ever? Maybe in the same paragraph?)
  11. That's merely the wiki. Written, essentially, by us, and not substantially more credible than any random post on the forum. In the books, the phrase "over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions" doesn't refer exclusively to those three mentioned. If the article from the wiki bugs you, feel free to rewrite it so it reflects on the books more accurately.
  12. There are two options. One, you honestly believe in your argument. Which is, frankly, repulsive. Two, you don't, you're just trolling. Both, however, lead to the exact same conclusion: I'm not going to waste my time and read anything you'll ever write again. Have a nice day.
  13. Bullshit. You can pin that accusation on Brandon, it's very difficult to pin it on the people who just kept him company, and simply mad to try to pin it on their fathers.
  14. Don't invest too much into defending Aerys II's actions. Whatever Brandon's crime might have been, the Mad King didn't stop with him, but also murdered: Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, Elbert Arryn. And their fathers. And Rickard Stark. Which destroys the "Aerys was justified" argument.
  15. Here comes the "mad king" part. You take one decision of Aerys that you interpret as rational and argue that therefore all his decisions were rational. No. Aerys II was mad. Unpredictable. Erratic. Madness doesn't preclude some lucid moments, but conversely a lucid moment or two doesn't disprove insanity.