• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Kingmonkey

  • Rank
    Born from an egg on a mountain top

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,932 profile views
  1. You're new here. That's cool. We need fresh blood. Many of us who've been at this for longer have got a bit bored of the argument and have drifted away until there's more text to analyse. However that means you've missed a lot of the debate that has got us to a place where RLJ gets so widely accepted. RLJ has a lot of evidence. Proof, no. If there was proof, this thread wouldn't be needed any more than a "Ned + Cat = Sansa" thread would. Evidence there is plenty of, just take a read of the essays linked from the reference guide at the front of this thread. RLJ is the most popular theory because most people believe it to be the strongest. However it is certainly questioned -- indeed you say "all people do is defend the theory", which makes no sense. You can't defend the theory unless it's challenged, so there must be people challenging it too, right? Often it's even the same people who defend it at another moment. There has been a lot of effort to come up with alternatives to RLJ. A couple of years ago @wolfmaid7 ran a great "x+y=j" project to study the alternatives. You can find the wrap-up thread and links to the various essays here: Lots of reading for you there. The options studied in depth are RLJ, Arthur Dayne+Lyanna, Robert+Lyanna, Howland Reed+Lyanna, Tywin Lannister + Lyanna, Mance + Lyanna, Ned + Wylla and Lyanna+one of her brothers. Have fun!
  2. Brandon is the default Stark folk-hero name. History blends Brandons together, confusing one Brandon for another and merging their deeds. Old Nan also confuses one Brandon for another. Her tales also contain remarkable historical details. Old Nan is history. QED. Whether she's a literary conceit, symbolic of the oral traditions that both preserve and confuse history, or whether she is, as my crackpot headcanon insists, actually several thousand years old and the Brandon she came to Winterfell to wet nurse was the first Brandon, doesn't really matter. She is history personified.
  3. Maybe more than just a slap in the face. The pro-Rhaegar faction at court seems to have had a strong Dornish contingent, and Aegon's sole surviving parent was Elia of Dorne. With Aegon as Aerys' heir, the Dornish who Aerys was so paranoid about were a dagger in the dark away from taking control of the Iron Throne. Aerys may have viewed making Viserys his heir as a simple matter of survival.
  4. "Hand it over"? They are an army, not a cake. How does Euron have any say in the matter? They fight for the person who pays them, not their chauffeur.
  5. I this this explains what a royal decree has to be based on better than I can:
  6. This may well turn out to be a show innovation. The books already have an Aegon Targaryen in them. It's a fair shout that D&D are merging book Aegon's role with Jon's, and the name could simply be a reflection of that. The fun thing is figuring out which parts of show Jon's story will turn out to be book Jon's, and how much will turn out to be book Aegon's.
  7. A lot of people seem to hate the capture-a-zombie scheme. Fair enough, if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm curious though -- do people think this is going to be a show-only plotline? Are they going to be angry about it if it shows up in the books too? 'Cos I'm pretty convinced it will do. Everyone did notice that Jon Snow just travelled through the icy wastelands to the ancient centre of power of the Children, where they first created the WW, right? With 12 companions, a dog, a horse and a sword? Jon is fulfilling the Last Hero role, Dany the Azor Ahai role -- the champions of Ice and of Fire.
  8. So was this replica: Should we really believe that the "spiked iron warhammer that Ned could scarcely lift" weighed just 10lb? I can't see how we can consider this a meaningful source.
  9. Subjective feelings are the only thing that can be discussed when the scale is subjective, which an undefined scale is. "Us" as in those of us answering the question. It's not a universal yes or no answer -- it will make some people think, it will not make other people think. Again, this is subjective. I entirely agree that a subjective judgement should not be considered equal to an objective judgement, but some things can only really be judged subjectively. Is GoT better than Breaking Bad? Does chicken taste nicer than lamb? Tastes differ. We could of course discuss elements of the show from an objective viewpoint -- does character motivation make sense, is it well acted, does the pacing hold up, so on. However when the question is "how do you rate this episode", that's not the question being asked. I said "Maybe that's because..." not "That is because..." because I *don't* know that. It was an example. Nor do I expect everyone to be as tolerant of it as me -- I did indeed say "well fair enough". However this too is a subjective matter. You say "GoT often doesn't make any sense at all, and you can't expect everyone to be as tolerant about it as you are," but what makes one person more tolerant than another? Why does a bit of nonsense in GoT raise such ire and intolerance amongst some fans? Is it really so much more nonsensical than other shows? I really don't think so. Consider the eagles problem in LoTR, for example. Or how nobody can tell that Clark Kent is Superman because he wears glasses. These are examples of grade A nonsense that anything GoT has done pales in comparison to, but the almost universal reaction is to have a bit of a laugh about it, make a meme or two out of it, and shrug your shoulders. We can of course objectively discuss the degree of nonsense there is in GoT (though even the discussions of that are rarely objective), but how important that is to our enjoyment of the show remains entirely subjective.
  10. The problem is that there can be no basis for objective judgement without specifying the nature of that judgement. We're asked to score the show from 1-10, but on what basis? Is this a rating of the literary qualities of the show? Of its entertainment value? Of how accurately it follows the books? That isn't specified. On top of that, what does a rating of x actually mean? Does a 10 mean absolute perfection and a 1 mean absolute failure, in which case those scores should never be given? If so, what's the point of having them? Or should we see the scores as percentiles, in which case a 10 is simply a way of saying it's one of the best 10% of episodes. Or should that be amongst the best 10% of TV shows in general? Or maybe it's a logarithmic scale, and the extremes are the best or worst 0.1%? I chose to judge the show based on the simple calculus of how much I enjoyed the hour spent watching the show. This is, after all, entertainment. Entertainment is a good basis for judgement because it encompasses a lot of separate factors. Is there spectacle? Did it make us think? Did the acting transport us? Everything comes into it. This episode was undoubtedly flawed, and there were many nits to pick. Nevertheless I gave it a 10 on the simple basis that I'm hard pressed to think of an hour I spent watching a TV show that I enjoyed as much as this. What's the point of having a 10 in the scale if you won't give it? Was Arya's fight with Brienne a bit silly? Yes, yes it was. However that doesn't really bother me, and it was fun to watch. Someone else might be more bothered by it, to the degree that it significantly mars their enjoyment of the show. And hey ho, we're back to subjectivity. I assume that people who scored it a 1 are working on a similar basis to me. They really, really, didn't enjoy the show. For whatever subjective reason, they hated spending an hour watching it, felt their time had been stolen. Maybe that's because they were impassioned to see a show that fitted their expectations from the book, and didn't get that. Well, fair enough, though it baffles me that anyone who would score this episode a 1 would bother watching the show at all. That's a lot more sensible than suggesting they honestly thought that it was worse than 90% of the programming on television, for example.
  11. I don't think you're likely to find anyone more informed about the theory than the people who visit this thread. You'd be better off asking here than asking any one person.
  12. Agreed. You should have quoted a little further on, for a revealing passage: The Other's sword isn't capable of easily shattering Waymar Royce's blade at first, because we are told "Again and again the swords met...". After it is blooded, the Other says something "mocking", and shatters Royce's blade with a parry that is "almost lazy". This certainly seems to point to the idea that the Other blade has been empowered -- and in the passage I quote above, we see all the others joining in AFTER Royce is defeated -- they too are blooding their blades. I don't think this is simply a slaughter, I think it's a ritual. It may be that finding a Royce north of the Wall is the reason why the Others are back.
  13. GRRM has said many times that he's not interested in the simplicity of good vs. evil, rather in shades of grey. In picking fire & ice as his dipole, he's following a tradition of shades-of-grey fantasy that owes a lot to Michael Moorcock and his "new wave" movement. The dipole in Moorcock's Eternal Champion series was Law vs Chaos. In small doses, it seems as if Law is good, and Chaos evil -- law brings peace while chaos brings war. However a victory for Law would mean an unchanging universe of lifeless order, whilst a victory for Chaos would mean a universe of formless confusion. Neither works out well. This idea has been a common one in sci fi & fantasy since. Varys and Littlefinger seem to be pretty much direct representatives of Law & Chaos, but the same balance is seen in fire and ice. If either one gets too powerful, humanity is screwed. You really don't want White Walkers OR dragons, they're both bad news.
  14. I think this is probably the case. We should be a little wary of everything in the opening 13 chapter act to be honest -- there are at the very least traces of GRRM's original story line hanging around in there, and it would be quite reasonable to guess that GRRM may have written that line before he'd even thought up Harrenhal. However I did discuss the possibility that this passage hints at Benjen being Jon's dad in said essay, which is not specific to Ned+Lyanna, but explores the idea that Jon is the son of Lyanna and one of her brothers. Link below:
  15. I didn't say I'm right about Starkcest. I believe RLJ is considerably more likely. I've said several times in this discussion, and indeed in the very text you quoted above, that I don't think Starkcest is the likely answer. I said there are clues, and I've provided an essay full of them. There is indeed no way all of the clues in every alternative can be right, and therefore some, indeed most, of those clues are wrong. Agreed. You are aware that applies to RLJ too, right? Hell, even if (when) RLJ is confirmed, do you honestly think all of the clues people have come up with that point to it are "real"? I'm sure that at least half of them would be completely new to GRRM. Now, if someone said "There are no clues to RLJ" on the basis that they believe in something else and therefore all the clues for RLJ must be wrong, I'm pretty sure that you'd think that person was not worth listening to (to put it mildly). So why exactly should YOU be an exception? ALL of the clues we're discussing -- for RLJ, or Starkcest, or for anything else, are merely proposed clues. That won't change unless GRRM confirms or denies those clues. If you wish to dismiss all clues that are merely proposed -- congratulations, you've just dismissed RLJ. If you mean there are no proposed clues for Starkcest, then you're talking nonsense, as I've provided an essay full of them. Disagree with them all you like. Consider them to be weaker than those for RLJ, sure. Hey, I do too! However, claiming they don't exist is just sticking your fingers in your ears, saying "la la la, I can't hear you," and mistaking it for reasoned debate. I agree with you when you say there should be parallels to establish a pattern, which is why I show the parallels to establish the pattern in my essay. If you want the answer to what parallels there are, you could actually read the essay you're criticising, and find out. If you're so certain of RLJ at this point that you can't be bothered with alternative hypotheses, fair enough. That's a perfectly valid position to take, and nobody said you have to read the essays dealing with alternatives. Just don't pretend you have something to contribute to the discussion if you're not interested in finding out what's being discussed.