sweetsunray

Members
  • Content count

    6,282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sweetsunray

  • Rank
    House Rave, For the Critical Watch

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Belgium

Recent Profile Visitors

8,550 profile views
  1. Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]

    That was me when I started to read the books. Well, I didn't expect Ross POV chapters, but I did expect a whore Ross to be a character in the books. Robb's war in the show was confusing by itself, and the bits of Harrenhal (suddenly everyone dead and gone, and then off-screen Roose's troops turn out to be killed there), though I liked Arya's story at Harrenhal in the show. And then I read aCoK and I'm even more confused (because it's written to pay close attention). Once I let go of the show-story though, the confusion lifted and I thought "Arya's aCoK story is fricking awesome and why the hell didn't they do it like that?" At least by aSoS, I was prepared to read a far better story than what I had watched. Pretty sure that by the time any show-only-watcher starts reading aFfC is already prepared to just let go of the show and read the books as they are. As for the commentary that they adapted aFfC and aDwD: well they skewered it into bits and pieces and then sprinkled a few tidbits here and there in mash-up hussle. That whole scene with the Hound killing 3 men who stuck their fingers in another guy's butt for lolz who didn't "die well" seemed a hint to Shagwell (Shag Well, doesn't die well) and his 2 other friends that Brienne kills at the Crags.
  2. Nominations and Ranking Thread 2016

    Hmmm, keyholder of Braavos? I'd like that
  3. Nominations and Ranking Thread 2016

    The likert scale would test in how much someone agrees or disagrees with the OP. It's usable to test theories or opinions proposed in the OP. This was more to rate the overall liking of the discussion or contributions, regardless whether you agree or disagree with the OP. It all depends on what you're surveying, I guess. I know last year a poster asked for nominations of theories in all sorts of categories and then people could vote their preferred answer for example.
  4. Ned Ignoring Arya

    No, he didn't, not in the books. That's a show invention. In the books Ned thinks of Jon at the Wall while he's inthe dungeon, imagining he could talk to him, without mentioning what about.
  5. Was Domeric really Roose's son?

    You don't know that. Nothing in the text suggests that Domeric was ashamed of being a Bolton. A Stark trait that was believed to be no more than fairytales by Rickard Stark and Ned Stark. The direwolves were gone for 200 years. The Nightfort and the Black Gate are closed for 200 years. Less than 200 years before current timeline the Stark brothers heavily protested against a Stark daughter marrying a Royce of the Vale. And Bloodraven is the last known wizard. But by the time of aGoT, skinchanging and dragons and magic are nothing but fairytales, despite the fact they fought a wildling king who'd have had skinchangers in tow. There is no actual evidence that Lyanna skinchanged horses. It's fun to speculate on it, but Arya (a confirmed skinchanger) can ride like Lyanna without skinchanging a horse (she only skinchanged Nymeria and cats so far). The Ryswells have a horse sigil and breed horses. So, there's nothing weird about the son of a Ryswell being a great horserider, especially if he spend years as a page at Barrowhall, where the ruling lady is a Ryswell and the neighbours are Ryswells with huge horse herds. I don't see how being sisters, Bethany being Lady Bolton, Barbrey sleeping with Brandon and miscarriages are evidence that Domeric is not a trueborn Bolton. It might if we actually had a parallel of a similar prior case. Robert sleeps with a Florent at Stannis's wedding to Selyse. Selyse has had many miscarraiges and only Shyreen survived to grow up into a lovely kid (who's not autistic like her father and fare more friendly than her mother Selyse). Shyreen is still Stannis's trueborn daughter, and Robert's bastard with a Florent was not made into a trueborn son of Stannis. Robert didn't sleep with Selyse either. Huh? I don't remember Domeric being described as a wild personality ready to fly off the handle on a moment's notice, nor a womanizer. Brandon didn't play harp as far as we know.
  6. Was Domeric really Roose's son?

    True. Bethany was "quiet" in bed. We know that of her.
  7. Was Domeric really Roose's son?

    See what you wrote in your defense, and then your overstatements of my points. Raven-crow or kettle-pot perhaps? How are the books constructed with characters? There are POV characters who serve as a perspective on events, not as objective recording cameras but as flawed or misdirecting narrators, but also as people we the readers can emotionally connect with. Then there are non POV plot-characters. They play crucial to intermediary roles in the plot to create issues, problems, but also solve issues, a helper or a romantic interest and basically help move the plot beyond the power of the POV characters. Some of these are major, others are less so, and some are just a blip, like the catspaw who comes to assassinate Bran. Then there are the background characters who serve as a background info to secondary characters, background of a plot, reveal off-page information or fill in the gaps. How does George provide information? Almost anything but direct. We have a POV for one book who could give us some information of RR and the ToJ and Harrenhal, but George instead gave us an incomplete puzzle through that POV. The POVs present heavily distorted information, even as we witness events through their eyes. Meanwhile he conveys far more accurate information through symbolism and parallelism, as if the truth is echoed in a tourney's joust, the appearance and name of a horse. George doesn't do straightforward and complete answers of the mysteries he set up. We don't get Maigret or Poirot to do an exposition of whodunnit, how and why in detail. So, when you say "he could have Selmy remember Rhaegar's riding skills" (actually he said Rhaegar rode "brilliantly"), then I'm wondering whether we're talking about the same series, which is an exercise in vaguery. George doesn't do simple, straightforward info, and even when he gives us an answer it's incomplete or unconfirmed and often in unrelated locations/time/POV/event. So we have Theon as a POV character, a distorted lens on the events in the North, Winterfell and Stannis's camp. He's also a plot mover in aCoK with his actions and choices by taking WF and making it look as if he killed Bran and Rickon. And again a plot mover when he takes Jeyne Poole. The aDwD and part tWoW plot he's a lens of is in how the Boltons will lose Winterfell. A winter siege and a straightforward battle are unlikely to be succesful. It will need turncloaks, false allies, making mistakes, traps and lures and the loss of assets to make that come about. And we are given hints to these in aDwD. So, the Boltons are the family to topple, and his allies are the ones to die or betray him. Of those "allies" the Manderlys and Barbrey Dustin are the more important ones. Manderlys motive is easily based on the red wedding and the Starks giving them a home, and we already know there's a rivalry against the Boltons since Lady Hornwood. The Manderlys are the Bolton-ally that Roose Bolton obviously shouldn't trust. George can't make all the Bolton allies be like Manderly - obviously untrustworthy. He has to have less obvious betrayers as well, people who sound loyal to him, whom he can expect to be loyal, who acted loyal in the past when the Boltons didn't have power yet. Such an ally is Barbrey Dustin. And yet she requires a motive too. Domeric is the motive. That the Boltons were never all that long term plot-important a family (like the Lannisters) is because there aren't many to begin with, and George didn't spend his time on creating an elaborate history of the family either. We certainly don't have an elaborate family tree. Roose and Ramsay were developed as characters as George wrote. In aGoT he set up Roose Bolton already in a position to be an untrustworthy ally for Robb. Then in aCoK he invents Ramsay, a bastard. But he needs to make it believable that Ramsay gets to lead the home garisson. If Roose can father a bastard then we could expect him to father trueborn children as well, and to emphasize Ramsay's viciousness, George invents Domeric rumored to have been killed by Ramsay. George also already suggests that Barbrey Dustin is not on par with the Starks, because she doesn't come to the harvest feast. From aFfC, George begins to set up and clarify the possible relations that can make Barbrey turn away from Roose. In the appendix we get a lis for the Dreadfort as Roose Bolton, dead Domeric who died of a bad belly and Ramsay, and then the retinue. In the same appendix we get a list for the Ryswells, starting with Lord Ryswell, Barbrey Dustin his daughter, her liege man Stout, Bethany Bolton his second daughter who was Roose's second wife and died of fever, and his quarrelsome cousins Roger, Rickard and Roose Ryswell. The text of aDwD however says Roger, Rickard and Roose are Lord Ryswell's sons (even though the aDwD appendix calls them cousins again). And not until aDwD in the text is it clarified that Bethany Ryswell was Domeric's mother, that Domeric served as a page with Barbrey, before he squired at House Redford in the Vale, providing the motive for Barbrey Dustin to be loyal to the Boltons on the one hand, but also a turncloak to them out of personal revenge. At this point George has to color in Domeric somewhat, but only insofar it provides us direct info on Roose and Barbrey. For example, while Roose Bolton gives info on his son (and the mother, who never made a sound in bed), Roose is bragging about Domeric to Theon (the complete opposite of what he does about Ramsay). So, dead Domeric is used to give us character information about Roose - that of the proud father who makes do with the bastard son he considers pretty much worthless and more a pain than a gain. The bragging info though was relayed to Roose by Barbrey. So, dead Domeric is used to give us character information about Barbrey before we meet her in person - the proud childless aunt who hates the bastard on suspicion of having murdered Domeric. Sugar aunts don't become sugar aunts without bonding with their nephew at some level, and as Lady of Barrowhall she can't stay extensive periods at the Dreadfort, so Domeric's made a page of her for a while. Then the talents must be filled in. They need to be everything that Ramsay's not - intellectual, cultured and skilled. George ends up with a near parallel to Rhaegar and exploits the parallel to relay us something about the Rhaegar-Lyanna dynamic. In each and every sense Domeric is an off-page dead background character used purely to relay us context: Why the bastard Ramsay ends up in control of Roose's garisson: the trueborn son died That Roose could be a proud father, while loathing his bastard: skilled and cultured Domeric Why Barbrey Dustin is one of the more loyal powers of Roose: marrital ties with offspring Motive for Barbrey Dustin to see at least Ramsay dead: he was her beloved nephew, suspected to have been killed by Ramsay A parallel to Rhaegar and hint at us that Rhaegar could catch up with Lyanna He already provided the info we need to have about Roose-Barbrey dynamics, about the characters alive. Domeric not being Roose's son adds nothing to what we already have and muddies the waters. You also beg argument of motive for me pointing out the parallel use. You claim that it is my pet theory that Rhaegar caught Lyanna racing after her with the KotLT story. I never positively claimed this was my theory. I actually mentioned two situations where it could be relevant: KotLT OR the kidnapping of Lyanna. I don't know which of the situations it is. Any scenario on the crowning of Lyanna, the KotLT (and whether they were unmasked by Rhaegar) and the kidnapping is speculative. We hardly have any circumstantial evidence on it. Even some of the text used to propose Lyanna as the KotLT are hints and based on literary analysis deduction of puzzle pieces in several arcs that are certainly not related to Harrenhal, Lyanna or Rhaegar. While I lean towards Lyanna being the KotLT, I'm not 100% sure of it yet either. What I am pointing out though is that in one or both scenarios George is telling us that 1 ) Lyanna was a phenomenal horse rider 2 ) still beatable. And that in the one direct reference to someone who's able to outrace Lyanna, that character is mentioned in a way that Rhaegar inevitably comes to mind. While other characters who knew Rhaegar can of course comment on his jousting and riding skills to themselves or others (which they do, despite your early negation of it), nobody can actually tell us that Rhaegar outraced Lyanna, since there was either no witness to it (KotLT) OR the witnesses are all dead (the kidnapping). On top of that the characters who knew Rhaegar, know little to nothing about Lyanna, other than that she was a wild beauty. Selmy can't make a commentary statement about Rhaegar outracing Lyanna, because he doesn't know Lyanna's riding skills, and to him naturally a skilled top tier jouster could outrace any woman on horseback. The only way that George can clue us in on Rhaegar-Lyanna dynamics that occured in secret, long ago, is through a parallel or a flashback vision. Personally, I'm more inclined to think it's a parallel commentary on the kidnapping of Lyanna. On the one hand we're given the information that Lyanna was a superior horserider. George probably did this for the KotLT identity and to fit the "wild Lyanna" profile. But then that leads to issues with the kidnapping. If Lyanna was such a great horserider, then surely she could have escaped her captors. We know she did not escape them, so many readers conclude that Lyanna never even tried. Arya's failed attempt at escaping the BwB and Rhaegar-parallel-Domeric outracing Lyanna serve as George's comment, "Well maybe she tried to escape, but was outraced anyhow." It doesn't matter whether you expected Arya to fail because she was so young. The fail-to-escape situation is realistic in Arya's arc. I never claimed it was unrealistic. What is remarkable about it is that George inserts a Lyanna link in there. Arya's caught, Harwin compliments her on her riding skills and how she rides like her aunt Lyanna (info on Lyanna's riding skills without it being an info dump), but stresses he could still catch her. The scene would work just as well without the Lyanna-tie. So, I can only conclude that George didn't put it in there for Arya's sake, but to reveal us something about Lyanna, her riding skills, but also escape attempts that fail, especially since George has a tendency of people ending up being kidnapped in the Riverlands at inns (Tyrion, Arya, Brienne, and supposedly Lyanna as Rhaegar is said to have fell on Lyanna not far from the Crossroads Inn). And sure you can sum up all sorts of creative ways for George to have Rhaegar catch Lyanna, but the issue still remains how George can clue us in on the scenario he has in mind. Aside from a weirnet vision, he can only do that with parallels, with stand-inns, using present events and then remarking on Rhaegar or Lyanna. I follow textual hints. The coulds are fun, but without some textual clues, they're nothing more than irrelevant fun. Anyhow, just to show that your assumptions about what I was arguing and why I was arguing is completely off the mark.
  8. Was Domeric really Roose's son?

    I don't know whether Roose and Ramsay, two individuals, are enough to typify "classic Bolton traits". We can't even say what typical Lannister traits are, aside from looks, and we have more than 2 people for that, but obviously Tywin and his father and his brother Gerold were two very different personalities. Meanwhile the son who's said to be most like Tywin, Tyrion, is speculated by readers to not be Tywin's son at all; that he may be a Targ. So? There are only two families that are described to have certain typical personalities - Targs with their fire and blood, and the Starks with wolfish but ice cold blood. And even there plenty of Starks and Targs differ enormously from individual to individual. Furthermore, a trueborn Domeric would still have a Ryswell mother. Since when can't a trueborn son inherit traits from his mother. Do we know what Bethany Ryswell was like? Not at all. Finally, even psychopaths father perfectly social and altruistic children that would never harm a fly, despite the fact that psychopathy has a genetic hereditary component. And then yet again their (great-)grandchild may grow up into a psychopath, despite being raised in a loving, protective home.
  9. Its clear that Loras went to an empty Dragon Stone

    Actually there is a benefit to having dragonstone for the Tyrells. Not at the time of taking it, but once they have it and Cersei's shenanigans with Margaery become clear, it is in their advantage to have a basis to blockade trade and ships going in the Blackwater, if they wish to jump over to say fAegon's side.
  10. The cloak points to Sandor. Sansa is referred to as looking like a bear cub twice, so she has the bear references applied to herself. And Sansa is in the protector role of SR, rather than vice versa. Not just because of the bear references for Sansa, but because of the suckling references. George uses iconic mothering imagery almost uniquely for sons. The iconic imagery he borrows from is Isis related: breastfeeds her baby son Horus watches over boy Horus when sick (including magical spells) and protects him from assassination regent and advizor for the young man Horus who wishes to go to war Catelyn, Cersei and Lysa are all either shown or remember breastfeeding sons: Catelyn => Rickon and Robb (both in memory) Cersei => Tommen (Ned's remark) and Joffrey (her own memory) Lysa => SR (shown to still breastfeeding him) All three are shown to worry and fuss over a sick son, prevent sickness and prevent assassination Catelyn => Bran (at his side while in a coma, her presence prevents the catspaw's success) Cersei => Tommen (fussing over his clothes, whether he eats well enough, food taster, etc) Lysa => SR (over anxious and protective while also feeling from KL, etc) All three are single moms serving as regent to their ruling-son Catelyn => regent and advizor with Robb's campaign, who unites a southern and northern kingdom and takes a crown and title for both, while Ned is either in a dungeon or minus a head. Cersei => regent over Tommen, and a widow Lysa => SR's regent, and a widow Horus is the "green-eyed" (Wadjet Eye), the "falcon" who flies, the avenger of his father's murder, the hunter Rickon has plenty of symbolic hunting imagery about him, despite his age Robb has hunting imagery plus avenging his father's death is a major motivation Bran's 3rd eye and him being a "greenseer", who has to learn to "fly" Tommen has literally "green eyes" SR is an Arryn, descended from the Falcon Knight and fascinated by making people "fly" on a greenseer weirwoord throne (though I don't believe he's a greenseer. He's like Beric imo - an image of a greenseer without being one). Of course George subverts the Isis-Horus myth by having all these mothers fail, and he has a thing for sons being switched and breastfed by surrogate mothers and how that may save their lives (Jon, Edric Dayne, Monster, Aemon Steelsong, Aegon). Now, after Lysa's death, SR searches Sansa out at night to crawl in bed and suckle at her breasts. Sansa becomes the surrogate mother here. She doesn't have any milk of course, but she provides him the sweetsleep, when Coleman is reluctant to give it to her, which in SR's milk arc is the important component. She continues the drugging, but on the other hand counters Lysa's anxiety projections. Anyhow, if she becomes the surrogate mother to SR, then she's SR's protector, not the other way around. That's partly why Sansa looks like a bear and SR doesn't. Sansa's protector is and will remain Sandor imo and he's imo sure to reappear in the Vale. She kept his cloak. He is a dog, but a bear is also called "god's dog". He is a Burned Man, and the Burned Men imo are sure to attack the Bloody Gate in tWoW. There's a Sandor Frey squiring for Donnel Waynwood at the Bloody Gate. And then there's blue-eyed wolf's proposal that handsome Ser Byron may be glamored Sandor in the company of Elder Brother of the Quiet Isle (disguised as Morgarth) together with Shadrich. We are led to believe that Shadrich doesn't mean well for Sansa when Brienne meets Shadrich, but this may be a red herring. And apart from the hints about bones and rubies and Quiet Isle and symbolism in Brienne's arc, the poet Lord Byron wrote a poem "epitaph for a dog" for his favourite pet-dog who died of rabies, where he considers a dog a more loyal friend to man than man itself. Anyhow, even if Byron is just Byron, we would still have Burned Men trying to come into the castle via the Bloody Gate (think full innuendo here), with a Sandor name stand-inn serving to protect the gate. Overall when I see several Horuses or several Isises, George is doing several iterations where he applies the same symbolism in various ways, but only one of them actually is the powerful, effective version. Tommen may be king and have green eyes, but he's the most powerless Horus version. SR may have greenseer symbols of power about him, but he's not a greenseer, nor a skinchanger and thus won't fly (I think there were FM Arryns once, who were greenseers, but they were either long gone or usurped by Andals who simply took the Arryn name because it sounded cool... Like we have Mudds with the GC who aren't really Mudds). Cersei only acts the iconic mother for her own ends, not actually for Tommen at all. Lysa is just nutty. Catelyn failed because she has 3 Horus sons and 2 chthonic daughters - whatever she did for one child backfired for the other. And ultimately I think Sansa will fail with the surrogate role as well. It already has Oedipus hints, with SR wanting Sansa for himself.
  11. Was Domeric really Roose's son?

    @SummerSphinx If he was a top tier jouster he thus was good at the lance and had to have been a great horserider (for he does not have the built like Gregor or Robert). And thus the trio of lance, riding and harp is a reference to Rhaegar. Roose talks in world about Domeric and compares his riding skills to Lyanna's and how he could outrace her. George is clueing us in that Rhaegar could outrace Lyanna. George clues the reader in with 3 steps: vague less vague reveal Arya's riding being compared to Lyanna, but still being caught by Harwin is the vague hint. Domeric-Rhaegar parallel and outracing Lyanna is the less vague hint. In tWoW we should expect either a story or weirnet-vision of Rhaegar racing after Lyanna and catching her. As for Domeric not being Roose's son. I don't really see the point. The Boltons are the second act issue needing to be overcome in the North. It's more important to the plot to know why someone would want to take them down, rather have a full background family tree like the Targs or the Starks. On top of that we don't have a POV with the Boltons anymore. Whatever info we got about their characters and background was given in aDwD. There will be no reveal about the Boltons, other than who died when, where and how. The story about Domeric serves the obvious plot motive for Barbrey Dustin to hate Ramsay and to see him dead. It gives us just enough amount of background information to doubt Barbrey's assertions in the crypts that she's a Bolton loyalist. The show-down between them will mostly occur off-screen, for we have no POV inside Winterfell anymore. So, I really don't see how it's relevant or George would go this deep into the true father of Domeric. I also agree with others that George doesn't write sons and daughters to be the copy of their parent. After all, even if it's a plot point that Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella aren't Robert's, it's also noteworthy that Tommen isn't like Joffrey. Cersei knows she's the mother of all three and that Jaime's the father, and she thinks to herself how Myrcella has the sweetness in her that she never had herself. Domeric is the son of two people, and his mother has something to do with it as well. And I also agree that nurture plays its part too. As for the Boltons and magical stuff: imo George has them do stuff where they try to steal someone else's power, but in a literaly physical way. For example keeping blood genetically pure can be done the way the Targs do it - incest - but it leads to a higher chance of genetic related issues. Roose keeps his "blood pure" with leeches - which doesn't do much in relation to offspring. Another example is how some families or individuals tend to be magical "skinchangers" by being able to get into the mind of an animal and have some type of control over it. Boltons skin people and wear those skins physically as a cloak. It's like they want to be Starks or other people and skinchange them, but they can only do that in a subverted physical way, not the magical way at all. So, the leeching and flaying imo hints that there's actually nothing special about the Boltons at all, that they do'nt have an ounce of magical blood whatsoever.
  12. Was Domeric really Roose's son?

    It is correct that it's said he loved his harp more than his lance. That doesn't say anything about his skill, only his passion. And Barristan was at least beaten twice in the lists by Rhaegar: at the Tourney of Lannisport and Harrenhal. Here are some quotes from Whitebeard about Rheagar to Dany: You don't say it's a privilege to see someone in a tourney unless it's someone with skill and talent. Dany then tells how Viserys said Rhaegar was a peerless warrior, only bested by Arthur Dayne. Viserys' claim of course is too fantastical. Viserys basically claimed that Rhaegar was the second best warrior after Arthur Dayne. It is this peerless ranking that Selmy takes issue with, and that in general. Selmy has seen many tournaments, participated in many tournaments since he was 10 (the first time he entered the lists as mystery knight) and several battles and wars. He knows the reality of tourneys and wars, rather than the romanticised image that Viserys makes of it. He's saying there exists no peerless warrior - No matter how strong, fast or skilled a knight may be, there are always others who can match him.He's saying that even the best of them may be defeated in tourney because of circumstances. And he's saying even the lesser skilled, such as Jorah, can win a tourney because of a fluke or by the favor of a lady. This is sometimes being taken as a parallel that Rhaegar only managed to win Harrenhal because of his admiration for Lyanna, and that he otherwise is not much a skilled knight. But that negates Rhaegar's skill in besting Selmy twice (at Lannisport and Harrenhal). In reality there would be a class of upper tier skilled knights, but that's not a miniscule group, and most of them are pretty much even matched. They ending up being champion or 2nd or 3rd depends more on chance and circumstances that day, rather than being peerless. Here's the story of his bookish nature and how he decided he would need to be a warrior after all. This is a story about child-Rhaegar, not the man, and it certainly says nothing of skill. We are given some hints of age: Rhaegar acquired the skill to read earlier than the average lettered child, so early that people basically say he learned to read in the womb already. Most children on average can learn to read their first letters around the age 5-6, and by age 8-9 can begin to read longer texts or small books. For men to make such a remark about Rhaegar being a reader already in the womb, suggest he began to read earlier than that and was still a toddler. So, he was likely about 4 years old when he began to pick up letters and by age 6-7 already at a reading level of an older child. Rhaegar was not interested in joining the play of other children. This prompted the remarks from Aerys' knights (which would be the KG knights) that he was a Baelor born again. Again this suggests an age younger than the squire or page age. Children play in mimication of their interests. Age 5-7 is the age where children begin to play out stories, wars, movies and together. Children younger than that tend to play more by themselves. They might be playing simultaneously, for example both with building blocks, but they're doing their own thing. The interactive play where one child has role A and the other child role B and mutual cooperation is required, starts around elementary school age. And certainly in a heavily gender role society as that of Westeros, the boys' play would involve pretending to be a knight or warrior and lots of stick fights, with the girls pretending to be the princess needing saving. Rhaegar did not engage in that sort of play. He's still a boy when he appears in the yard with the message that he must become a warrior. So, around the age 7-8 Rhaegar began to train, determined, deliberate and single-minded. A mistake often made is that interest = giftedness = excellence. Plenty of people may have an interest or passion for a skill they are not actually gifted with. Plenty of people may have a gift or talent in a skill that actually interests them little. And in acquiring skill, motivation and training is a bigger determining factor of excellence, rather than talent, where the slightly less naturally talented may have an edge over the more naturally talented individual, because the latter may tend to rely on their self-image of talent and may end up training less. All we therefore can say is that Rhaegar was probably a gifted intellectual, who had no original interest in fighting, but ended up convinced and motivated to become a warrior and had the personality to apply himself to it wholeheartedly. Why he was not interested in it initially may be for several reasons. Those child games involve mimicry and glorification, an idealization, to be like this famous knight, or to best competitors, the mini-Jaimes. And some children, mini-Gregors, just love beating up other children. So, Rhaegar might have shown no interest in the play of other children, because the goals those other boys had in playing at knights and warriors may simply have not appealed to him. It is ths type of lack of love of the sword-song that Selmy mentions later at Yunkay, when Dany wants to know about the "many" tourneys that Rhaegar won. So, Selmy says that Rhaegar competed little, because he was not looking for glory of battle and tourney fame the way Robert and Jaime do. But he did it well. He does everything well. So, he rarely entered the lists, but when he did, he was not unskilled. That KG knight was Selmy himself. Selmy won the final tilt against Rhaegar at Storm's End, but we know he lost twice against Rhaegar too. Note how Selmy says that Rhaegar "rode brilliantly". That's not taking him down a notch.
  13. Oh, this one should be good

    Yes, the god of marriage was called Hymen and its root meaning is not so much the hymen of a woman, but "to bind" or "to sew". Some marriage rituals involve "binding" rituals where the couple's hands or wrists or ankles are tied together (handfasting). Meanwhile in Dutch a term used to mean "fucking" = "naaien" (which is also Dutch for "sowing"). In that expression it's the man who's "sowing" the woman. So, sowing and binding is linked ritualistically to marriage, linguistically to sex.