Jump to content

Why the surprise? (SPOILERS)


Ankou

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:
There are THREE white cloaks on the ground at the ToJ. Two on a rock that Dayne and Hightower are walking away from, and one to the left of that rock on the ground.  :o

Whent has to be in the tower with Lyanna.

Well, maybe. what I see is two separate piles of white material. The one on the right rock could be two cloaks overlapping, or one cloak spread widely so its two corners seem to be separate piles.I can say that miraculously at the end of the fight it has changed shape and looks much more like one cloak. Maybe the third knight sneaked back for his cloak?  there are two horses tied next to the cloaks in light caparisons and saddled. they seem to be woven with something on them, might be steel plate but doesnt look like it would really stop much.

And on the subject of armour, Dayne was definitely wearing body and backplate armour. Stark strikes him sideways with his sword. Didnt cut his head off. didnt cut his arm off. Didnt go through that armour either unless valyrion steel is much more remarkable than has been explained so far, and assuming he was using  ice, which doesnt seem likely since it was supposed to be twice the size of a normal sword. the whole point of plate armour is that a sword will not go through, certainly not using the edge of the blade.

What I find odd about the scene is why the horses are standing there just tied to a post, ready either to go or just arrived, why the cloaks are on the ground nearby, and why the knights are just sitting there sharpening their swords. They would seem to have been waiting for Stark. Perfectly possible since this is a watch tower, and someone might have been on watch. So then they must have come out specially to fight. If this is a reasoned setup rather than staging without much thought, the conclusion would be they had time to make any preparations they wanted, including about Lyanna.

I wouldnt like to say there will be another knight inside, but it is certainly posible. Do we get a clear account of the fighting in the books so far? Lyanna lying in a bed of blood: maybe what goes down inside the tower next is the cause of that. Those kingsguard horse....why are they saddled? you do not leave saddles on horses unless they are going somewhere, or only just arrived. Lyanna screaming. maybe giving birth. Maybe the kingsguard just arrived with bad news? Only two horses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I hate to bring up the book, but in the book Book Ned was able to quash all rumor mongering about Ashara Dayne as soon as he heard about it.  But, to be sure, young chinless show ned would probably never have that authority.  LOL.

They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat.[10]

Catelyn Stark thinking of Winterfell's maids

 

Those are Catelyn's thoughts. If Catelyn knew the truth, we don't know, but she thinks about "single combat". That means that, yes, there are people in Winterfell who tell the tale as if Ned had killed Dayne in single combat, that means without help from other person.

As for the reasons that Ned had to let people tell this tale, he had plenty. First, being backstabbed is not an honourable death for a warrior like Ser Arthur Dayne, Ned is the kind of person that would be able to lie (or hide a truth) in order to preserve Dayne's honour (people prefer to think that their sibling died in combat rather that killed by a piece of sharpnel while sleeping in his trench). Second, letting everyone know that Howland Reed backstabbed Ser Arthur Dayne would make everyone hate Reed and think that he is a honourless person, Ned is the kind of person that would be able to lie in order to preserve the honour of his friend. Third, given that he's hidding a far more important secret (that his bastard son is not really his bastard son), a flashy story about Dayne's death is pretty convenient: people speculate about how could Ned have defeated Dayne and don't ask themselves about how Lyanna died.

Regarding Ned telling Bran that Dayne would have killed him but for Howland Reed, it is a rather cryptic statement. And that is, I think, the important thing here. For years, even decades, we have been wondering how did exactly Howland Reed save Ned's life. Because there are several ways of saving someone else's life. Howland could simply have handed Ned another sword when he got disarmed, or he could just have distracted Dayne giving Ned the chance to strike a killing blow... From that to backstabbing there is a whole distance. So even if Ned told everyone that Howland Reed saved his life, that doesn't mean that people knew that he did it by backstabbing Dayne when he had disarmed Ned.

I'm pretty sure that Martin's hand is behind this. It's his style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sandpiper said:

Well, maybe. what I see is two separate piles of white material. The one on the right rock could be two cloaks overlapping, or one cloak spread widely so its two corners seem to be separate piles.I can say that miraculously at the end of the fight it has changed shape and looks much more like one cloak. Maybe the third knight sneaked back for his cloak?  there are two horses tied next to the cloaks in light caparisons and saddled. they seem to be woven with something on them, might be steel plate but doesnt look like it would really stop much.

And on the subject of armour, Dayne was definitely wearing body and backplate armour. Stark strikes him sideways with his sword. Didnt cut his head off. didnt cut his arm off. Didnt go through that armour either unless valyrion steel is much more remarkable than has been explained so far, and assuming he was using  ice, which doesnt seem likely since it was supposed to be twice the size of a normal sword. the whole point of plate armour is that a sword will not go through, certainly not using the edge of the blade.

What I find odd about the scene is why the horses are standing there just tied to a post, ready either to go or just arrived, why the cloaks are on the ground nearby, and why the knights are just sitting there sharpening their swords. They would seem to have been waiting for Stark. Perfectly possible since this is a watch tower, and someone might have been on watch. So then they must have come out specially to fight. If this is a reasoned setup rather than staging without much thought, the conclusion would be they had time to make any preparations they wanted, including about Lyanna.

I wouldnt like to say there will be another knight inside, but it is certainly posible. Do we get a clear account of the fighting in the books so far? Lyanna lying in a bed of blood: maybe what goes down inside the tower next is the cause of that. Those kingsguard horse....why are they saddled? you do not leave saddles on horses unless they are going somewhere, or only just arrived. Lyanna screaming. maybe giving birth. Maybe the kingsguard just arrived with bad news? Only two horses.

 

Thinking about everything that happened between Rhaegar falling in love with Lyanna at the Tourney of Harrenhall, to Robert's Rebellion, the horrors of war, the fall of Kings Landing and death of Aerys and Rhaegar, and the fact Robert ends up on the throne... I don't see how Hightower, Dayne, and Whent aren't expecting Ned to show up eventually. 

Lyanna was last seen with Rhaegar. Sure it's taken a war, and combing through haystacks, but Ned would never give up until he either found her remains, or heard a reasonable report of how and when she died if that were the case. Most likely backed by, and supported by Robert.

Of course, they're expecting Ned. From the show's ToJ, and where it's positioned on that hill, they probably saw Ned's group approaching a few hours ago, which is why they're sitting outside and Dayne is sharpening a sword.

The horses are most likely always saddled most of the day, as this is only temporary shelter, especially now that the war is over, and the people now in power are looked upon as the usurping enemy. Ned is in service to Robert, having been his best friend forever, and obviously bent the knee and sworn fealty to Robert. If this fight doesn't go well for Ned, the KG might have to give chase. They also can't allow word of Lyanna and a new Targ heir get out right now. 

They may be waiting for word from Dragonstone or who knows where, to where they can take Lyanna and her +1, to be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Thinking about everything that happened between Rhaegar falling in love with Lyanna at the Tourney of Harrenhall, to Robert's Rebellion, the horrors of war, the fall of Kings Landing and death of Aerys and Rhaegar, and the fact Robert ends up on the throne... I don't see how Hightower, Dayne, and Whent aren't expecting Ned to show up eventually. 

Lyanna was last seen with Rhaegar. Sure it's taken a war, and combing through haystacks, but Ned would never give up until he either found her remains, or heard a reasonable report of how and when she died if that were the case. Most likely backed by, and supported by Robert.

Of course, they're expecting Ned. From the show's ToJ, and where it's positioned on that hill, they probably saw Ned's group approaching a few hours ago, which is why they're sitting outside and Dayne is sharpening a sword.

The horses are most likely always saddled most of the day, as this is only temporary shelter, especially now that the war is over, and the people now in power are looked upon as the usurping enemy. Ned is in service to Robert, having been his best friend forever, and obviously bent the knee and sworn fealty to Robert. If this fight doesn't go well for Ned, the KG might have to give chase. They also can't allow word of Lyanna and a new Targ heir get out right now. 

They may be waiting for word from Dragonstone or who knows where, to where they can take Lyanna and her +1, to be safe.

You do not leave horses saddled all day. and if you did they would be surrounded in horse manure, and the ground stamped to pieces. So either its a continuity oversight in the filming, or they just arrived/were thinking of leaving. But hard to regard two horses deliberately provided as a continuity mistake. Why have them there at all? lyanna does not get out of this alive, so sounds as if she may not have been in any condition to leave. Maybe they considered they were safe in Dorne, not unreasonably. Maybe Ned had been following the kingsguard who only recently arrived?

There is a lot of discussion above about whether Ned or reed were ashamed of how they killed dayne. This is way over the top. There has just been a war, and what counts is that you win, not how. No one would losing sleep that they were saved by a friend who was behind the guy he was fighting, stabbing that enemy. This is a situation in which there were only two known survivors.  They must have agreed on what story they would tell about the baby.

I seem to remember  a conversation between jamie and Ned about why ned never appeared in tourneys. Ned said he did not like people to see how he fought, so as to preserve his advantage. Damned right, if they would have seen he was not very good. I would think he and Howland did their level best to play down everything about what happened at the tower of joy, especially anything about babies. Do people actually know, officially, that there were three kingsguard present and not just one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sandpiper said:

You do not leave horses saddled all day. and if you did they would be surrounded in horse manure, and the ground stamped to pieces. So either its a continuity oversight in the filming, or they just arrived/were thinking of leaving. But hard to regard two horses deliberately provided as a continuity mistake. Why have them there at all? lyanna does not get out of this alive, so sounds as if she may not have been in any condition to leave. Maybe they considered they were safe in Dorne, not unreasonably. Maybe Ned had been following the kingsguard who only recently arrived?

There is a lot of discussion above about whether Ned or reed were ashamed of how they killed dayne. This is way over the top. There has just been a war, and what counts is that you win, not how. No one would losing sleep that they were saved by a friend who was behind the guy he was fighting, stabbing that enemy. This is a situation in which there were only two known survivors.  They must have agreed on what story they would tell about the baby.

I seem to remember  a conversation between jamie and Ned about why ned never appeared in tourneys. Ned said he did not like people to see how he fought, so as to preserve his advantage. Damned right, if they would have seen he was not very good. I would think he and Howland did their level best to play down everything about what happened at the tower of joy, especially anything about babies. Do people actually know, officially, that there were three kingsguard present and not just one?

I agree with everything you said, except about keeping horses saddled. Even rental stables here in CA keep some of their mounts saddled all day, bastards.

But we care a lot more about animal welfare in 2016 Earth, and like you said, in wartime, everything is different.

I have no problem with how the Dayne death went down. Howland knew the danger Ned was in, saw an advantage, and took it, and because of that, both survived.  

As for everyone knowing about the three KG.... hard to say really. I don't remember the books ever saying anything about the ToJ after Ned's vision, so it would depend on what version of what happened Ned and Howland agreed upon, which, when you think about it, what the hell would they say? "We found Lyanna dying... so we brought back her remains.." But... then that begs the question, "Was she alone?" They'd' certainly never ever mention a baby.

Then there's the matter of Ned taking Dawn back to Starfall. What did Ned tell the Daynes about what happened at the Tower? Likely, as little as possible, but the story of Ned beating The Sword of the Morning, probably grew as it was told, since that was a pretty big deal. Of course, in the shadow of the recent war, no one might have cared at that point, because they're all recovering from war.

Not sure that it matters to the overall arc of the story. It's fun to think about though, and I'd love if they got into all of that in a spinoff series about the History of ASOIAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/05/2016 at 6:25 AM, Ankou said:

Bran acted surprised that his father didn't defeat Dayne, but wasn't it in the show that he said without Howland Reed there I'd be dead? Or am I only remembering the books? It's without a doubt inconsistent with his characterization in the books, but D&D made it sound like Ned was lying about that fight and disillusioned Bran. This seems out of character for Ned who never bragged about this at all. 

The show is delivering certain things with the subtleness of a hammer to the face. Varys went on this episode about perspectives.

As others have mentioned, Bran's image of Ned was different to the reality - it's little more than that. Bran couldn't believe his dad won a fight by having his friend stab his opponent in the back and then cut him down.

Ultimately, also as others have mentioned, Ned's 'honour' is no different to Jamie's - it's all a matter of perspective. By what right does the Wolf judge the Lion?

This isn't about Ned - it's about Bran realising that most people are full of shit and do things from their own perspective - including his father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2016 at 0:36 PM, dbunting said:

Really? Ned is a craven, braggart, dishonorable asshole?

Craven - Show Ned never backed down from a fight, a craven would.

Braggart - Show Ned never bragged about killing anyone. You are taking what Bran said and putting those words into Neds mouth.

Dishonorable - yeah, Show and Book Ned have both been dishonorable. Both likely lied about Jons mother.

Asshole - well who isn't and anyone can be called that for some reason or another.

Ned being Ned likely hasn't said anything about what happened other than they were there and he did kill Dayne, prior to that he was just wounded by Reed. Generally the person doing the deed doesn't talk about it, it's the others, the feeder fish who do that. Show Ned has never once spoken about killing anyone in a bragging tone so none of what you said makes any sense other than to get a rise out of people.

Anger much?

Ned fought like a coward

Ned fought like a braggart 

Ned is an asshole

Ned died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jobmartell said:

Ned fought like a coward

Ned fought like a braggart 

Ned is an asshole

Ned died.

Glad to see you follow forum etiquette and add something to a conversation and don't just post to post. Why bother quoting something if you aren't going to add, detract or expand on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sandpiper said:

There is a lot of discussion above about whether Ned or reed were ashamed of how they killed dayne. This is way over the top. There has just been a war, and what counts is that you win, not how. No one would losing sleep that they were saved by a friend who was behind the guy he was fighting, stabbing that enemy.

This is correct. I mean, what honor is there truly in battle? There isn't; that is all saved for books and fairy tales. The battle was 6 on 2, or 7 on 3 in the books, so already it is not honorable since the sides are not even. Should Ned and company have chosen to sit out 4 of their group so it was a fair and honorable fight, of course not. No matter how it ends someone is fighting more than one person at a time and you can't be facing everyone all the time. This was depicted more like a real fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dbunting said:

This is correct. I mean, what honor is there truly in battle? There isn't; that is all saved for books and fairy tales. The battle was 6 on 2, or 7 on 3 in the books, so already it is not honorable since the sides are not even. Should Ned and company have chosen to sit out 4 of their group so it was a fair and honorable fight, of course not. No matter how it ends someone is fighting more than one person at a time and you can't be facing everyone all the time. This was depicted more like a real fight.

That's not the issue.  Reed stabbing Dayne from behind isn't even the issue.

The issue is Bran having heard the story of his father's heroism 1000x, and more importantly how Ned gives the final blow to Dayne.  In no world is that an honorable move, that was not the gift of mercy, people are fooling themselves to think that.  Of course the show could have written dialogue and constructed the end of the scene in many other ways...having Ned speak to Dayne to show he's remorseful of how it all played out.  Thus, the common sense conclusion of the scene+their comments is that the goal is to show that Ned Stark is just like everyone else, not any more honorable, maybe even less so.  He's kind of a hypocrite for criticizing Jamie for stabbing the king in the back when he is alive from the same event and has allowed the false story of his heroism to be told 1000X to his own children.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

That's not the issue.  Reed stabbing Dayne from behind isn't even the issue.

The issue is Bran having heard the story of his father's heroism 1000x, and more importantly how Ned gives the final blow to Dayne.  In no world is that an honorable move, that was not the gift of mercy, people are fooling themselves to think that.  Of course the show could have written dialogue and constructed the end of the scene in many other ways...having Ned speak to Dayne to show he's remorseful of how it all played out.  Thus, the common sense conclusion of the scene+their comments is that the goal is to show that Ned Stark is just like everyone else, not any more honorable, maybe even less so.  He's kind of a hypocrite for criticizing Jamie for stabbing the king in the back when he is alive from the same event and has allowed the false story of his heroism to be told 1000X to his own children.

 

Just let it go man, it's clear you hate how the show portrays Ned, we get it. Yeah, Ned is less honorable than most men, hell even biter and Rast are better than him, you're right. We get it. Ned is a craven, dishonorable coward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should Ned have left him there to choke/drown on his own blood, when there was no hope of survival? I wouldn't say there was any kindness or mercy in killing him (Dayne had just killed 3 or 4 of Ned's friends, after all) but it was the one and only choice to make there. He didn't ask Howland to stab him in the back, he didn't distract Dayne and then scream "HOWLAND NOW!" - Howland just did, and Ned dealt with the aftermath. It wasn't heroic or cowardly, it just was what it was.

Should Ned have also thrown Howland under the bus by telling everyone that he stabbed Arthur Dayne, the most respected knight in the seven kingdoms, in the back? Do you think that many people might hate Howland for that? Ned told people that Dayne would have killed him if not for Howland, he wasn't walking around bragging about killing Dayne.

He didn't talk about the ToJ because his sister died there, his friends died there, and presumably to hide the information of Jon's birth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mattnj81 said:

Should Ned have left him there to choke/drown on his own blood, when there was no hope of survival? I wouldn't say there was any kindness or mercy in killing him (Dayne had just killed 3 or 4 of Ned's friends, after all) but it was the one and only choice to make there. He didn't ask Howland to stab him in the back, he didn't distract Dayne and then scream "HOWLAND NOW!" - Howland just did, and Ned dealt with the aftermath. It wasn't heroic or cowardly, it just was what it was.

Should Ned have also thrown Howland under the bus by telling everyone that he stabbed Arthur Dayne, the most respected knight in the seven kingdoms, in the back? Do you think that many people might hate Howland for that? Ned told people that Dayne would have killed him if not for Howland, he wasn't walking around bragging about killing Dayne.

He didn't talk about the ToJ because his sister died there, his friends died there, and presumably to hide the information of Jon's birth.

 

That's the books.  This is the show.  In the books what happened with Dayne is only whispered about at Winterfell.

In the show, Bran has heard the story of his father's defeat of Arthur Dayne 1000x.  There is nothing in the show that suggests his father refused to talk about it.

If the purpose of the scene wasn't to discredit Ned Stark, why not have him say something to Dayne before he gives the gift of mercy, with a dagger, not a sword?  

I seriously don't see how anyone can see that final stab and think that was Ned Stark being merciful, it's laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I specifically said it wasn't kindness or mercy, it was just the ONLY choice Ned had - leaving the man there to slowly drown in his own blood would have been the only dishonorable thing. 

Second, Bran didn't say he heard the story from his father, you're just assuming that. In the books Catelyn describes all the maids in Winterfell talking about it. The story was probably told lots over the years, and Ned never talked about it for the reasons I already discussed. Other than, of course, saying Dayne would have killed him if not for Howland.

Third, is your gripe that you think the showrunners were intentionally trying to dishonor Ned? It's possible they asked GRRM what really happened and this is how he intended it. 

Lastly, you can disagree with people's opinions, but don't call them laughable. There's no need to belittle people in a friendly discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already given several examples of how the scene could have been constructed to show that Ned was honorable but not perfect, an honorable man in a bad situation.

Very easy tweaks, like having him say something to Dayne and using a dagger instead of a sword for the final cut.

That's not the scene that was shot.  The scene that was shot shows Ned Stark as a POS without honor in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

That's the books.  This is the show.  In the books what happened with Dayne is only whispered about at Winterfell.

In the show, Bran has heard the story of his father's defeat of Arthur Dayne 1000x.  There is nothing in the show that suggests his father refused to talk about it.

If the purpose of the scene wasn't to discredit Ned Stark, why not have him say something to Dayne before he gives the gift of mercy, with a dagger, not a sword?  

I seriously don't see how anyone can see that final stab and think that was Ned Stark being merciful, it's laughable.

Jesus Christ, will you drop the 1000x? That is NOT a literal amount. It's an exaggeration.

It's exactly the same premise as if I said “If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times”.

There is nothing in the show that suggests that Ned constantly bragged about it either. And relying on rhetorical hyperbole as evidence has done your argument more harm than good here.

Ned didn't know Reed was going to shank Dayne; he was pretty much done for up to that point.

It was only when he realised what was happening did he think to do the merciful thing and grant Dayne a quick death.

And why not a sword?

"Oh, sorry, Ser Arthur, I appear to have misplaced my dagger. Here, how about I let you bleed out in agony while I search my possessions for such an item."

Honest to God, have some logic.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

 

In the show, Bran has heard the story of his father's defeat of Arthur Dayne 1000x.  There is nothing in the show that suggests his father refused to talk about it.

 

It is just an expression, for god's sake, this is the pinnacle of nitpicking. As far as we know he could have heard the story from anyone in Winterfell just half a dozen times, but, hey we humans trend to exaggerate quite frecuently. What will you say if Martin confirms in the books that Ser Arthur died in that exact way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...