TheSeer27

ghost of high heart prophecy

38 posts in this topic

The main problem with the pie theory is that we are told by Cressen that the Strangler works when dissolved in wine. We have not seen any version that works with pies.

Cressen no longer recalled the name the Asshai'i gave the leaf, or the Lysene poisoners the crystal. In the Citadel, it was simply called the strangler. Dissolved in wine, it would make the muscles of a man's throat clench tighter than any fist, shutting off his windpipe. They said a victim's face turned as purple as the little crystal seed from which his death was grown, but so too did a man choking on a morsel of food.

But GRRM can change the rules later if the wants.

Edited by Tucu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tucu said:

The main problem with the pie theory is that we are told by Cressen that the Strangler works when dissolved in wine. We have not seen any version that works with pies.

Cressen no longer recalled the name the Asshai'i gave the leaf, or the Lysene poisoners the crystal. In the Citadel, it was simply called the strangler. Dissolved in wine, it would make the muscles of a man's throat clench tighter than any fist, shutting off his windpipe. They said a victim's face turned as purple as the little crystal seed from which his death was grown, but so too did a man choking on a morsel of food.

I like your quote-fu, Tucu!:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince of the North said:

Nice stawman (and so, so utterly predictable).  Please show me where I ever said the wine theory was fact (unlike you with your pie theory).  Also, you might want to go back and re-read (because you obviously couldn't comprehend it the first time) where I already said I no longer thought it was probably Garlan who put the poison in the wine.  No, I still think it was most likely Olenna herself.

So, again, please provide proof of your assertion that the poison was in the pie (but I know you can't).  I contend that I believe the wine theory to be true while you say it's wrong and that the poison was in the pie.  Should be easy for you to prove that:rolleyes: 

ETA: spelling

ETA II: Also, what you contend is proof is nothing of the sort.

ETA III: I'll say again, prove your assertion, or else keep it to yourself;)

The proof is on the page: Five seconds for Cressen vs. 25 seconds for Joffrey even though Joff took multiple doses of what should have been a more concentrated poison. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts. Joff should have died before he pulled the chalice from his lips, and it is simply impossible for a four-foot woman to reach up to a rim that is six feet in the air. In your mental picture of Lady O, does she drag her knuckles on the ground?

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

The main problem with the pie theory is that we are told by Cressen that the Strangler works when dissolved in wine. We have not seen any version that works with pies.

Cressen no longer recalled the name the Asshai'i gave the leaf, or the Lysene poisoners the crystal. In the Citadel, it was simply called the strangler. Dissolved in wine, it would make the muscles of a man's throat clench tighter than any fist, shutting off his windpipe. They said a victim's face turned as purple as the little crystal seed from which his death was grown, but so too did a man choking on a morsel of food.

But GRRM can change the rules later if the wants.

Really? Just because Cressen says "dissolved in wine" that precludes the poison from dissolving in anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The proof is on the page: Five seconds for Cressen vs. 25 seconds for Joffrey even though Joff took multiple doses of what should have been a more concentrated poison. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts. Joff should have died before he pulled the chalice from his lips, and it is simply impossible for a four-foot woman to reach up to a rim that is six feet in the air. In your mental picture of Lady O, does she drag her knuckles on the ground?

Really? Just because Cressen says "dissolved in wine" that precludes the poison from dissolving in anything else?

Well, they don't disolve by the water and oil in the fingers. So we know two things: it is inert when mixed with water/skin oil; it works when disolved in wine.

Did your book come with a chronometer? my didn't :-(

Edited by Tucu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Suburbs said:

The proof is on the page: Five seconds for Cressen vs. 25 seconds for Joffrey even though Joff took multiple doses of what should have been a more concentrated poison. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts. Joff should have died before he pulled the chalice from his lips, and it is simply impossible for a four-foot woman to reach up to a rim that is six feet in the air. In your mental picture of Lady O, does she drag her knuckles on the ground?

Really? Just because Cressen says "dissolved in wine" that precludes the poison from dissolving in anything else?

That's not proof of anything.  That's you contending that a supposed difference in the time it took Cressen and Joffery to die means...something.  Please show me where it says that Cressen died in "five seconds" while Joffery took "25 seconds" to die.  Also, prove to me that "Joff took multiple doses of what should have been a more concentrated poison".  Actually, Cressen placed a "flake" of the Strangler into Davos' "half-full" cup of wine while I believe Lady Olenna placed a small crystal of the Strangler in Joffery's large chalice.  Now, how is it that Joff's was "more concentrated" again?  How do you know that?  You do seem to like to make stuff up and pass it off as fact. I read the books, too, and understand them at least as well as you.  You're just theorizing here again and treating it as if it's proof.  Also, you seem to think Olenna being short means she couldn't have put the poison in the chalice.  That's not proof either.  If Martin intended for Olenna to have put the poison in the wine, then she did.  Full stop.  There's no proof either way.  But, again, I never contended the wine theory is fact (although it's the theory I subscribe to).  However, you did make a statement of fact.  Here it is again (bolding mine):

Quote

Right on, except for the whole part about passing it to Garlan so he could poison Joffrey's wine. The poison was clearly placed in Tyrion's pie by Lady O herself. That's how Joffrey was able to drink his wine without dying, but then eats the pie and dies.

 Now, again, can you provide any factual support for your contention that the poison was clearly placed in Tyrion's pie by Lady O herself or was that just an overstatement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tucu said:

Well, they don't disolve by the water and oil in the fingers. So we know two things: it is inert when mixed with water/skin oil; it works when disolved in wine.

Did your book come with a chronometer? my didn't :-(

How do we know this? It dissolved just by sitting in the hairnet: "There was a dark smudge in the silver socket where the stone had fallen out"

What examples can you give where the strangler was mixed with water or skin oil but did not dissolve?

As for the timeline:

"The wine was sour on his tongue. He let the empty cup drop from his fingers to shatter on the floor. "He does have power here, my lord,' the woman said. 'And fire cleanses.' At her throat, the ruby shimmered redly. Cressen tried to reply but his words caught in his throat..."

I give that five seconds, seven tops.

Compared to:

"Joffrey yanked it from his hands and drank long and deep, his throat working as the wine ran purple down his chin. 'My lord,' Margaery said, "we should return to our places. Lord Buckler wants to toast us.'"

So right there the poison should have been in Joffrey's throat at least as long as Cressen's, but he shows not the slightest affect. Then we go through the whole exchange with Tyrion before he eats his first bite, then "a bit dry though" and Joffrey takes a drink of wine. So even if you believe wine is necessary to dissolve the crystal, there it is, flooding Joffrey's mouth. And it is approximately five seconds from that point, we get "his words broke up in a fit of coughing" or in other words: Joffrey can't speak. Exact same time line as Cressen, but only if the poison was in the pie not the wine. True, Joffrey croaks out a few more words (Among them: "It's, kof, the pie, noth -- kof, pie") but that's only because he doesn't know what is happening to him, while Cressen does and just gives in to the inevitable.

There is physical proof, taken directly from the text, that the wine could not have been poisoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

How do we know this? It dissolved just by sitting in the hairnet: "There was a dark smudge in the silver socket where the stone had fallen out"

What examples can you give where the strangler was mixed with water or skin oil but did not dissolve?

As for the timeline:

"The wine was sour on his tongue. He let the empty cup drop from his fingers to shatter on the floor. "He does have power here, my lord,' the woman said. 'And fire cleanses.' At her throat, the ruby shimmered redly. Cressen tried to reply but his words caught in his throat..."

I give that five seconds, seven tops.

Compared to:

"Joffrey yanked it from his hands and drank long and deep, his throat working as the wine ran purple down his chin. 'My lord,' Margaery said, "we should return to our places. Lord Buckler wants to toast us.'"

So right there the poison should have been in Joffrey's throat at least as long as Cressen's, but he shows not the slightest affect. Then we go through the whole exchange with Tyrion before he eats his first bite, then "a bit dry though" and Joffrey takes a drink of wine. So even if you believe wine is necessary to dissolve the crystal, there it is, flooding Joffrey's mouth. And it is approximately five seconds from that point, we get "his words broke up in a fit of coughing" or in other words: Joffrey can't speak. Exact same time line as Cressen, but only if the poison was in the pie not the wine. True, Joffrey croaks out a few more words (Among them: "It's, kof, the pie, noth -- kof, pie") but that's only because he doesn't know what is happening to him, while Cressen does and just gives in to the inevitable.

There is physical proof, taken directly from the text, that the wine could not have been poisoned.

The poison is safe to handle without protection; so it seems inert in water and skin oil.

As for your timeline, you are ignoring too many factors (age, dosage, concentration, health of the subject) and the fact that GRRM is never precise about time. Until GRRM presents us with the pie version of the Strangler, your theory can be considered a fringe one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

That's not proof of anything.  That's you contending that a supposed difference in the time it took Cressen and Joffery to die means...something.  Please show me where it says that Cressen died in "five seconds" while Joffery took "25 seconds" to die.  Also, prove to me that "Joff took multiple doses of what should have been a more concentrated poison".  Actually, Cressen placed a "flake" of the Strangler into Davos' "half-full" cup of wine while I believe Lady Olenna placed a small crystal of the Strangler in Joffery's large chalice.  Now, how is it that Joff's was "more concentrated" again?  How do you know that?  You do seem to like to make stuff up and pass it off as fact. I read the books, too, and understand them at least as well as you.  You're just theorizing here again and treating it as if it's proof.  Also, you seem to think Olenna being short means she couldn't have put the poison in the chalice.  That's not proof either.  If Martin intended for Olenna to have put the poison in the wine, then she did.  Full stop.  There's no proof either way.  But, again, I never contended the wine theory is fact (although it's the theory I subscribe to).  However, you did make a statement of fact.  Here it is again (bolding mine):

 Now, again, can you provide any factual support for your contention that the poison was clearly placed in Tyrion's pie by Lady O herself or was that just an overstatement?

Read the friggin book. One dropped glass and a three-second sentence from Mel and Cressen is incapacitated. Joffrey chugs the wine (see above) and Margy gives an even longer sentence and still no affect on Joff. Then he taunts Tyrion, grabs a handful of pie, taunts Tyrion again, and eats the pie. What's the first thing he notices? "A bit dry through." Gee, could that be the affect of the poison absorbing the moisture in the pie? Regardless, he then swallows wine and pie and it is approximately five seconds after that that he starts choking, just like Cressen.

Joffrey's wine is clearly more concentrated:

"Melisandre of Asshai took the cup from his hands and drank long and deep. There was only half a swallow of wine remaining when she offered it back to him."

It doesn't say deep purple wine or oddly colored wine, just normal wine.

Compared to:

"There was still a half inch of deep purple on the bottom of it."

So unless you can come up with a plausible reason how, and why, someone would add more poison to the chalice after Joffrey dropped it, the only possible conclusion is that the wine was deep purple from the moment Joffrey upended it and started chugging. So not only is Joffrey getting more concentrated poison, but he is getting huge dose after dose, and yet there is no sign of it. 

You say you want proof. You can't get any better proof than what's on the page.

The rest is just ridiculous. How do you know what Martin intended to do? And sorry, he doesn't have impossible things happen right in front of POV characters without them noticing it.

Yes, she clearly placed the poison in the pie. There is no other plausible explanation because the wine does not fit with the text, it runs counter to the plotter's motivations and it the entire plan is logistically impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tucu said:

The poison is safe to handle without protection; so it seems inert in water and skin oil.

As for your timeline, you are ignoring too many factors (age, dosage, concentration, health of the subject) and the fact that GRRM is never precise about time. Until GRRM presents us with the pie version of the Strangler, your theory can be considered a fringe one.

OK, I'll just point out that in one post you've gone from "we know" to "it seems."

And how do you know it is even safe to handle without protection? I don't recall anyone touching the crystal and then putting their hands in the mouths. C'mon, proof, proof, proof; all statements made on this forum should be backed up with rock-solid, unimpeachable proof.

The concentration and dosage are right there on the page. Joffrey's poison is clearly more concentrated than Cressen's due to the color and Joff takes multiple huge doses vs Cressen's tiny sip. And since we are talking about the porous tissue in the throat, the difference in age should be negligible, as should the health of the victim. This is a rapid, physical attack on the muscles of the throat; it doesn't make one whit of difference if one of them has liver failure or a cold or whatever.

Tell me, how do you suppose the strangler works? Does it penetrate the throat tissue and go to work directly on the muscles, or does it pass through to the stomach, become absorbed in the blood stream, circulated throughout the body and then back to the throat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Suburbs said:

OK, I'll just point out that in one post you've gone from "we know" to "it seems."

And how do you know it is even safe to handle without protection? I don't recall anyone touching the crystal and then putting their hands in the mouths. C'mon, proof, proof, proof; all statements made on this forum should be backed up with rock-solid, unimpeachable proof.

The concentration and dosage are right there on the page. Joffrey's poison is clearly more concentrated than Cressen's due to the color and Joff takes multiple huge doses vs Cressen's tiny sip. And since we are talking about the porous tissue in the throat, the difference in age should be negligible, as should the health of the victim. This is a rapid, physical attack on the muscles of the throat; it doesn't make one whit of difference if one of them has liver failure or a cold or whatever.

Tell me, how do you suppose the strangler works? Does it penetrate the throat tissue and go to work directly on the muscles, or does it pass through to the stomach, become absorbed in the blood stream, circulated throughout the body and then back to the throat?

As I you are so invested in your fringe theory I will leave it here until GRRM gives us the pie version of the strangler; if that happens I will come an congratulate on your detective skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Suburbs said:

Read the friggin book. One dropped glass and a three-second sentence from Mel and Cressen is incapacitated. Joffrey chugs the wine (see above) and Margy gives an even longer sentence and still no affect on Joff. Then he taunts Tyrion, grabs a handful of pie, taunts Tyrion again, and eats the pie. What's the first thing he notices? "A bit dry through." Gee, could that be the affect of the poison absorbing the moisture in the pie? Regardless, he then swallows wine and pie and it is approximately five seconds after that that he starts choking, just like Cressen.

Joffrey's wine is clearly more concentrated:

"Melisandre of Asshai took the cup from his hands and drank long and deep. There was only half a swallow of wine remaining when she offered it back to him."

It doesn't say deep purple wine or oddly colored wine, just normal wine.

Compared to:

"There was still a half inch of deep purple on the bottom of it."

So unless you can come up with a plausible reason how, and why, someone would add more poison to the chalice after Joffrey dropped it, the only possible conclusion is that the wine was deep purple from the moment Joffrey upended it and started chugging. So not only is Joffrey getting more concentrated poison, but he is getting huge dose after dose, and yet there is no sign of it. 

You say you want proof. You can't get any better proof than what's on the page.

The rest is just ridiculous. How do you know what Martin intended to do? And sorry, he doesn't have impossible things happen right in front of POV characters without them noticing it.

Yes, she clearly placed the poison in the pie. There is no other plausible explanation because the wine does not fit with the text, it runs counter to the plotter's motivations and it the entire plan is logistically impossible.

Sigh.  Just more supposition on your part passed off as proof.  That's an interesting theory you put forth in your first paragraph but, as is your usual MO, it certainly can't be proven or even necessarily supported from the text.  I'll ask again where in the text it says Cressen died in "5 seconds" while Joff died in "25 seconds".  Also, are you saying that because the color of the wine wasn't mentioned in the ACOK prologue where Cressen died that the wine going from "dark Arbor red" to "deep purple" at Joff's poisoning doesn't matter?  You can't dispute the FACT that the wine at Joff's poisoning actually did change color.  Unlike your contention of all kinds of made-up stuff being "in the text", that color change actually is in the text.  

Also, if anything, Cressen's cup was more "concentrated" than Joffery's chalice because a "half a swallow" of wine left in a cup would most likely be less than "a half-inch" of wine left in the bottom of a large chalice and the amount of poison placed in each is approximately the same (a "flake" vs. a small crystalline "gem").  And even if we grant your assumption that Cressen died quicker than Joff (which I don't because, of course, just because Cressen collapsed sooner doesn't necessarily mean he died right when he hit the floor) I can just as easily and legitimately chalk that up to Cressen being much older and much weaker than Joff.

So, yet again, you keep saying Olenna clearly placed the poison in Tyrion's pie so you should clearly be able to prove it.  But, of course, you can't.  Your repeated assertion does not constitute proof.  Based on your previous posting here, though, I can't say I'm surprised that you think it does. 

And, for the record for anyone else reading this, I never said I know what Martin intended.  I said "if" Martin intended that Olenna put the little purple crystal of The Strangler that she removed from Sansa's hairnet into Joff's chalice, then she did.  Your opinion of what is or is not "logistically" possible matters not at all to Martin.  Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time that that was just a mistake on your part and not you deliberately misrepresenting my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Sigh.  Just more supposition on your part passed off as proof.  That's an interesting theory you put forth in your first paragraph but, as is your usual MO, it certainly can't be proven or even necessarily supported from the text.  I'll ask again where in the text it says Cressen died in "5 seconds" while Joff died in "25 seconds".  Also, are you saying that because the color of the wine wasn't mentioned in the ACOK prologue where Cressen died that the wine going from "dark Arbor red" to "deep purple" at Joff's poisoning doesn't matter?  You can't dispute the FACT that the wine at Joff's poisoning actually did change color.  Unlike your contention of all kinds of made-up stuff being "in the text", that color change actually is in the text.  

Also, if anything, Cressen's cup was more "concentrated" than Joffery's chalice because a "half a swallow" of wine left in a cup would most likely be less than "a half-inch" of wine left in the bottom of a large chalice and the amount of poison placed in each is approximately the same (a "flake" vs. a small crystalline "gem").  And even if we grant your assumption that Cressen died quicker than Joff (which I don't because, of course, just because Cressen collapsed sooner doesn't necessarily mean he died right when he hit the floor) I can just as easily and legitimately chalk that up to Cressen being much older and much weaker than Joff.

So, yet again, you keep saying Olenna clearly placed the poison in Tyrion's pie so you should clearly be able to prove it.  But, of course, you can't.  Your repeated assertion does not constitute proof.  Based on your previous posting here, though, I can't say I'm surprised that you think it does. 

And, for the record for anyone else reading this, I never said I know what Martin intended.  I said "if" Martin intended that Olenna put the little purple crystal of The Strangler that she removed from Sansa's hairnet into Joff's chalice, then she did.  Your opinion of what is or is not "logistically" possible matters not at all to Martin.  Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time that that was just a mistake on your part and not you deliberately misrepresenting my post.

You can read, can't you? Say Mel's sentence to yourself. If it takes more than three seconds you might want to seek professional help. Then run through the whole sequence from Joff's first gulp to the moment he gags and tell me it's not at least four or five times longer.

And lol, I'm not the one who needs to dispute the fact that the wine changes color, you are. If the wine was arbor red when Joff dropped it, then it could not have been poisoned. This would be after the crystal was dropped in, after it had sat in the wine for a good minute, after Joff tipped it end up to drink from it and after he gurgled all that wine down his throat. If that's not enough to fully diffuse the poison throughout the wine, then no one would pay half a groat for this crap let alone go through all the time and trouble to make it. So if Joff's poison was so diluted when he dropped the cup, how did more poison get into it when it was on the ground? Who did it, and more mind-bogglingly, why?

I'm not saying Cressen died quicker. I'm comparing the two events that we can compare -- the moment the poison touches the throat to the moment the victim cannot speak -- and showing -- conclusively and without doubt -- that Joffrey takes several orders of magnitude longer even though he is taking multiple huge doses of wine that is supposedly so poisoned it's turned purple.

Proof is derived from known facts when all other rational possibilities have been ruled out. The facts as revealed in the text conclusively debunk the wine, ergo the only possibility is the pie. The text doesn't say "and then Ned Stark died" either, but we can conclusively draw that conclusion by the fact that his head was separated from his body. And still people try to argue that he's still alive with no more text and/or logic that supports the wine theory -- just a lot of wishful thinking.

And please, your logic is ridiculous here. Martin can make happen whatever he wants whenever he wants to? Spotted purple elephants can come flying out of Cersei's ass at any time? You obviously don't know the first thing about Martin or his writing philosophy. If he thought like that, we'd have the same contrived plotlines and circular story lines that practically every other writer uses. The whole thing would have been wrapped up by now with the villains vanquished in some justly hideous manner and the heroes looking over the peaceful land bathed in a halo of golden sunshine. Martin writes what actually would happen if it were real; his character behave as people actually would, not as characters driving a plotline.

Martin has already decided how the purple wedding went down, and why. He just hasn't spoonfed you the answer yet. Honestly, though, he couldn't make it any clearer if he had named the thing "A Storm of Swords, in which Joffrey Eats Tyrion's Poisoned Pie."

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:19 PM, Tucu said:

As I you are so invested in your fringe theory I will leave it here until GRRM gives us the pie version of the strangler; if that happens I will come an congratulate on your detective skills.

Evolution was a fringe theory once too. Honestly, though, try using your noggin to puzzle it out rather than just wait for it to be handed to you. It's fun. Look at the facts on the page as they are presented. Try to see it through the characters motivations, not your own. What do they want; whose death would they most benefit from? Try to peer into the subtext to determine how they first teamed up, how they hatched the plot, what was the plan, what would they expect to be the most logical outcomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Suburbs said:

Evolution was a fringe theory once too. Honestly, though, try using your noggin to puzzle it out rather than just wait for it to be handed to you. It's fun. Look at the facts on the page as they are presented. Try to see it through the characters motivations, not your own. What do they want; whose death would they most benefit from? Try to peer into the subtext to determine how they first teamed up, how they hatched the plot, what was the plan, what would they expect to be the most logical outcomes?

On the Origin of Species was an instant success because it provided good evidence and a well thought theory. Yours...you are even creating your own facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Tell me, what facts have I created? Everything I've said is sourced right from the text and real-world facts, the only facts being created in this thread is the steady stream of increasingly outlandish excuses needed to gloss over all of the glaring inconsistencies in the crackpot wine theory.

Two main ones are the pie version of the Strangler (that contradicts the partial explanation from Cressen) and Olenna's height (that you use as an argument against the poisoned wine). Then there is your obsession with your book chronometer in a book series with extremely flexible timelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22 agosto 2016 at 6:09 PM, TheSeer27 said:

"I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying  a savage giant in a castle built of snow."

How do you guys interpret this? Sounds to me like she means Catelyn becoming Lady Stoneheart. Could the savage giant be her killing Gregor Clegane? At Winterfell?

The first part refers to Sansa's hairnet of amethysts being used to poison Jeoffrey.

The second part already happened if we stick to a literal interpretation.. it was when Sweetrobin ruined Sansa's snow castle (representing Winterfell) with his doll saying "tromp tromp I'm a giant!", play-acting... and she broke said doll out of anger, seing Winterfell ruined.

Methaporically, tho, it probably refers to something that has still to happen... likely, it means that Sansa will be the reason behind Littlefinger's demise (directly or indirectly) and it will happen in Winterfell.

Littlefinger is the most likely candidate be the Giant because:

as the most likely candidate to be the Giant, because:

- the sigil of his house was the Titan of Bravoos which in AFfC is described as “a giant as tall as a mountain” and 'savage' might refer to his being without any moral code;

- Sansa pretends to be Littlefinger's daughter Alayne and one of the Westeros - Bravoos ships (the same one Arya took to flee and reach Bravoos) is called the Titan's daughter. GRRM cared to specify that Brienne, in her wandering around looking for Sansa, spots just the Titan’s daugther ("her interest was in the larger ships that plied the stormy waters of the narrow sea. Half a dozen were in port, though one, a galleas called the Titan's Daughter, was casting off her lines to ride out on the evening tide");

- when Sansa is building the Winterfell snow castle that later Sweetrobin will destroy, Littlefinger acts like a giant on the snow model of Winterfell Sansa has built: "Littlefinger stroked his chin, where his beard had been before Lysa had asked him to shave it off. "The glass was locked in frames, no? Twigs are your answer. Peel them and cross them and use bark to tie them together into frames. I'll show you." He moved through the garden, gathering up twigs and sticks and shaking the snow from them. When he had enough, he stepped over both walls with a single long stride and squatted on his heels in the middle of the yard. Sansa came closer to watch what he was doing. His hands were deft and sure, and before long he had a crisscrossing latticework of twigs, very like the one that roofed the glass gardens of Winterfell. "We will need to imagine the glass, to be sure," he said when he gave it to her"

- the following passage seems to be highly symbolic too: after Sansa has "killed" the doll ripping his head off, she further savages it and there is a totally unnecessary description (= GRRM placed it there for some other reason) of how the 'giant' dies: "she picked up a broken branch and smashed the torn doll's head down on top of it, then pushed it down atop the shattered gatehouse of her snow castle. The servants looked aghast, but when Littlefinger saw what she'd done he laughed. "If the tales be true, that's not the first giant to end up with his head on Winterfell's walls": I think that's how Littlefinger will die (literally or not)...and he won't be laughing by then;

- Sansa doesn't doesn’t know the role Littlefinger played in Ned’s death (and indirectly, in her mother's and Robb's) - besides framing her own husband for Bran's attempted murder - and if she knew all this, she would have an obvious reason to kill him (other reason would be if he betrayed her or Jon or if he crossed lines with her that she doesn't want him to cross). This goes well with the fact that when Sansa "kills" Sweetrobin's doll, she acts like that because "a mad rage seized hold of her": I guess knowing Littlefinger betrayed Ned would bring up exactly a rage like that…and having his head on a Winterfell spike (literally or not) would symbolically match Ned’s head on one KL’s spike. He’s going to die in Winterfell as a Stark revenge for what he did to Ned, the Lord of Winterfell, in King’s Landing.

This is the most convincing theory imo.

Other theories include Tyrion or the Mountain being the Giant. The first one because he's called the 'giant of Lannister' and Aemon called him 'giant', the second theory assumes that the the Giant of this prophecy is the same Stone Giant Bran dreams of (" giant in armour made of stone, but when he opened his visor, there was nothing inside but darkness and thick black blood") = the mountain as Robert Strong.

Edited by Elisabetta Duò

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the obvious giant of the prophecy is Sweetrobin.

That description of Sansa, coaxing the lad down from the Eyrie doesn't show affection, but simply coping with a spoiled brat.

I'll vote. Sansa makes Sweetrobin fly. 

After her wedding to him or the heir.

Unless, of course, dragons simply destroy the Eyrie (Tyrion's gift to the Mountain clans?)

I'd also like to think Littlefinger takes the first available ship to Braavos and thus avoids the entire Westeros disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 22/08/2016 at 5:09 PM, TheSeer27 said:

"I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying  a savage giant in a castle built of snow."

How do you guys interpret this? Sounds to me like she means Catelyn becoming Lady Stoneheart. Could the savage giant be her killing Gregor Clegane? At Winterfell?

Not Catelyn. It might've been Sansa who was wearing a hairnet of poisonous amethysts. Sansa didn't know this but thought it was a pretty gift. It was given to her by her friend although it originated from Ollenna. One of those amethyst stones was missing later on and this might've been used by Ollenna to poison Joffrey at his wedding. So I interprate that "maid" is Sansa.

Then the ghost lady predicts that other about the same girl slaying a savage giant. We know Sansa lives in Winterfell and her brother/cousin is in the Nights Watch and he himself met giants. I don't think Sansa literally will kill giants across the wall. However, Sansa did build a snow castle when she was in her aunt Lysa's garden. Her annoying cousin Robin broke it, which upset Sansa, and in reaction, Lysa saw this and got mad. Also just before Robin trampled on Sansa's castle, he said he was a giant. I don't know what to make of "slaying the giant" means. But that giant in Sansas snow castle was little Robin at one time. 

Edited by Wolfgirly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now