Heresy 200 The bicentennial edition

[ravenous reader]

3 minutes ago, LynnS said:

We only know of some of Robert's bastards, so who can say.

 

Indeed -- 'WE KNOW NOTHING (especially when it comes to Jon Snow)'!    

Even when a pattern seems reasonably well established (such as the blue-eyed rule in which none of the eggs we know of coming into contact with the Trouserless One's sperm was strong enough to overcome the 'blue-eyed Baratheon gene'), we still know nothing -- because we can always suspect an exception to the rule.  And why -- because by hook or by crook GRRM will subvert those tropes, our expectations, and even his own prose (the 'running' blood of fire wight Beric being a case in point).

[LynnS]

52 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Indeed -- 'WE KNOW NOTHING (especially when it comes to Jon Snow)'!    

Even when a pattern seems reasonably well established (such as the blue-eyed rule in which none of the eggs we know of coming into contact with the Trouserless One's sperm was strong enough to overcome the 'blue-eyed Baratheon gene'), we still know nothing -- because we can always suspect an exception to the rule.  And why -- because by hook or by crook GRRM will subvert those tropes, our expectations, and even his own prose (the 'running' blood of fire wight Beric being a case in point).

You can add Sansa telling clueless Ned that Robert didn't produce any golden haired kids; to Arya's statement the bastard under discussion between Illyrio and Varys is Jon.  Except that Ned is too distracted to listen to her.   In addition, Varys claims to know of one other bastard besides the known bastards; whom he doesn't name.

[The Fattest Leech]

3 minutes ago, LynnS said:

You can add Sansa telling clueless Ned that Robert didn't produce any golden haired kids; to Arya's statement the bastard under discussion between Illyrio and Varys is Jon.  Except that Ned is too distracted to listen to her.   In addition, Varys claims to know of one other bastard besides the known bastards; whom he doesn't name.

I have always wondered about these same points, but also always forget to ask about them. I have wondered if it was Jon they were talking about.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Lady Dyanna said:

Not to mention that I believe there is no mention of "broken promises" until Ned is in the black cells. Why all of a sudden is the promise broken? What else happened that could have done that other than Robert dying?

What is Ned's 'dirty secret'; the one that makes him feel soiled?

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XIII

"Robert …" Joffrey is not your son, he wanted to say, but the words would not come. The agony was written too plainly across Robert's face; he could not hurt him more. So Ned bent his head and wrote, but where the king had said "my son Joffrey," he scrawled "my heir" instead. The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought. May the gods forgive me. "What else would you have me say?”

 

 

[LynnS]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I have always wondered about these same points, but also always forget to ask about them. I have wondered if it was Jon they were talking about.

Is Arya the 'slayer of lies'?

[The Fattest Leech]

5 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Is Arya the 'slayer of lies'?

Could be, if only someone would listen to the poor girl

I hope Sam the Slayer slays some Citadel lies. (try saying that ten times fast!)

[ravenous reader]

19 minutes ago, LynnS said:

You can add Sansa telling clueless Ned that Robert didn't produce any golden haired kids; to Arya's statement the bastard under discussion between Illyrio and Varys is Jon.  Except that Ned is too distracted to listen to her.   In addition, Varys claims to know of one other bastard besides the known bastards; whom he doesn't name.

Which quote is that?

Quote

Robert's bastards? What of them?"

"He fathered eight, to the best of my knowing," Varys said as he wrestled with the saddle. "Their mothers were copper and honey, chestnut and butter, yet the babes were all black as ravens . . . 

Jon's hair is not raven-black, it's brown:

Quote

It would have been easier if Arya had been a bastard, like their half brother Jon. She even looked like Jon, with the long face and brown hair of the Starks

Are you suggesting Arya has a Baratheon parent too...?  

[LynnS]

30 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Could be, if only someone would listen to the poor girl

I hope Sam the Slayer slays some Citadel lies. (try saying that ten times fast!)

Him also and Tyrion the slayer of lies.

[LynnS]

56 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Which quote is that?

Jon's hair is not raven-black, it's brown:

Are you suggesting Arya has a Baratheon parent too...?  

Why do we have a reprise of Jaime: the things we do for love?  Jaime is keeping the secret of Cersei's children from getting back to Robert who would surely kill them all.  So why does Ned say the same thing when he changes Joffrey in the line of succession to the heir.  Why does it make him feel dirty?  Because he hid the truth from Robert about Jon.  If Jon was a Targaryen bastard; I doubt he would be any remorse about sending Jon to the Wall if it meant protecting him from Robert.  This doesn't mean incest between Lyanna and Ned; only that Ned becomes the surrogate father of Lyanna's boy.  Whatever promises he made to Lyanna, he broke them.

There are 11 other bastards with no physical description.  Perhaps they haven't been found because they don't have black hair and blue eyes.

Search of ice and fire isn't responding right now.  Here's part of it:

Quote

 

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion II

"Not enough to save this child, it would seem."

"Alas, no. There was another bastard, a boy, older. I took steps to see him removed from harm's way . . . but I confess, I never dreamed the babe would be at risk. A baseborn girl, less than a year old, with a whore for a mother. What threat could she pose?"

"She was Robert's," Tyrion said bitterly. "That was enough for Cersei, it would seem."

 

 

 

[JNR]

3 hours ago, Lady Dyanna said:

He has already slated a ww and slept with Craster's daughter. Not many men can brag of those exploits

Sam the Slayer and Sam the Layer, yes.

[PrettyPig]

29 minutes ago, LynnS said:

So why does Ned say the same thing when he changes Joffrey in the line of succession to the heir.  Why does it make him feel dirty?

I think this is where we look to the past for the answer - in the case above, Ned is passively and sneakily hindering the succession of an heir he knows to be a bastard, and my gut tells me that Ned may have done just the opposite at one point, in which he actively but just as sneakily abetted the succession of an heir he knew to be a bastard.

[LordBlakeney]

5 hours ago, LynnS said:

Why does Martin connect Ned's promises to Lyanna's and his promise to Robert to help his son?  Ned certainly isn't thinking about Joffrey or Gendry in relation to Lyanna.

So perhaps Jon is the "promised prince" through the Baratheon bloodline.  The lies we tell for love.

I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why Jon had to be hidden if Robert was his father. Robert fawns over his bastards; how much more would he fawn over the son of Lyanna, the woman he loved?

Unless you don't believe Lyanna is his mother. In which case what is Lyanna's purpose in our modern story? Why does her character exist?

[wolfmaid7]

3 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

Which quote is that?

Jon's hair is not raven-black, it's brown:

Are you suggesting Arya has a Baratheon parent too...?  

Double entendre....He is black like a Raven

It is not impossible for Robert to have a child that didn't look like him.A point the author had Cat point out.

Lastly,black hair and blue eyes aren't the only well known traits exhibited.

 

[wolfmaid7]

1 minute ago, LordBlakeney said:

I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why Jon had to be hidden if Robert was his father. Robert fawns over his bastards; how much more would he fawn over the son of Lyanna, the woman he loved?

Unless you don't believe Lyanna is his mother. In which case what is Lyanna's purpose in our modern story? Why does her character exist?

3 reasons all explained by Ned.

1.He would be shunned

2.Because of Cersie none of Robert's bastard have been seen at court.

3.If he were legitimized by Robert he would be a threat to Cersie's kids.

[LordBlakeney]

Robert didn't marry Cersei until a year after he had been crowned King. Crowned 283 they're married 284 (or 285). Jon was born prior to their nuptials. Therefore:

1) Whether he is Robert's bastard or Ned's, he is still a bastard and therefore an outcast. He's shunned either way. The best way to minimize that shunning? Be the bastard of the King. See, Edric Storm.

2) Again, Cersei is irrelevant, because at the time Ned is making decisions about Jon's future, she's not in the picture. The only reference Ned has for how Robert would treat one of his bastards is Mya Stone in the Vale, whom he dotes on with affection. Again, think how much more affection Ned would have expected Robert to show his son by Lyanna. There is no reason for Ned to think, prior to Cersei entering the picture, that Robert would harm him. Quite the opposite.

3) Cersei's first child wasn't born until a year after she married Robert, making Joffrey & Co even further removed from consideration. If he were to tell Robert he has a bastard son by Lyanna that he legitimizes, it offends no one and displaces no one.

So again, I see absolutely no convincing argument for why Ned would hide one of Robert's bastards from him, let alone his bastard by the woman he loved so much he went to war.

[wolfmaid7]

12 minutes ago, LordBlakeney said:

Robert didn't marry Cersei until a year after he had been crowned King. Crowned 283 they're married 284 (or 285). Jon was born prior to their nuptials. Therefore:

1) Whether he is Robert's bastard or Ned's, he is still a bastard and therefore an outcast. He's shunned either way. The best way to minimize that shunning? Be the bastard of the King. See, Edric Storm.

2) Again, Cersei is irrelevant, because at the time Ned is making decisions about Jon's future, she's not in the picture. The only reference Ned has for how Robert would treat one of his bastards is Mya Stone in the Vale, whom he dotes on with affection. Again, think how much more affection Ned would have expected Robert to show his son by Lyanna. There is no reason for Ned to think, prior to Cersei entering the picture, that Robert would harm him. Quite the opposite.

3) Cersei's first child wasn't born until a year after she married Robert, making Joffrey & Co even further removed from consideration. If he were to tell Robert he has a bastard son by Lyanna that he legitimizes, it offends no one and displaces no one.

So again, I see absolutely no convincing argument for why Ned would hide one of Robert's bastards from him, let alone his bastard by the woman he loved so much he went to war.

1.He married Cersie on Jon Arryn' s advice that it would keep Tywin loyal.Cersie would have still been Jon's step mom.Weather they had kids or not Jon would have been legitimized and a threat.

2.Your missing the point.It doesn't matter what you think its what Ned thinks and his thought on the matter is clear.

3.Cersie is not irrelevant it doesn't matter Robert would have to marry someone.Plus social and religious ethics would put Jon in a sticky situation were he to be in the capital.You think Cersie would act any different to put "her" kids on throne.Cersie would have killed Jon.She said if she were Cat she would have done so.You think she wouldn't if Jon were her step child???

Ned has viewed the South as a den of Adders.No way he would want Jon in the midst of that.

He would be better off in the North.

 

[MaesterSam]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

If anything, that's why comparisons to a Sauron-like figure don't really apply--to repeat the comparison I made a few pages ago, he's a sword without a hilt, a personification of winter and death. He's not a tyrant who has seized power and is unveiling his grand plan, he's just fulfilling his programming. Put another way, it might be more fair to compare him to the dragons than a human villain; he's one of the show's threats of Ice and Fire that's looming over Westeros.

Which also causes me to suspect that the important question here remains the same: why are the Others back now?

I don't disagree with any of this - but what I was trying to say is that he is the "implacable evil" that GRRM says doesn't exist in the real world. Based on D&D's statement (and the bolded above), Jon will not be able to reason with him, he is not trying to avenge an old injustice, let alone having a deeper motivation behind his killing of humans who have seemingly done him no harm. He is like Sauron in that he is the enemy, and there is nothing our characters can do to change this. They must find a way to defeat him, not understand his perspective to reach a peace. I personally find this much less appealing than an antagonist who is a little more... grey. 

That's not to say there isn't still an interesting mystery regarding how he got away from the COTF's control, and why the Others in general are back now. It doesn't make the whole story crap, it just reduces the complexity behind the Others, IMO. As one who is still hoping they will not in fact be THE antagonist of the story, I find this disappointing. 

1 hour ago, LordBlakeney said:

I'm sorry but this idea of GRRM as some cackling troll who wrote a series to prove how dumb the fantasy genre is (which is the basic argument people who keep using the word "trope" are making) is way off base. He loves fantasy writing. He loves nerds. He wants readers to like his books. And his writing is much more traditional than these self-proclaimed literary critics will admit.

I truly don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but have you read GRRM's other works? Because I have - all of them except Wildcards. Every novel, short story, even some TV scripts he included in Dreamsongs. And I found them to be far from traditional.

GRRM does mislead his readers, all the time, and he does actively destroy tropes. In one novel, a character goes through a long redemption arc like Jaime, only to be accidentally killed by his lover in the last chapter. The great banshee of his House is then killed by these little tree creatures in a tragic, gut wrenching scene. Oh, and the POV protagonist of that story? His fate is left open, but it's likely he dies within minutes of the end of the story. 

There's another book where the protagonist seemingly has to kill a singer returned from the dead, lest he unleash armageddon on the world. The whole story is about how someone will stop this man, and then the twist is that killing him is what leads to the great battle, and the hero has to learn this in time to let him live. Which means in the end, the hero saves the day by doing NOTHING. 

In one story, there are pyramids who are worshipped by COTF-like creatures. When a stronger race takes over their world, the pyramids gradually take control of the newcomers until they essentially self destruct, including hanging their own children from their city walls. 

Does any of this sound like traditional fantasy to you? Do you notice any promised princes, dark lords, great battles to save the world? GRRM's writing often focuses on seeing a story from multiple perspectives, and how different it all looks depending on where you're standing. He first shows his readers one viewpoint, and we think we know how it will go - but then he surprises us by letting us see the other side (Jaime's kingslaying being a perfect example), and we realize we knew nothing. It's the hippie in him, wanting us to try to understand the other - not just fight and defeat the evil that threatens to destroy us. 

There is no better demo for GRRM's work, IMO, than his short story Dark, dark were the tunnels. You can find it online, (here: http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1003376/25/Adams_John_-_Wastelands.html ), and read it in 30 minutes. I very highly recommend it, as it offers a lot of insight into how GRRM views conflicts and their causes while also touching on the protagonist/antagonist dilemma. 

1 hour ago, LordBlakeney said:

Just because he does not speak does not mean there isn't more to his backstory. Ilyn Payne has no dialogue, yet he has a rich backstory. Once again we are in the middle of the story! Obviously there is more to be revealed about the White Walkers/Night King. What created him? What made him that way? What is his goal? The show isn't going to ruin suspense by having the creators tell you all the details in a post-show interview. 

The COTF - we saw it happen.

Quote

 

Benioff & Weiss: We don’t think of The Night King as a villain as much as Death. He is not someone who’s like Joffrey or Ramsay. He’s not really human anymore. Evil comes when you have a choice between that and good, and you choose the wrong way. The Night King doesn’t have a choice; he was created in that way, and that’s what he is. In some ways, he’s just Death, coming for everyone in the story, and for all of us.

In some ways, it’s appropriate he doesn’t speak. What’s Death going to say? Anything would diminish him. He’s just a force of destruction. I don’t think we’ve ever been tempted to write dialogue for The Night King. Anything he said would be anticlimactic.

 

Sure, we may get more backstory, and I hope we do. But the NK himself, as a character, seems quite straightforward at this point in the story. The main question that remains, IMO, is how he got away from the COTF - and why apparently neither he nor any of his wights can get wet, despite the books having "dead things in the water". 

1 hour ago, LordBlakeney said:

Again, you are assuming that we know as much about the Night King in the show as we're going to find out. Even in-show they've left hints that isn't true, like when Bran goes back to the weirwood where he saw the Night's King created. It's dead. Looks like it's been split by something like a lightning strike. No explanation given. There is much more still to come, let's hold off on burning our straw man NK in effigy.

I'm going to have to rewatch this- I never noticed the tree being damaged! It had lost its leaves and its branches were heavy with snow, but that scene was in winter so that would make sense. If it truly is dead, then I agree that there may be a much greater mystery still to be solved. 

And wasn't someone here just wondering about why the Others don't destroy weirwoods? Maybe they do! This would certainly add a very interesting element to the story. 

1 hour ago, LordBlakeney said:

I read someone else on here say this, and it has made every GRRM interview I've seen make sense to me: he doesn't want to dismantle these tropes; he wants his characters to earn their tropes. The story is a masterpiece because he decided to take the time and effort to write an engaging story to reinvigorate the fantasy genre. To do it right. That means taking a little extra time and effort to build a world and backstory so are heroes are actually tested, our villians are more sympathetic, and the emotional payoff is off the charts.

But that's exactly what some of us having been saying: the show NK is not in any way more sympathetic than Sauron or Voldemort or Palpatine. He just wants to kill all humans, because that's his purpose. Now the heroes must defeat him to save the world. It's not original at all - it's tropey. Which is fine for the show - I'm not complaining - but seems a little too simplistic for the books, IMO. 

[alienarea]

21 hours ago, Black Crow said:

And Jon Snow, too, is drained by the experience of coming back from the dead on the show.

Right. And poor Beric Dondarrion, who was set up as the foreshadowing of all this, every time he’s a little less Beric. His memories are fading, he’s got all these scars, he’s becoming more and more physically hideous, because he’s not a living human being anymore. His heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing.

http://time.com/4791258/game-of-thrones-george-r-r-martin-interview/

Although the question about Jon Snow was an interjection while GRRM was talking about Beric and Lady Stoneheart, we can't ignore how Beric "was set up as the foreshadowing of all this" and that thereby "we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing."

I think therefore that there's no doubt GRRM was indeed including our [book] Jon's fate, but at the same time I think that it opens up some exciting possibilities from a literary point of view. As Son of Coldhands it no longer matters if whether he was the son of Rhaegar Targaryen or should be sitting on the Iron Throne - but as a major POV character he is going to have to deal with his altered state and everything that flows from that; we've had glimpses of it from Beric and from Coldhands, but I'm really looking forward to this one and of course it also has had its foreshadowing long before Beric in the shape of his dog being called Ghost; which in retrospect is a clue as subtle as the proverbial train crash.

Maybe this is the true reason for the delay of the books?

If (book-) Jon is a fire wight, he should not have POY chapters anymore, same rule as with Lady Stoneheart. And then the rest of the story becomes impossible to narrate?

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, alienarea said:

Maybe this is the true reason for the delay of the books?

If (book-) Jon is a fire wight, he should not have POY chapters anymore, same rule as with Lady Stoneheart. And then the rest of the story becomes impossible to narrate?

I don't think that this is true; we have the Mel POV which gave us huge insights. That's why I'm looking forward to a Coldhands/Jon POV and what, aside from ordinary business, it may reveal

[JNR]

6 hours ago, alienarea said:

Maybe this is the true reason for the delay of the books?

In a general sense, I've been wondering this too.  Not so much with regard to wights, or lack thereof, but because GRRM is simply much better at developing coherent stories that fit his world than D&D are, and to whatever extent it's still possible (given their radical changes), I'm sure they'd like to borrow what they consider the good stuff.  

They're legally entitled to do it; the rights are bought and paid for.  They just don't have a new book handy.