Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Angel Eyes

So whenever Arya uses the face of a man...

29 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, Daske said:

 - yet full body glamour is too fantastical? That's an odd place to draw the line!

When Jaquen leaves Aryra, he changes his face and HIS FACE ONLY. We don't see the slightest change in his clothes, in his size, in his corpulence…

During others seasons, in the HoBaW, we see only FACES changes.

When the Waif stabs Arya on the bridge in Braavos, she changes her face but her clothes and her size remain the same…

So no, full body+clothes morphing is neither foreshadowed or implied.

It has been said dozens of times in many threads, a fantasy context does not exempt the narrative from any logic or coherence…

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

When Jaquen leaves Aryra, he changes his face and HIS FACE ONLY. We don't see the slightest change in his clothes, in his size, in his corpulence…

During others seasons, in the HoBaW, we see only FACES changes.

When the Waif stabs Arya on the bridge in Braavos, she changes her face but her clothes and her size remain the same…

So no, full body+clothes morphing is neither foreshadowed or implied.

It has been said dozens of times in many threads, a fantasy context does not exempt the narrative from any logic or coherence…

 

Clothes never changed. When Arya takes of the face of the little girl before killing Meryn Trant, she wears the same clothes. When she takes of Walders face after killing all the Frey's she still has his clothes on when she walks out of the room.

As for stature, it most likely changes with the face. Yes, the soldier Jaquen turned into and the old woman the waif turned into didn't change stature, perhaps because the old wearers where of the same stature? Convenient but not impossible. The man the waif masqueraded as before killing Lady Crane however, did not have the same stature as the waif, yet clearly it was her, so Arya's stature changing with the faces is not impossible, nor is it unique to her.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

When Jaquen leaves Aryra, he changes his face and HIS FACE ONLY. We don't see the slightest change in his clothes, in his size, in his corpulence…

During others seasons, in the HoBaW, we see only FACES changes.

When the Waif stabs Arya on the bridge in Braavos, she changes her face but her clothes and her size remain the same…

So no, full body+clothes morphing is neither foreshadowed or implied.

It has been said dozens of times in many threads, a fantasy context does not exempt the narrative from any logic or coherence…

 

It has also been said dozens of times in many threads, some people want to find problems with the narrative when there isn't a problem!

1 hour ago, MinscS2 said:

Clothes never changed. When Arya takes of the face of the little girl before killing Meryn Trant, she wears the same clothes. When she takes of Walders face after killing all the Frey's she still has his clothes on when she walks out of the room.

As for stature, it most likely changes with the face. Yes, the soldier Jaquen turned into and the old woman the waif turned into didn't change stature, perhaps because the old wearers where of the same stature? Convenient but not impossible. The man the waif masqueraded as before killing Lady Crane however, did not have the same stature as the waif, yet clearly it was her, so Arya's stature changing with the faces is not impossible, nor is it unique to her.

 

Yeah, I'd agree. The face absorbs and holds the physical essence of the person, but the clothes are not included. We haven't see anyone put on a face and their clothes change. But we have seen some changes in stature. And even if we hadn't, that doesn't mean it can't. Or another way, we have seen Arya do it so there is no argument, that is the way it can work. And this doesn't contradict anything we have seen on screen as far as I can recall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daske said:

 But we have seen some changes in stature. And even if we hadn't, that doesn't mean it can't.

 

5 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

As for stature, it most likely changes with the face.

(for the pleasure of discussion, I'm not trying to prove anything or convince anyone ^_^)

OK but then what's the life span of the glamour? When Arya kills all the Freys,(S7E1) she changes face, but she's still one foot taller than the scared young Lady Frey when she adresses her and walk through the great hall…

I wonder what has been their marital life between the day Arya killed Lord Frey and the day of the gathering… :ph34r:

Share this post


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

 

(for the pleasure of discussion, I'm not trying to prove anything or convince anyone ^_^)

OK but then what's the life span of the glamour? When Arya kills all the Freys,(S7E1) she changes face, but she's still one foot taller than the scared young Lady Frey when she adresses her and walk through the great hall…

I wonder what has been their marital life between the day Arya killed Lord Frey and the day of the gathering… :ph34r:

Might be a fair point about Arya's size in that one shot but there's not a lot in it - the Frey girl is not very tall anyway. Personally I think I can allow artistic license there - it would have seemed very odd visually to have her shrink to smaller than her when delivering that 'Winter came for House Frey' line when she was a lot taller for the rest of the scene. As she walks away she is back to normal size, so that is how it is meant to work. She is still wearing Walder's clothes though - had to tell if they shrunk.

On that marital topic, sort of, Stannis didn't seem to realise that Mel was a zillion years old despite having sex with her, so I think we can assume there that she takes on the real physical shape of the glamour!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention Tolkien and GRRM both don't like defining the rules of magic. In a video game it's necesary but in a book or TV-show., not so much. Don't paint yourself into a corner like that as a writer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, earth127 said:

Not to mention Tolkien and GRRM both don't like defining the rules of magic. In a video game it's necesary but in a book or TV-show., not so much. Don't paint yourself into a corner like that as a writer.

I'm doing the opposite actually. Sort of off topic, but this is relevant to me since I am 3/4 of the way through with my manuscript.

I feel that having limits and rules set up makes things more real. Magic is already a sort of Duece Ex Machina and rules turn an "Of course he would pull a spell out of his rump" into a "Yeah that makes sense because..." I don't foresee myself being written into a corner since magic is not the basis of the story I am writing. Here is an example.

Dragons breath fire. Dragon Riders ride them. IMO, that's kinda lame. My characters made it clear that a Draconian Guardian is akin to a Dragon Rider as a Knight is to a Horseman. Meaning, without the dragon they are still a force to be reckoned with. But to my point. I never liked the idea of a dragon flying overhead and forever breathing molten death on anyone below. That's way too powerful. So in my story the same gasses that combust to form fire also are the reason dragon's are light enough to fly. So the more they rain death, the harder it is to stay airborne. And once they are grounded, they suddenly become far easier to kill (relatively speaking since they are still basically dinosaurs). 

So that is the rule I have in place and I think it makes my story better. If ever I find myself in a position where flight is the only way out, but the dragon expended all its gasses and not enough time to recharge has gone by, then that is just it. The characters must find another way, or deal with the consequences. If for some reason the story hinges on this fact, then I go back and simply make it so the dragon did not use up all its breath (so long as it makes sense). I never had to yet and I don't foresee the need. There is always another way, and that is what makes stories interesting. Relying on #Magic that is only vaguely explained feels cheap to me. But of course this is one man's opinion. 

It also helps that magic in my world is simply what ignorant people call that which they don't understand, and everything has a reason for working as it does. I can't explain every minute detail to the cellular level, but I do try to explain why one person can use one form of "magic" and the other uses something similar, but different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 1:26 PM, Nowy Tends said:

I wonder what has been their marital life between the day Arya killed Lord Frey and the day of the gathering…

Somehow, I have a feeling that Arya had no interesting in having sex with Walder's 13-year-old wife, and Kitty had no problem with that, and would have been afraid to question her husband even if she did want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MrJay said:

I'm doing the opposite actually.

Lots of people have. GRRM cites John C. Campbell and many of the authors he published in "Unknown" as an example—right before explaining that he doesn't want to do the same thing, because if magic is science then it's not magic. He's said similar things about the way magic works in most role playing games (which mostly derive from D&D, which mixed Campbell and Vance).

And there are lots of ways to make magic not cheap without making it science. GRRM has used a few of them.

  • Magic has a terrible cost. This is the one GRRM talks about a lot, but it's not universally true in his stories (there doesn't seem to be a terrible cost to looking through a glass candle, for example). Paul Cornell's urban fantasies are probably a purer version.
  • Magic is very hard to learn. To the point where the only people with useful magical power are useless at everything else, ancient and feeble recluses.
  • Magic is so alien that you can't understand it without going mad. Like Call of Cthulhu, if not all of the actual Lovecraft stories.
  • Magic is the preserve of people who are as hard for the main characters to understand as magic itself is.
  • Magic is divine, and can only be used for the will of the relevant god. No good guy in Middle Earth is casting any spells Iluvatar didn't want cast—unless they're trying to use the bad guys' magic against them, which never ends well.

And so on.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0