A Who Sent the Catspaw Theory

[Zapho]

19 hours ago, Lifestream said:

Whether anyone would be impressed is a whole different thing as to what joffrey might believe. 

Exactly. The whole thing is about how Joffrey sees himself, about his values and ideals. He desperately wants to be seen as a hero. That his ideas about what exactly constitutes heroism are already twisted and craven at that age says a lot about the character. 

[The hairy bear]

4 hours ago, Chrissie said:

I have a question.

I think it is in Littlefinger's best interest that Cat stays in Winterfell, he loves her and if Ned gets arrested for treason surely Cat would get arrested as well if she was there. But wasn't she expected to go to KL but didn't because of Bran? So doesn't that make Littlefinger incredibly lucky? Surely he would have another plan to keep Cat out of King's Landing seeing as he couldn't predict Bran's fall?

Cat was always supposed to stay at Winterfel with Robb and Rickon (Cat II: "You must govern the north in my stead, while I run Robert’s errands.").

It also has to be remembered that Littlefinger's first intention was not to side with the Lannisters against the Baratheons/Starks. He just intended to put ones against the others in order to cause turmoil and improve his position. But he only decided to go against the Starks when Eddard's strict and honorable character proved to be antagonistic to Petyr's ambitions.

Finally, Littlefinger doesn't love Cat. He'd like to have her, of course, but he won't allow any kind of concern for her to interfere with his plans. He did anything for her during the war, and we don't see him sad at all when she is murdered.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

It has been explained using the text, over and over again. That you don't find the explanation satisfying doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

Ok, but not everyone has seen these explanations as many times as you have. So when they try and discuss their theory and are dismissed out of hand because it's something you feel has been covered over and over again, it comes across as close minded and frankly bullying.

I completely recognize the story doesn't have to satisfy my every question. But there is a big difference between that and having something flat out not make sense... and since the series isn't done yet, I don't know why you would believe anything is a "closed case". 

6 hours ago, mormont said:

What does being a moderator have to do with anything? Moderators have opinions too. 

You hold authority and actively reprimand/punish users for their behavior. You should be held to the same if not a higher standard.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but when you state it as fact from a position of authority you are abusing power.

6 hours ago, mormont said:

If people want to come up with alternative theories for fun, that's fine. I'm just saying that there's zero prospect that these will ever be developed in the books.

This is your opinion being stated as fact to squelch opposing voices. I don't understand why you are so opposed to this being discussed? Or even how you are so sure... Joff sending an assassin armed with a valyrian steel dagger he stole from his dad's armory to kill a crippled boy in a coma he just met doesn't even make sense at face value.

6 hours ago, mormont said:

The author won't be coming back to revisit this. People get too far into the woods on this stuff sometimes: it's good to remember that 99% of readers don't analyse the story to the level that is common here, and that the author is primarily writing for them. 

99% of readers don't discuss theories on forums... who are you to say what to far into the woods is? I'm not talking starcharts or tectonics here, just very basic very practical plot resolution of a primary mystery in the series.

Did George tell you this is something he definitely isn't revisiting at all? What if he changes his mind? 

Sounds like you are stating assumptions as fact again... 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

20 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Right... and in the Stable Bran suddenly changed his plan of visiting everyone he knows and went to the Godswood instead, where he climbed...

I don't understand the issue... it was as much about symbolism as anything... details.

See, when you say "it's an important detail that Bran made the decision in the stables, but an unimportant detail that in fact he was somewhere entirely else", I can't shake the feeling that I'm playing poker with a manually unskilled cheater.

[Banner Without Brothers]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

It has been explained using the text, over and over again. That you don't find the explanation satisfying doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

I showed how the text actually proves nothing and you chose not to engage or debate at all but instead brought up the e-mails, repeatedly. Can we just debate the text? Can you see how Tyrion's conclusion is illogical? If a character comes to an illogical conclusion, to me, it suggests there's a good chance that character is wrong. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but it does mean that their explanation is seriously flawed. So all we have that can be counted on is Jaime's textplanation. It's ok but there's at least one other I would argue two other characters implicated in the same conversation. 

Going back to the e-mails because perhaps I did you an injustice by not engaging with them enough; It's said that the answer can be deduced from the first two books but what evidence is there for Joffrey from the first two books?

[mormont]

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Ok, but not everyone has seen these explanations as many times as you have. So when they try and discuss their theory and are dismissed out of hand because it's something you feel has been covered over and over again, it comes across as close minded and frankly bullying.

Um, it's been explained more than once in this thread, and two characters explain it in the actual book.

I'm sorry if this comes across as in any way bullying, but I'm also mystified as to how it could appear that way. All I've done is state my opinion in the same way you have stated yours, surely?

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I completely recognize the story doesn't have to satisfy my every question. But there is a big difference between that and having something flat out not make sense

We agree on that, but not on the idea that the explanation in the books 'flat out does not make sense'. You have some minor problems with it. That's not the same thing at all.

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

... and since the series isn't done yet, I don't know why you would believe anything is a "closed case". 

As I've said, realistically this part of the story is done. There's no credible scenario I can construct where the author would need to discuss this ever again, and in fact he has not done so for two books. How do you imagine this could ever become important to the plot again? 

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

You hold authority and actively reprimand/punish users for their behavior. You should be held to the same if not a higher standard.

That has nothing to do with whether moderators can politely disagree with people, as both Ran and I have done on this thread. Moderators are users too. And that really is the end of this aspect of the conversation: if you have further views on it, please address them with me privately.

[the trees have eyes]

On 20/11/2017 at 7:50 AM, Lady Barbrey said:

I take your point, but I have to say the resolution is not in any way 'a testament to George's skill' and is why many of us have looked for alternative solutions.  It's the driving mystery of the first book, carrying into the second, and to have a couple of characters say 'Joff must have done it as a mercy-killing to impress his dad' (who he can never impress because he can never tell him) was so weak it was laughable.

Moreover, the attack takes place just after Bran starts green-dreaming, so the only plausible motive for murdering a kid who might die anyway (unless it was Cersei or Jaime) was someone mystical becoming aware of that and wanting to take out this potentially powerful greenseer, thus the scrabbled together plan.

So I'm holding out hope Martin's misleading us until the last page of the series has turned because otherwise the solution was just badly-written.  I guess I can accept that, but why bother until I absolutely must.

Ok.. In general, the resolution to mysteries is shocking and satisfying but there can't always be an emotive payoff, sometimes it just doesn't hit the same heights, particularly for some readers, as this case in point proves!  As I stated before this is something GRRM is aware of and Nittanian helpfully linked GRRM's quote in which he acknowledged that readers might reach conclusions to the mysteries that were more satisfying or "better" (a subjectively loaded word here) in their opinion.  This is what we have here.

Also, it's not the driving mystery of the first book: that is who killed Jon Arryn and the mystery that Ned goes to KL to resolve which in turn leads him to the even more explosive secret of the royal children's patentity.  Bran's "fall" and the subsequent dagger mystery are personal tragedies for the Starks that set them on a wild goose chase and on a collision course with the Lannisters, muddied by both LF's opportunist meddling and the fact of Jaime's guilt in the first instance but not the second.

Joffrey's motive is not to do with mercy.  A number of posters have said this but it's part of his twisted psychology: Robert may regard it as a mercy that men should but are too weak to give their crippled children but all Joffrey cares about is that this is something Ned and Robert are too weak to do so he resolves to do it himself.  We see plenty more of this in KL when he has the reins of power and we see it too when he executes Ned after publicly declaring that both his mother and Cersei have asked for mercy for Ned but that is for the weak.  We see him tell Tywin of all people that a strong king acts boldly.  Joffrey, the man of action has no weaknesses (and also no boundaries) and will prove that strength to himself through action.

I see a lot of criticism of GRRM here about the reasoning being laughably week or bad writing, etc.... as if people cannot accept it.  I dunno what to say to that: just because it is not what we want to hear doesn't make it any less the case.  I've never had a problem with the idea that is was Joffrey and honestly don't see what the fuss is.  The death of Jon Arryn is revealed by Lysa herself, the instigator of the dagger plot is decuced by both Tyrion and Jaime independently to be Joffrey, both things happen in ASOS, both mysteries are closed satisfactorily or not and have no further place in the character arcs or plot developments of the next two books.  Those stories are done and the larger story or multiple stories of ASOIAF have moved on.

I genuinely don't understand the thinking behind the bolded part of your post.  ASOIAF is not the story of the dagger plot on Bran's life, that's a small twig on the tree GRRM has been growing for over two decades.  Why are you giving this such importance as if there is a major part of the story that you are missing out on or even ruining the story for you?  I don't get it.

On 20/11/2017 at 2:07 PM, Nittanian said:

Oh, I'm fine with the Joffrey reveal. I just wanted to point out GRRM's realization.

Sorry, I didn't mean to address my point to you, I was using your very helpful quote from GRRM in a reply to another poster to show how apt GRRM's statement is.

On 20/11/2017 at 4:57 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Stories should make sense...

This isn't an explanation, not only is it not satisfying it doesn't make sense and frankly states as fact things that cannot possibly be so clear cut.

The issue isn't closed, the series isn't over, it's remarkable that this is the biggest defense of the case against Joff, the author said we could figure it out so it must be the guy Tyrion thinks it is?

It literally doesn't even make sense... 

Not the Weapon (why the fuck was the assassin given a weapon at all?)

Not the Motive (which I still don't understand, did Joff do it to impress dad and not realize he couldn't brag about it later or are you really claiming he was acting out of what he felt was mercy and goodness? Because that doesn't sound like Joff) 

Not even the situation, honestly does Joff ever do anything like this at any other time, or even suggest it? And what he told the assassin to wait a few days after the royal visit and take this one of a kind dagger, that way nobody will ever suspect?

Frankly it's really easier to believe that Cersei did it and just forgot later in her pov... would make way more sense. Let alone other actual possibilities.

Is there evidence Joff wanted Bran dead? Is there evidence he ever touched the knife at all, in his life? Is there evidence he knew, talked to, or directed the assassin? Did he ever admit to the crime?

So not only is the case against Joff horrendous, BUT YOU STILL HAVENT PROVIDED REAL EVIDENCE!

I don't care how sure you are of a theory, if you can't explain it using the text then it deserves to be reassessed. You can be as dismissive as you want about things you can show evidence against, or quote the Author discrediting clearly, but otherwise the dismissivness of thought is insulting.

Far more importantly than this case in particular, why would you ever take this stance on a book forum? You are so sure of your interpretation that others shouldn't even discuss possibilities? You're a moderator here, shame on you.

 

 

It has all been explained multiple times.  What doesn't makes sense to you?  You don't like it I get it but that is what the text gives us.  I think it's fairly straightforward whether or not a more satisfying explanation could be given.  As it's Joffrey and he's dead there can be no confession as with Lysa over Jon Arryn, there can be no interrogation as with Ned questioning Cersei in the KL Godswood or Cat questioning Jaime in the cells of Riverrun over Bran's "fall".  Instead the author needs a different method and he uses Tyrion's pov to plant the idea with the Valyrian steel reveal on Joff's birthday and Jaime's pov to cement it with an independent realisation as confirmation.  You want forensic evidence?  That seems a little OTT, it is a story not a court case.  What about the Frey pie theory?  Do you accept that narratively that makes sense - and is far more subtle than the dagger reveal - yet has no "evidence" for it.  And so on....

I know you want to exclude e-mails or SSMs but those are not the argument, they are introduced to underline the argument when you reject that argument.  So you reject them too   Why?

22 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Again, I would just point out that all that GRRM has said on the subject is true: the answer as to who tried at assassinate Bran was revealed in SoS, and could be deduced earlier. What we don't have yet, either in the books or in Martin's SSMs, is a credible answer as to why. So all I am offering is a more reasonable motive for Joffrey than either mercy for Bran or a desire to impress Robert, both of which run counter to Joffrey's characterization.

So all I am saying to all those who say that Martin just blew this one and we just have to accept in ill-conceived and poorly executed explanation is to sit tight; we probably have not heard the last of this. There may, in fact, be a completely different explanation for Joffrey's actions, or indeed, that it was not Joffrey at all, but the most plausible one is Littlefinger.

As to your other points:

I think there is plenty to suggest that Littlefinger was a master manipulator of Joffrey, ie, the dwarf joust, Ned's execution...

Martin "cleared up" multiple mysteries in the past in unconvincing, unsatisfying ways, only to reveal the correct, satisfying answer later, ie, the Arryn murder, the Westerling conspiracy...

Your point about Martin revealing the truth in a "satisfying and usually shocking way" is well taken, which is why I point to the fact that Joffrey acting alone in this matter is neither satisfying nor particularly shocking. Readers who say that the surface text explains all and there are no big surprises to come are willfully ignoring the fact that Martin has pulled the rug out from under readers numerous times already, so there is no reason to believe he won't do it again. To think otherwise does a disservice to the author whose skill you claim to hold in such high esteem.

Again: the dagger was a mystery for Ned and Catelyn to unravel yet they never did.  LF sent Cat off on a wild goose chase by falsely accusing Tyrion so Tyrion took up the investigation in ACOK / ASOS before realising it was Joffrey.  Cat's interrogation of Jaime at Riverrun led him to talk with Cersei and then realise it was Joffrey.

Why have two characters independently come to the relisation of this point if not to drive it home.  The author even replied in a message that the mystery would be resolved in ASOS and there we have it.  The dagger is as irrelevant to the ongoing story as Robert and Ned, it played it's part, we have moved on, the dagger plays no part in the story of AFFC or ADWD and we should not expect it to rear it's head again.  What is the reasoning behind a determination to cling on to the belief that the dagger is still a relevant plot point and there is a reveal to come out of the blue at some point?  Surley the story is large and rich enough for this not to be the central narrative of the entire story?  Clearly it's not so why hold on to it?

There may have been a different explanation for Joffrey's actions but not in the story GRRM wrote.  I understand you think your reasoning is logically consistent and not ruled out by anything in the text.  Sure, we can all do that, sometimes with more success than at other times.  But the story is GRRM's and to refer to Nittanian's quote again, just because you came up with a "better" explanation for something than the author did does not make it real.  I never enjoy the game of 1) if it isn't in the text but isn't specifically disproved by the text it's fair game (see the Myrcella posts) and 2) here's an elaborate explanation of what might have happened but even though it's not in the books the books aren't done so it could still happen so it's fair game.  I prefer to stick to what's written and I'm afraid the idea that while Robert rode north to WF to make Ned his hand and marry Joffrey to Sansa, Joffrey was all the time plotting how to undermine that and maim or murder one of Ned's children, possibly including his bride-to-be, all at the behest of LF who was reckless enough to entrust his schemes to a 14 year old boy and turn him into an secret agent and a murderer without considering that one word from Joff to anyone about this results in LF's head on a spike is your story, not GRRM's.  Sorry, but no.

Master manipulator?  Sure.  But he led Joff where Joff wanted to go: the dwarf joust and Ned's execution are things Joffrey wants to do, revels in even, and notably are only possible when Joff is in power  and has no one to rein him in effectively.  It's an entirely different picture your suggesting in using the crown prince as a proxy to commit murder; Lysa may be under LF's thumb at the start of the story but Joffrey is Crown Prince not LF's desparate paramour.

How so?  The Jon Arryn murder was not "cleared up": a solution, Hugh of The Vale, was presented to Ned by Varys but this was misdirection and in any case the sponsor behind his actions was never revealed so it is wide open.  Tyrion continues the investigation in ACOK and Pycelle confesses he sent Colemon away as the Queen needed Jon Arryn to die.  Again, it's not clear who killed him only who wanted him dead and who, Pycelle, had a part in it.  That's a prallel with the dagger: first the Lannisters are suspected by Cat but she thinks either Jaime or Cersei as Tyrion was hunting on the day Bran fell but then LF points the blame at Tyrion; in ACOK Cat accuses Jaime in Riverrun but he denies both his and Cersei's involvement until in ASOS it is revealed to be Joff.  Both times, we are given false suspects (Hugh, Cersei; Jaime, Tyrion) before a leftfield reveal is presented: Lysa, Joffrey.  And since the resolution in ASOS there is not a whisper of a suggestion in story that there is anything more to say on this.

And in this particular case we even have the author saying ASOS would clear it up.  I don't mean to be rude but it  looks like you're using ledgerdemain to suggest that he didn't.  It's hard to see why this would be worth doing.

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Ok, but not everyone has seen these explanations as many times as you have. So when they try and discuss their theory and are dismissed out of hand because it's something you feel has been covered over and over again, it comes across as close minded and frankly bullying.

I completely recognize the story doesn't have to satisfy my every question. But there is a big difference between that and having something flat out not make sense... and since the series isn't done yet, I don't know why you would believe anything is a "closed case". 

You hold authority and actively reprimand/punish users for their behavior. You should be held to the same if not a higher standard.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but when you state it as fact from a position of authority you are abusing power.

This is your opinion being stated as fact to squelch opposing voices. I don't understand why you are so opposed to this being discussed? Or even how you are so sure... Joff sending an assassin armed with a valyrian steel dagger he stole from his dad's armory to kill a crippled boy in a coma he just met doesn't even make sense at face value.

99% of readers don't discuss theories on forums... who are you to say what to far into the woods is? I'm not talking starcharts or tectonics here, just very basic very practical plot resolution of a primary mystery in the series.

Did George tell you this is something he definitely isn't revisiting at all? What if he changes his mind? 

Sounds like you are stating assumptions as fact again... 

If you read your last few posts there's only one guy trying to bounce someone out of the discussion....

3 minutes ago, Banner Without Brothers said:

I showed how the text actually proves nothing and you chose not to engage or debate at all but instead brought up the e-mails, repeatedly. Can we just debate the text? Can you see how Tyrion's conclusion is illogical? If a character comes to an illogical conclusion, to me, it suggests there's a good chance that character is wrong. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but it does mean that their explanation is seriously flawed. So all we have that can be counted on is Jaime's textplanation. It's ok but there's at least one other I would argue two other characters implicated in the same conversation. 

Going back to the e-mails because perhaps I did you an injustice by not engaging with them enough; It's said that the answer can be deduced from the first two books but what evidence is there for Joffrey from the first two books?

How is it illogical?  Do you mean Tyrion makes a leap of logic in connecting Joff's words and actions about Valyrian steel?  That's the start of it, it's his reaction when Tyrion describes the dagger to him that seals it.  Decuctions or leaps of logic are ok, surely you've had one yourself at some point.  The clearest two to my mind are 1) Ned seizing on Sansa's remark to Arya "he looks nothing like that stupid drunk king" [sic] to finally realise the paternity of Cersei's children and 2) Cat deducing that Bran did not fall but was pushed out of the tower window.  It's a method GRRM uses to reveal things that are shocking - either to us or to characters in story.

And he of course gave us a second independent realisation from Jaime's pov.  Why if not to reinforce this and confirm it to any doubters?

[LiveFirstDieLater]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

See, when you say "it's an important detail that Bran made the decision in the stables, but an unimportant detail that in fact he was somewhere entirely else", I can't shake the feeling that I'm playing poker with a manually unskilled cheater.

Not playing poker, just reading the text...

Bran clearly changes his plan for the day while in the stable... this isn't even supposed to be proof of anything, just an interesting detail... what are you arguing with?

 

43 minutes ago, mormont said:

Um, it's been explained more than once in this thread, and two characters explain it in the actual book.

No it hasn't... You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

In fact, the crux of your arguement seemed to be based on messages from George from before the release of Storm of Swords, and not in the text at all... 

Tyrion thinks it was Joff, with no evidence at all. He basis this suspicion on a flippant comment about Valyrian Steel which could easily have referred to something else.

There's no real evidence connecting Joff to the Assasin... there is t even evidence Joff had ever seen/used/handled the knife in question.

Given how we know PoV characters are wrong about things, to call the case closed seems premature at best.

Quote

I'm sorry if this comes across as in any way bullying, but I'm also mystified as to how it could appear that way. All I've done is state my opinion in the same way you have stated yours, surely?

You didn't offend me, and I won't try to explain other people's feelings. 

But, No, I don't think we stated our opinions in the same way... I tried to use evidence from the text to discuss possibilities, you stated yours as the only possible option. I don't want that opinion to stifle debate unless it's backed up with evidence and logic. That's all.

Quote

We agree on that, but not on the idea that the explanation in the books 'flat out does not make sense'. You have some minor problems with it. That's not the same thing at all.

Why give an assassin a weapon (let alone a unique valuable weapon) to kill a crippled child in a coma? That's a huge hole right on the surface I've heard no attempt to answer

But Joff's motive doesn't make sense as presented either... how can he be doing it to make Robert proud? Beyond why anyone would expect praise for killing the crippled son of dad's best friend... how would he ever get credit? Joff doesn't know what Bran saw, he has no reason to want him dead. In fact the conversation we see from Tyrion's first PoV chapter pretty much has Joff saying as much in his own words. He doesn't care about Bran.

Meanwhile the same chapter starts with comments about how rare and valuable and dry the scroll Tyrion borrowed from the Winterfell Library is... the same library that was burned "as a distraction".

Quote

As I've said, realistically this part of the story is done. There's no credible scenario I can construct where the author would need to discuss this ever again, and in fact he has not done so for two books. How do you imagine this could ever become important to the plot again? 

Hmmmm let me imagine...

Mance Rayder, who is now in Winterfell using cats paws to murder people as Abel (Bael), is playing Jon for a fool with the Pink Letter and as it turns out has been more involved than previously suspected from the very beginning, and, like you know, it turned out he was in Winterfell for Robert's visit but we only learned that later... what was the point of that visit anyway? Just so Mance could recognize Jon later, and get a look at Robert? Nothing to do with starting a war in the south, sowing decention, and gathering information?

but that's just a possibility off the top of my head... 

You honestly have everything so well figured out that you can't conceive of the identity of someone trying to kill the original PoV from chapter one of book one being at all relevant down the road?

It's a hole so large that even if it wasn't intentional I would expect any author to address it down the road.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

 

 

Quote

 

It was meant as mockery, but she'd cut right to the heart of it, Jaime saw at once. "Not Myrcella. Joffrey."

Cersei frowned. "Joffrey had no love for RobbStark, but the younger boy was nothing to him. He was only a child himself." 

"A child hungry for a pat on the head from that sot you let him believe was his father." He had an uncomfortable thought. "Tyrion almost died because of this bloody dagger. If he knew the whole thing was Joffrey's work, that might be why . . ."

"I don't care why," Cersei said. "He can take his reasons down to hell with him. If you had seen how Joff died . . . he fought, Jaime, he fought for every breath, but it was as if some malign spirit had its hands about his throat. He had such terror in his eyes . . . When he was little, he'd run to me when he was scared or hurt and I would protect him. But that night there was nothing I could do. Tyrion murdered him in front of me, and there was nothing I could do." Cersei sank to her knees before his chair and took Jaime's good hand between both of hers.

 

Can we stop referring to this passage as evidence of Joff's guilt?

Jaime doesn't confirm Tyrion's wild speculation.

It isn't any sort of proof, unless you also think Tyrion killed Joff... in which case I have a bridge to sell you.

The whole point here is that these two are coming to the wrong conclusions... because if you think about it for a minute it doesn't make sense.  Not the motive, not the pat on the head, not the evidence, none of it.

Myrcella is just as good an answer, any and all "evidence" that works for Joff works for her... except people hate Joff and so he's a more readily accepted villain. Even the characters are willing to assume he was responsible for reprehensible behavior.

 

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Instead the author needs a different method and he uses Tyrion's pov to plant the idea with the Valyrian steel reveal on Joff's birthday and Jaime's pov to cement it with an independent realisation as confirmation.  You want forensic evidence?  That seems a little OTT, it is a story not a court case.  What about the Frey pie theory?  Do you accept that narratively that makes sense - and is far more subtle than the dagger reveal - yet has no "evidence" for it.  And so on....

There is no valyrian steel reveal!

Joff is using a sword forged from Ice, he even calls it a "great sword"... then he hacks down on the book two handed, like an executioner (however it takes him many swings, like a bad executioner)... he's familiar with it because it's forged from the sword that cut of Ned's head in front of Joff and at his command. That's why Joff is familiar with Valyrian Steel.

Quote

King Joffrey looked as if he wanted to kill someone right then and there, he was so excited. He slashed at the air and laughed. "A great sword must have a great name, my lords! What shall I call it?"

...

"I remember." Joffrey brought Widow's Wail down in a savage twohanded slice, onto the book that Tyrion had given him. The heavy leather cover parted at a stroke. "Sharp! I told you, I am no stranger to Valyrian steel." It took him half a dozen further cuts to hack the thick tome apart, and the boy was breathless by the time he was done.

Nobody swings a dagger like that, in fact why would the dagger make Joff familiar with how sharp it is? Is there any reason to think he used it? No, because there isnt even evidence he's ever had anything to do with the dagger.

So... All we have are Tyrion's accusations... and for verification, the closest thing we get is a "sharp look"? And I'm supposed to take that as Joff admitting guilt? Not just being surprised? 

The same chapter has Tyrion questioning his leap of logic and Sansa basically defending Joff's lack of motive...

 

Quote

 

When the dwarf grimaced, his scar tightened and twisted. "The boy's earned himself a dagger, wouldn't you say?" Thankfully Tyrion did not wait for her reply. "Joff quarreled with your brother Robb at Winterfell. Tell me, was there ill feeling between Bran and His Grace as well?"

 

"Bran?" The question confused her. "Before he fell, you mean?" She had to try and think back. It was all so long ago. "Bran was a sweet boy. Everyone loved him. He and Tommen fought with wooden swords, I remember, but just for play."

 

 

There is no reason to believe that Tyrion's suspicions are confirmed here... 

In fact... just a little later in the same chapter...

 

 

Quote

 

"Sansa, do you know what happened to Bran at Winterfell?"

 

"Bran fell. He was always climbing things, and finally he fell. We always feared he would. And Theon Greyjoy killed him, but that was later."

 

"Theon Greyjoy." Tyrion sighed. "Your lady mother once accused me . . . well, I will not burden you with the ugly details. She accused me falsely. I never harmed your brother Bran. And I mean no harm to you."

 

 

 

Sansa doesn't know what happened at Winterfell... Bran didn't fall... Theon didn't kill him... Tyrion didn't send the assassin and neither did Joff...

 

After rereading the chapter, not only do I still not see any proof, I see even more reason to doubt Joff had anything to do with it.

 

Later, Tyrion has a contradiction filled consideration of his suspicions about Joff.

 

Quote

I am no stranger to Valyrian steel. But he had been, hadn’t he? Else he would never have been so foolish as to pick Littlefinger’s knife

If nothing else, I hope others can agree that this is a contradiction...

Tyrion is saying Joff must have been a stranger to Valyrian Steel to pick Littlefinger's dagger, since picking it means he didn't recognize the value/identifiability that is Valyrian Steel. But at the same time, For Joff to say this quote, and have it be about the Valyrian Steel dagger, means he did recognize it as Valyrian Steel. Makes no sense.

 

[Banner Without Brothers]

29 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

How is it illogical?  Do you mean Tyrion makes a leap of logic in connecting Joff's words and actions about Valyrian steel?  That's the start of it, it's his reaction when Tyrion describes the dagger to him that seals it.  Decuctions or leaps of logic are ok, surely you've had one yourself at some point.  The clearest two to my mind are 1) Ned seizing on Sansa's remark to Arya "he looks nothing like that stupid drunk king" [sic] to finally realise the paternity of Cersei's children and 2) Cat deducing that Bran did not fall but was pushed out of the tower window.  It's a method GRRM uses to reveal things that are shocking - either to us or to characters in story.

And he of course gave us a second independent realisation from Jaime's pov.  Why if not to reinforce this and confirm it to any doubters?

I did a long post (well long for me) on it a few pages back where I point out that every step of his deduction is completely flawed and unreasonable. It's made while he's drunk and furious with Joffrey. Leaps of faith are logical fallacies for a reason, it's faulty logic built upon a faulty premise, which generally leads to a faulty conclusion. That's my premise that Joffrey is innocent. That Martin is showing that because Joffrey is the bad guy that we, like Tyrion, will happily jump to conclusions over evidence that is wholly fallacious. 

I'd say your first example is not a leap of faith. I would say it's a moment of realisation where all the evidence starts to come together. Making it a hypothesis rather than a faulty premise. The second example is absolutely a leap of faith and a good point which is why I've said previously that Tyrion could be right on the wrong reasoning. But it's not a pattern, I struggle to think of others in ASoIaF or his other work, that doesn't mean they're not there, just I can't think of any. We also have examples going the other way Cersei accusing Tyrion off the top of my head.

Just to recap on Jaime. He enters the conversation by asking Cersei if she did it. He's firing in all directions, he again like Tyrion is happy to pin it on Joffrey but for completely different reasons. Tyrion thinks it's because he's stupid, vicious and arrogant Jaime thinks he did it because he's insecure and desperate for approval, approval that Jaime couldn't give him, Jaime's premise could be seen as being based more upon his own desires to have been more of a father to Joffrey. From the same conversation

Quote

You warned me a thousand times never to show any undue interest in them.

As I said in my last post and previously others are implicated in that conversation. Namely Robert and Cersei. Cersei either lies in that conversation or it's an author error. She claims she had a conversation with Tyrion about the dagger which as far as we know didn't happen. If it's not an error and she is lying then it makes everything she says in that conversation suspect. That means we can't be certain if Robert said what he said or if Joffrey heard it. Meaning Jaimes reasoning would be built on a false premise. I can't quote the whole conversation but just read that part again from the perspective that Cersei could be lying. If she's lying then it implicates her strongly. I'm not saying that it's definite at all but it's fishy. 

Quote

"That," she said scornfully. "Tyrion asked me about that."

Quote

Well first there's he disagrees with the hound's view. I mean he comes out and says that he doesn't care if Bran is dead which is a pretty big clue that he doesn't intend on killing Bran 

Now you could say that obviously he wouldn't give the order in front of Tyrion and a bunch of squires. But he disagrees with the hound, if he'd said "you're right i hope he dies soon" a totally non committal agreement that would point to him no more than it would the hound or many others. But he disagrees and says that Bran is not a problem.

Then you have the dagger. Why steal any dagger? Why not use anything else? He's comatose just hold his nose shut that'll do the job.It's either an act of unfathomable stupidity on Joffrey's part or the dagger was used intentionally to point blame at the royal house. To me this points so strongly to either Mance or Littlefinger who have motive for using the dagger over any other conceivable object.On top of that he's supposedly giving it to a lowborn freerider. Or I guess you could say it's author error that Martin needed the dagger for the littlefinger scene with Cat so Cat would have a reason to kidnap Tyrion. So Dagger ex machina aka bad writing.

Apart from that pointing away from Joffrey as I stated there are far better explanations than Joffrey so that is the evidence that points away from Joffrey. I'd rather attack the evidence that points to him. That's the usual way you disprove something you point out the holes in the evidence that someone else is presenting. It's Tyrion that provides the most evidence so lets examine that.

Tyrion first believes that it's Joffrey in a conversation about Valyrian steal where Joffrey says that he's "No stranger to Valyrian Steel". That's enough evidence to convince Tyrion.

Is it that unreasonable that Joffrey has seen Valyrian steel before other than the dagger? I don't think so, actually not at all. Santigar seems to imply that he's shown Joff some before. Ned didn't show Joff Ice while he was at winterfell or Ilyn Payne? Robert has never shown Joff Valyrian Steel? No Lord visiting court has ever brought a Valyrian steel sword with him and shown the young prince? There are hundreds of Valyrian blades so many that this dagger is not a prized possession. So we start with a faulty assumption.

It's suggested to the reader that Joffrey has seen dragon bone before. It's a suggestion of more evidence.

We know other weapons are made of dragon bone and yes it's rare but there are also a ton of Dragon bones in the cellar underneath their feet. I don't think it's unreasonable that Joff has seen Dragon Bone. Joffrey goes on to say that Dragon Bone is too plain and that he would prefer a jewel encrusted dagger. So when choosing a dagger Joff would go for a flashy one instead of a plain one.

Tyrion remembers the conversation with the Hound. Incorrectly.

Tyrion remembers Joff saying "Send a dog to kill a wolf". What he really says is "send a dog to kill a dog". So Joffrey sending his dog the hound to kill Bran's dog Summer. Yet Tyrion believes he's saying send a dog to kill Bran. Either this is author error or it's intentionally meant to cast doubt on this evidence to show that Tyrion's evidence is unreliable.

Tyrion thinks it's smart to wait until they left winterfell yet Joff is stupid enough to use an identifying dagger

Make up your mind Tyrion

Tyrion comes back to the Valyrian steel quote "I am no stranger to valyrian steel. but he had been hadn't he? Else he would never have been so foolish as to pick littlefinger's knife."

Even Tyrion can't reconcile that amount of stupidity and the original piece of evidence that makes him think of Joff. To me this seems like Martin is telling us Tyrion is completely wrong.

 

[Banner Without Brothers]

I'd just also say that people keep saying that it must be true because two people come to the same conclusion. That's not how that works. Two people can be wrong just as easily as one can be wrong. 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

4 minutes ago, Banner Without Brothers said:

I'd just also say that people keep saying that it must be true because two people come to the same conclusion. That's not how that works. Two people can be wrong just as easily as one can be wrong. 

Very true, in the same Jaime and Cersei scene they both believe Tyrion killed Joff...  Ned and Cat both blame Tyrion for the assassin in the first place... They also believed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn... 

The opinions of characters should be taken with a grain of salt and not held up as irrefutable evidence.

[Banner Without Brothers]

7 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Very true, in the same Jaime and Cersei scene they both believe Tyrion killed Joff...  Ned and Cat both blame Tyrion for the assassin in the first place... They also believed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn... 

The opinions of characters should be taken with a grain of salt and not held up as irrefutable evidence.

Absolutely we get to see the world through their eyes. Along with their prejudices (Tyrion) or their regrets of not being a father (Jaime). Or Daenerys with how many times she's wrong or Jon or Sansa or any of them. And especially when the two characters come to the same conclusion from completely different reasons.

Tyrion is usually a fairly reliable character for making logical deductions when he's not prejudiced. The only times he does go haywire is when he's thinking about Cersei and in this case Joffrey (or when he's thinking with his member Har!). Other times he's highly logical and perceptive like when he's deducing the identity of Aegon.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:52 PM, Lifestream said:

But Joffrey failed. He didn't succeed. Why would he share his failure with either of them? Even when Arya outsmarted him, he was wise enough to lie and say that two people attacked him at once, so as to not make himself look as incapable as he really is. So what would be the point of exposing himself after the botched plan?

Good point. But I would also say that Joffrey didn't fail; the catspaw failed. If he expected Robert to congratulate him on a successful assassination, then there is no reason why he would expect him to be disappointed if an underling failed to carry it out properly. But we're getting into highly speculative territory here, so whatever.

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:52 PM, Lifestream said:

As for impressing Sansa. Prior to the whole Nymeria and Robb declaring himself King, Joffrey is acting perfectly aound Sansa. Because that's what he has been trained. Even afterNymeria when he seduces Sansa agin. Does he really care about Sansa? No. But he does show off to people quite a lot. In Winterfell, he tries to show off he can fight with a real sword. Then he tries to show off against Mycah. And later again when he's King he says stupid things and brags about how he shot a woman on the arm.

I'm not sure how you can make the leap from impressing Sansa by being courteous or picking on a butcher's boy to impressing her by killing her comatose little brother. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:52 PM, Lifestream said:

I don't really think he was trying to put Bran out of his misery but if he was trying to exert control in some way then yeah, I would believe Joffrey could do it. Whether someone else put the idea on his head is a different thing. Though LF was away and that's kind of a big deal. And Joffrey's meaning of "mercy" is kind of warped in and off itself.

How exactly does killing Bran allow Joffrey to exert control over anything, especially since the whole thing is being carried out in secret? Who or what is he controlling, and in what way?

As I pointed out, Littlefinger does not need to know anything about Bran or anything else that has happened at Winterfell in order to be the inspiration for Joffrey's action. If not Bran, he would have chosen one of the other children.

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 3:52 PM, Lifestream said:

Whether anyone would be impressed is a whole different thing as to what joffrey might believe. His mother would certainly be impressed by the initiative, maybe not the execution. Sandor or Robert, probably not. Especially Robert. but Joffrey might not see it that way. Surely the incident between him and Robert regarding the kittens in the past might be enough hint for him, but Joffrey has mostly contempt for his father. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandor stood higher for him than Robert at thatpoint in the story, after all they spent a lot of time together from what it seemed.

I don't think Cersei would be impressed in the least. She would consider it an idiotic and completely unnecessary risk. Plenty of people speculate that despite the beating he took after the Cat incident that Joffrey would still think killing Bran would impress Robert, but it's all speculation. Surely, there would be plenty of easier ways to impress Robert, on the hunt for instance. And Joffrey doesn't seem to look up to Sandor from what I can see. He orders him around just like any other underling.

So sure, there's no direct proof that Littlefinger is pulling the strings, otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing it. But at least it provides a more character-driven motive for Joffrey to act: prurient self-interest.

[John Suburbs]

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Again: the dagger was a mystery for Ned and Catelyn to unravel yet they never did.  LF sent Cat off on a wild goose chase by falsely accusing Tyrion so Tyrion took up the investigation in ACOK / ASOS before realising it was Joffrey.  Cat's interrogation of Jaime at Riverrun led him to talk with Cersei and then realise it was Joffrey.

Why have two characters independently come to the relisation of this point if not to drive it home.  The author even replied in a message that the mystery would be resolved in ASOS and there we have it.  The dagger is as irrelevant to the ongoing story as Robert and Ned, it played it's part, we have moved on, the dagger plays no part in the story of AFFC or ADWD and we should not expect it to rear it's head again.  What is the reasoning behind a determination to cling on to the belief that the dagger is still a relevant plot point and there is a reveal to come out of the blue at some point?  Surley the story is large and rich enough for this not to be the central narrative of the entire story?  Clearly it's not so why hold on to it?

Revealing Littlefinger as the inspiration for the catspaw does not rely on the dagger in any way. It can come out in any number of ways, none of which will be "out of the blue" if you hold to your contention that Martin is in fact a skilled writer and knows what he is doing.

What was the reasoning behind Ned and Cat concluding that Cersei and Jaime killed Jon Arryn, that Stannis concluded the same thing, that Pycelle outright confirmed it to Tyrion, and then, surprise, it turned out to be Littlefinger all along. Those earlier explanations all produced discrepancies with text and characterization as well, which were neatly resolved when the real truth was exposed.

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

There may have been a different explanation for Joffrey's actions but not in the story GRRM wrote.  I understand you think your reasoning is logically consistent and not ruled out by anything in the text.  Sure, we can all do that, sometimes with more success than at other times.  But the story is GRRM's and to refer to Nittanian's quote again, just because you came up with a "better" explanation for something than the author did does not make it real.  I never enjoy the game of 1) if it isn't in the text but isn't specifically disproved by the text it's fair game (see the Myrcella posts) and 2) here's an elaborate explanation of what might have happened but even though it's not in the books the books aren't done so it could still happen so it's fair game.  I prefer to stick to what's written and I'm afraid the idea that while Robert rode north to WF to make Ned his hand and marry Joffrey to Sansa, Joffrey was all the time plotting how to undermine that and maim or murder one of Ned's children, possibly including his bride-to-be, all at the behest of LF who was reckless enough to entrust his schemes to a 14 year old boy and turn him into an secret agent and a murderer without considering that one word from Joff to anyone about this results in LF's head on a spike is your story, not GRRM's.  Sorry, but no.

 

I think you meant to say "the story that GRRM is still writing." I prefer to stick with the text as well, and the text has only given us idle speculation on the part of several characters that Joffrey sent the catspaw, but none of them are convinced as to his actual motive. What you apparently consider the slam dunk here is a piece of non-text: a cryptic answer to an ill-defined question posed nearly 20 years ago that anyone is able to spin in all different ways to mean whatever we want it to mean. The text is inconclusive, and so are the SSMs, so a truly logical thinker would conclude that all options are still on the table.

Littlefinger is a smart guy. He can (and has) manipulated Joffrey in all sorts of ways to get him to think LF's ideas are his own. This is the same Littlefinger who told a bald-faced lie to the Hand of the King, which would have resulted in his head on a spike if Tyrion actually made it back to King's Landing.

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

Master manipulator?  Sure.  But he led Joff where Joff wanted to go: the dwarf joust and Ned's execution are things Joffrey wants to do, revels in even, and notably are only possible when Joff is in power  and has no one to rein him in effectively.  It's an entirely different picture your suggesting in using the crown prince as a proxy to commit murder; Lysa may be under LF's thumb at the start of the story but Joffrey is Crown Prince not LF's desparate paramour.

 

No, not by a long shot. What book are you reading?

Quote

... did your little lord husband enjoy my jousting dwarfs?"

"Yours?"

"I had to send to Braavos for them and hide them in a brothel until the wedding. The expense was exceeded only by the bother. It is surprisingly difficult to hide a dwarf, and Joffrey ... you can lead a king to water, but with Joff one had to splash it about before he realized he could drink. When I told him about my little surprise, His Grace said, "Why would I want some ugly dwarfs at my feast? I hate dwarfs." I had to take him by the shoulder and whisper, "Not as much as your uncle will."

Plain manipulation. Getting Joffrey to take ownership of the decision that Littlefinger planted in his mind. And this kind of ability does not suddenly come to Littlefinger the moment Joffrey is crowned; it has to be cultivated over years.

 

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

And in this particular case we even have the author saying ASOS would clear it up.  I don't mean to be rude but it  looks like you're using ledgerdemain to suggest that he didn't.  It's hard to see why this would be worth doing.

Please read the SSMs:

Quote

You should know that even after all this time, we're still debating things like who was behind the assassination attempt on Bran. Not to mention trying to figure out the four weddings, four trials, and two funeral.

The problem with all this speculating is that some of you are bound to guess the answers before I reveal 'em... and others may even come up with better answers than I do. Well, those are the risks one takes with such a project.

I will tell you that ASOS will resolve the question of Bran and the dagger, and also that of Jon Arryn's killer. Some other questions will not be resolved... and hopefully I will give you a few new puzzles to worry at.

and

Quote

Do we the readers, after having read aGoT and aCoK, have enough information to plausibly be able to reason out who was behind the assassination plot against Bran?

There's a couple of additional things to be revealed in SOS... but I think the answer could be worked out from the first two books alone, yes... though of course, =I've= known the truth all along, so in some ways it's hard for me to judge.

In neither of these statements does Martin say he has "cleared it up." His exact statement is that ASOS has resolved the question of Bran and the dagger, and it has: Joffrey gave the dagger to the catspaw to kill Bran. Nowhere does Martin say that the POVs have guessed Joffrey's motivation for doing this (if, indeed, Joffrey is how Martin has resolved the question), and a future reveal would be wholly consistent to the statement: "Some other questions will not be resolved...and hopefully I will give you a few new puzzles to worry at."

So feel free to cherry-pick what he says about "resolve the question" and readers coming up with better answers. I will stick to the facts: the explanations for Joffrey's actions are nothing but sheer speculation on the part of some POVs, none of them are conducive to Joffrey's characterizations, and Littlefinger's role in this would be the ideal "question that will not be resolved" in SoS.

[John Suburbs]

2 hours ago, Banner Without Brothers said:

I'd just also say that people keep saying that it must be true because two people come to the same conclusion. That's not how that works. Two people can be wrong just as easily as one can be wrong. 

 

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Very true, in the same Jaime and Cersei scene they both believe Tyrion killed Joff...  Ned and Cat both blame Tyrion for the assassin in the first place... They also believed the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn... 

The opinions of characters should be taken with a grain of salt and not held up as irrefutable evidence.

It's kind of sad when people convince themselves that the story has no more surprises, no more truths to be revealed about the past and all plotlines going forward will progress along their utterly predictable paths to the foregone conclusion that they see from a distance of two full novels left to write. I mean, it's not like Martin is known for introducing paradigm-shifting plot twists in the blink of an eye; what bad writing that would be.

 

[the trees have eyes]

 

4 hours ago, Banner Without Brothers said:

I'd just also say that people keep saying that it must be true because two people come to the same conclusion. That's not how that works. Two people can be wrong just as easily as one can be wrong. 

Indeed they can.  Now square your contention that they are wrong with GRRM saying he would resolve the mystery of the dagger in ASOS with absolutley no other instigator being mentioned other than Joffrey.  You can't.

You only get yourself into this twisted pretzel of a knot because you don't want to accept the explanation given in story so you then have to reject the out of text nail in the coffin to your arguments as well.  I still find it hard to see why you think this is the central mystery of the entire series and not a major but resolved matter from AGOT.

[the trees have eyes]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

 

It's kind of sad when people convince themselves that the story has no more surprises, no more truths to be revealed about the past and all plotlines going forward will progress along their utterly predictable paths to the foregone conclusion that they see from a distance of two full novels left to write. I mean, it's not like Martin is known for introducing paradigm-shifting plot twists in the blink of an eye; what bad writing that would be.

 

Oh, there are plenty of surprises to come and even a few mysteries to be cleared up yet (Jon's parentage, what really happened at the ToJ, what happened to Benjen Stark, who Coldhands is, where Hallis Mollen ended up with Ned's bones, where Rickon and Osha are, the truth or otherwise of the Pink Letter, who Aegon really is, what happened to Tyrek Lannister, the identity of the Hooded Man, who killed Big Walder, hell you could even throw in what happened to Tysha or Gerion Lannister).  GRRM will have lots of surprises in store for us, some major reveals and lots of new twists as well.  I just find it baffling that the dagger has such a hold on some of you.  It was explained in ASOS.  You want more, i get it.  Don't be too disappointed if you don't get it and were chasing moonbeams the whole time.

[the trees have eyes]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Revealing Littlefinger as the inspiration for the catspaw does not rely on the dagger in any way. It can come out in any number of ways, none of which will be "out of the blue" if you hold to your contention that Martin is in fact a skilled writer and knows what he is doing.

What was the reasoning behind Ned and Cat concluding that Cersei and Jaime killed Jon Arryn, that Stannis concluded the same thing, that Pycelle outright confirmed it to Tyrion, and then, surprise, it turned out to be Littlefinger all along. Those earlier explanations all produced discrepancies with text and characterization as well, which were neatly resolved when the real truth was exposed.

I think you meant to say "the story that GRRM is still writing." I prefer to stick with the text as well, and the text has only given us idle speculation on the part of several characters that Joffrey sent the catspaw, but none of them are convinced as to his actual motive. What you apparently consider the slam dunk here is a piece of non-text: a cryptic answer to an ill-defined question posed nearly 20 years ago that anyone is able to spin in all different ways to mean whatever we want it to mean. The text is inconclusive, and so are the SSMs, so a truly logical thinker would conclude that all options are still on the table.

Littlefinger is a smart guy. He can (and has) manipulated Joffrey in all sorts of ways to get him to think LF's ideas are his own. This is the same Littlefinger who told a bald-faced lie to the Hand of the King, which would have resulted in his head on a spike if Tyrion actually made it back to King's Landing.

No, not by a long shot. What book are you reading?

Plain manipulation. Getting Joffrey to take ownership of the decision that Littlefinger planted in his mind. And this kind of ability does not suddenly come to Littlefinger the moment Joffrey is crowned; it has to be cultivated over years.

 

Please read the SSMs:

and

In neither of these statements does Martin say he has "cleared it up." His exact statement is that ASOS has resolved the question of Bran and the dagger, and it has: Joffrey gave the dagger to the catspaw to kill Bran. Nowhere does Martin say that the POVs have guessed Joffrey's motivation for doing this (if, indeed, Joffrey is how Martin has resolved the question), and a future reveal would be wholly consistent to the statement: "Some other questions will not be resolved...and hopefully I will give you a few new puzzles to worry at."

So feel free to cherry-pick what he says about "resolve the question" and readers coming up with better answers. I will stick to the facts: the explanations for Joffrey's actions are nothing but sheer speculation on the part of some POVs, none of them are conducive to Joffrey's characterizations, and Littlefinger's role in this would be the ideal "question that will not be resolved" in SoS.

Wait a minute...  You actually quote GRRM and then misuse the quote.....

Quote

I will tell you that ASOS will resolve the question of Bran and the dagger, and also that of Jon Arryn's killer. Some other questions will not be resolved... and hopefully I will give you a few new puzzles to worry at.

Some other questions, i.e. questions other than Bran and the dagger and Jon Arryn's killer because those questions are resolved.  His words as you so helpfully illustrate.  You may call this truly logical thinking on your part, it looks more like wishful thinking and selective reasoning to me. Sorry, I just think you're too attached to this to really evaluate objectively.