Jump to content

Was CERSEI Joffrey's True Murderer?


HouseRowsdower

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

I am sorry. My personal inability to grok your analogy means that there is no pattern in story telling. Now we all finally know that patterns in storytelling do not exist and prologue in a greek drama are just a pure human imagination. See, there are no patterns, so the mystery could be solved before it happened. There are also no patterns in a thriller. All just my imagination. And information handling in a thriller also follows no pattern. It was just the gardener. And specific information regarding the evidence also obviously has no pattern. Why ? Because my fucking inability is the problem.

So we introduce an element to the evidence: dragonbone. And then we never check on doubles, because we assume swords are unique, so every dagger has to be unique too. Not that the other bit of information (dragonbone trader) has anything to do with it. He is the only known dragonbone trader in the entire series and the evidence has that specific characteristic. So unless we check on him, this entire thing simply lacks information. Even as a false track he has at least to act as a false track. He does not even do that. He is just there.  

And no, just because I say check on Illyrio does not mean he acted on Bran falling from the tower or that he hired the catspawn. It simply means that we lack information. Based in the idea that dragonbone is very specific for the evidence and the person. You may have your case solved. Or you may have not. You lack information. 

You said that the attempted murder of bran "matches too perfectly with Illyrio" 
So, now you say there is only a tenuous connection because Illyrio is a dragon bone dealer? So, because Ned was killed with a sword, every blacksmith in westeros that makes swords is connected to the murder? 
Stop looking at "tracks" and read the books. We get an explanation as to why Joff thought he was doing a good thing by giving "mercy" to bran. Little did he know, he helped start the war of the 5 kings. Illyrio is involved insomuch as he and Nonutz McGee were already planing to set that in motion, but littlefinger caused it al to cook off early.  The other thing you are missing is that the blade is Valyrian steel, bone hilt or not, that is an expensive dagger, and any number of merchants would make a pretty penny selling that. It would also be a great gift for any king other than Bob, who only ever loved one single dagger given to him by Jon Arryn 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

Just to chime in... I haven't seen anyone on this thread call GRRM a liar.  I think you go too far there.

I certainly don't think GRRM would lie in an interview, but I think we all can acknowledge that there have been many examples of GRRM being coy or not being completely forthright in his answers, which is completely understandable - he has a story to tell and doesn't want to give away all his mysteries.  

That being said, what do you propose GRRM meant when he said "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal"?  

Well, first, welcome Hidden Dragon!  And, second, I respectfully disagree with you.  The contention that Martin's saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" means that [paraphrasing] "none of what he's about to say applies to the book" is absolutely saying he's lying there about the Purple Wedding.  That's not an example of just refusing to answer, or answering a question with a question, or "being coy", etc. which, yes, we've certainly known Martin to do.  This contention is that Martin should be interpreted to be telling a complete fabrication about the Purple Wedding (i.e. lying).  He's not.  He's actually telling exactly what he intended to achieve with the whole situation.    

And, since you ask, I think Martin's saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" is simply him acknowledging that even he may not have everything in ASoIaF planned out yet.  Remember, he says he's "a gardener, not an architect" in his approach to writing.  

I'll say it again, there are many mysteries in ASoIaF but the circumstances around the Purple Wedding aren't one of them.  Between the story itself and then what is confirmed and expanded upon in the Rolling Stone interview all the questions of who, what, when, where, how, and most importantly why have all been concretely answered to the author's satisfaction.  In other words, Martin put everything in there that he felt needed to be there to achieve his goal (which he so kindly describes in the Rolling Stone interview).

I think it bears pointing out that there are often a great many minute details, scientific questions, measures, considerations, etc. posters bring up to bolster their various theories that Martin probably wasn't concerned with while writing the story.  I'll just leave everyone with another quote from a SSM that further illustrates his writing approach: "My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story."    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Well, first, welcome Hidden Dragon!  And, second, I respectfully disagree with you.  The contention that Martin's saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" means that [paraphrasing] "none of what he's about to say applies to the book" is absolutely saying he's lying there about the Purple Wedding.  That's not an example of just refusing to answer, or answering a question with a question, or "being coy", etc. which, yes, we've certainly known Martin to do.  This contention is that Martin should be interpreted to be telling a complete fabrication about the Purple Wedding (i.e. lying).  He's not.  He's actually telling exactly what he intended to achieve with the whole situation.    

And, since you ask, I think Martin's saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" is simply him acknowledging that even he may not have everything in ASoIaF planned out yet.  Remember, he says he's "a gardener, not an architect" in his approach to writing.  

I'll say it again, there are many mysteries in ASoIaF but the circumstances around the Purple Wedding aren't one of them.  Between the story itself and then what is confirmed and expanded upon in the Rolling Stone interview all the questions of who, what, when, where, how, and most importantly why have all been concretely answered to the author's satisfaction.  In other words, Martin put everything in there that he felt needed to be there to achieve his goal (which he so kindly describes in the Rolling Stone interview).

I think it bears pointing out that there are often a great many minute details, scientific questions, measures, considerations, etc. posters bring up to bolster their various theories that Martin probably wasn't concerned with while writing the story.  I'll just leave everyone with another quote from a SSM that further illustrates his writing approach: "My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story."    

 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prince of the North said:

Well, first, welcome Hidden Dragon!  And, second, I respectfully disagree with you.  The contention that Martin's saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" means that [paraphrasing] "none of what he's about to say applies to the book" is absolutely saying he's lying there about the Purple Wedding.  That's not an example of just refusing to answer, or answering a question with a question, or "being coy", etc. which, yes, we've certainly known Martin to do.  This contention is that Martin should be interpreted to be telling a complete fabrication about the Purple Wedding (i.e. lying).  He's not.  He's actually telling exactly what he intended to achieve with the whole situation.    

And, since you ask, I think Martin's saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" is simply him acknowledging that even he may not have everything in ASoIaF planned out yet.  Remember, he says he's "a gardener, not an architect" in his approach to writing.  

I'll say it again, there are many mysteries in ASoIaF but the circumstances around the Purple Wedding aren't one of them.  Between the story itself and then what is confirmed and expanded upon in the Rolling Stone interview all the questions of who, what, when, where, how, and most importantly why have all been concretely answered to the author's satisfaction.  In other words, Martin put everything in there that he felt needed to be there to achieve his goal (which he so kindly describes in the Rolling Stone interview).

I think it bears pointing out that there are often a great many minute details, scientific questions, measures, considerations, etc. posters bring up to bolster their various theories that Martin probably wasn't concerned with while writing the story.  I'll just leave everyone with another quote from a SSM that further illustrates his writing approach: "My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story."    

 

I don't see your SSM as relevant to the Purple Wedding. He looks like he's talking exclusively about dates and distance. 

Chronology and Distances

I know chronology on a story this size must be tough, but there seems to be a slight discrepancy concerning stannis and the wall. Now, the others attack the fist not long before the wildings show up to find the remains.

Sam sends off a raven and in turn ravens are sent to the kings asking for help. It appears that the message has been on dragonstone for some time, before Davos finds out and decides to act on it. Now judging from the maps, and the timeline i've got in my head, there is no way that stannis would have made it in time to save the wall from the Mance.

Here's my take, maybe you could correct me if i'm wrong.

-Others attack the fist, sam sends off a raven, a few days later it reaches the wall.
-a few days later the wildings come upon the fist, probably about the same time the raven reaches the wall.
-messages are sent to the kings, judging from the distance in the maps, stannis receives the message 1 month later.
-Jon scales the wall and a week to 2 weeks later he gets back to the wall. I'm sure by this time the raven hasn't reached stannis or is just reaching him.
-let's say for example, the message wasn't brought to attention for a couple of weeks, then Stannis sails from dragonstone, takes app. a month to reach eastwatch by the bay. Takes another few days to reach castle black. so if we add all that up, stannis is late by about a month and a half.

The reason I am never specific about dates and distances is precisely so that people won't sit down and do this sort of thing.

My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I don't see your SSM as relevant to the Purple Wedding. He looks like he's talking exclusively about dates and distance. 

Chronology and Distances

I know chronology on a story this size must be tough, but there seems to be a slight discrepancy concerning stannis and the wall. Now, the others attack the fist not long before the wildings show up to find the remains.

Sam sends off a raven and in turn ravens are sent to the kings asking for help. It appears that the message has been on dragonstone for some time, before Davos finds out and decides to act on it. Now judging from the maps, and the timeline i've got in my head, there is no way that stannis would have made it in time to save the wall from the Mance.

Here's my take, maybe you could correct me if i'm wrong.

-Others attack the fist, sam sends off a raven, a few days later it reaches the wall.
-a few days later the wildings come upon the fist, probably about the same time the raven reaches the wall.
-messages are sent to the kings, judging from the distance in the maps, stannis receives the message 1 month later.
-Jon scales the wall and a week to 2 weeks later he gets back to the wall. I'm sure by this time the raven hasn't reached stannis or is just reaching him.
-let's say for example, the message wasn't brought to attention for a couple of weeks, then Stannis sails from dragonstone, takes app. a month to reach eastwatch by the bay. Takes another few days to reach castle black. so if we add all that up, stannis is late by about a month and a half.

The reason I am never specific about dates and distances is precisely so that people won't sit down and do this sort of thing.

My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story.

It is relevant to the PW because the 'poison was in the pie' argument is largely based on the supposed time difference between Cressen's death and Joffrey's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

It is relevant to the PW because the 'poison was in the pie' argument is largely based on the supposed time difference between Cressen's death and Joffrey's death.

If you're talking specifically about the poison being in the pie, then yes. I don't hold to that theory for a number of reasons.

I was discussing in a broader sense. @Prince in the North 's view as I understand is that there's nothing more to discuss and the explanation given is the complete explanation. A closer examination of the Purple Wedding raises a lot of questions which aren't addressed by the explanation as given. As such, I see a very valid reason (several actually) to explore if we were given only part of the answer. And I disagree that the reader isn't supposed to examine secret plots and secret character motivations in a book series about exactly that. If we weren't supposed to take a closer look at the PW, then it doesn't make sense to add all of the odd details which have no explanation. 

GRRM's editor I believe noted that things mentioned in threes or more often are to be paid attention to. It's a good way to read books in general. The PW has several of these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I don't see your SSM as relevant to the Purple Wedding. He looks like he's talking exclusively about dates and distance. 

Chronology and Distances

I know chronology on a story this size must be tough, but there seems to be a slight discrepancy concerning stannis and the wall. Now, the others attack the fist not long before the wildings show up to find the remains.

Sam sends off a raven and in turn ravens are sent to the kings asking for help. It appears that the message has been on dragonstone for some time, before Davos finds out and decides to act on it. Now judging from the maps, and the timeline i've got in my head, there is no way that stannis would have made it in time to save the wall from the Mance.

Here's my take, maybe you could correct me if i'm wrong.

-Others attack the fist, sam sends off a raven, a few days later it reaches the wall.
-a few days later the wildings come upon the fist, probably about the same time the raven reaches the wall.
-messages are sent to the kings, judging from the distance in the maps, stannis receives the message 1 month later.
-Jon scales the wall and a week to 2 weeks later he gets back to the wall. I'm sure by this time the raven hasn't reached stannis or is just reaching him.
-let's say for example, the message wasn't brought to attention for a couple of weeks, then Stannis sails from dragonstone, takes app. a month to reach eastwatch by the bay. Takes another few days to reach castle black. so if we add all that up, stannis is late by about a month and a half.

The reason I am never specific about dates and distances is precisely so that people won't sit down and do this sort of thing.

My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story.

I wasn't talking only about the Purple Wedding there.  It goes to Martin's whole approach to writing.  Again, people come up with all sorts of minutiae to support whatever theory they're pushing.  The problem with that basically every. single. time. is that there's very rarely any indication that Martin himself was concerned with that minutiae when he was writing the story.  If he were then he would have incorporated those details somehow.  In my opinion, Martin's a masterful writer (that's why we're all here, amirite?)  That's how the Martin quote "My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story" relates.

In writing what has come to be known as the Purple Wedding, Martin wasn't comparing the finer details of how the poison affected Cressen vs. Joffery.  He wasn't worried about Lady Olenna being short and the chalice sitting on the table being tall.  Etc., etc., etc.

Martin told us exactly what happened at the Purple Wedding and, most importantly, exactly why he set up the whole scenario the way he did in that Rolling Stone interview.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prince of the North said:

I wasn't talking only about the Purple Wedding there.  It goes to Martin's whole approach to writing.  Again, people come up with all sorts of minutiae to support whatever theory they're pushing.  The problem with that basically every. single. time. is that there's very rarely any indication that Martin himself was concerned with that minutiae when he was writing the story.  If he were then he would have incorporated those details somehow.  In my opinion, Martin's a masterful writer (that's why we're all here, amirite?)  That's how the Martin quote "My suggestion would be to put away the ruler and the stopwatch, and just enjoy the story" relates.

In writing what has come to be known as the Purple Wedding, Martin wasn't comparing the finer details of how the poison affected Cressen vs. Joffery.  He wasn't worried about Lady Olenna being short and the chalice sitting on the table being tall.  Etc., etc., etc.

Martin told us exactly what happened at the Purple Wedding and, most importantly, exactly why he set up the whole scenario the way he did in that Rolling Stone interview.  

I'm having trouble discussing this at such an abstract level. I know what you're saying when people start Frankensteining the books together without regard to the integrity of the structure to support a favored idea. But I've also seen some very deep analysis of the minutiae and the way it all comes together in such a way that can't be an accident. When I and others look at foreshadowing and build up for what's already happened (rather than pounding the podium on the proposed foreshadowing and build up of a favored theory), the minutiae is there. This is why I hold that the books in general are written this way. Unless GRRM comes out and says that he told us everything about the PW, I'll accept that. But not until then. 

I want answers for this stuff. If minutiae isn't important, then I want to know why he bothered with the repetitive detail about what is nothing. Either he's a bad writer with pointless filler about a cup and its size and weight and how Tyrion's eyes feel, or he's a good writer and there's something going on here. 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/150428-was-cersei-joffreys-true-murderer/&do=findComment&comment=8135661

I guess I disagree with you when it comes to GRRM's attention to detail, but I agree with what prompted you write this post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I'm having trouble discussing this at such an abstract level. I know what you're saying when people start Frankensteining the books together without regard to the integrity of the structure to support a favored idea. But I've also seen some very deep analysis of the minutiae and the way it all comes together in such a way that can't be an accident. When I and others look at foreshadowing and build up for what's already happened (rather than pounding the podium on the proposed foreshadowing and build up of a favored theory), the minutiae is there. This is why I hold that the books in general are written this way. Unless GRRM comes out and says that he told us everything about the PW, I'll accept that. But not until then. 

I want answers for this stuff. If minutiae isn't important, then I want to know why he bothered with the repetitive detail about what is nothing. Either he's a bad writer with pointless filler about a cup and its size and weight and how Tyrion's eyes feel, or he's a good writer and there's something going on here. 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/150428-was-cersei-joffreys-true-murderer/&do=findComment&comment=8135661

I guess I disagree with you when it comes to GRRM's attention to detail, but I agree with what prompted you write this post. 

Let me try to clarify.  I am in no way saying Martin doesn't have attention to detail or is never concerned with minutuea.  I know he does and is.  It's just that when he is I think he incorporates it into the story.  I think Martin puts in the details necessary to tell the story he wants to tell. The problem I often see is that people come up with all sorts of "stuff" to, in their opinion/interpretation, bolster their pet theory du jour but there may be no indication Martin ever even thought about it or felt it mattered.  

But I think people should continue to speculate and ask questions.  That's the fun of it and it's exactly what Martin wants.  It's why he's written ASoIaF the way he has.  There are many "answers" that Martin has yet to reveal.  But, again, the Purple Wedding isn't one of them.  Maybe I'm wrong but I can't think of any other plots in ASoIaF that Martin has held forth more revealingly on than he detailed the Purple Wedding in that Rolling Stone interview.  I mean, he gave the world everything on that count: who did it, how they did it, why they did it, and even what he hoped to evoke in readers when they read it! :)    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Let me try to clarify.  I am in no way saying Martin doesn't have attention to detail or is never concerned with minutuea.  I know he does and is.  It's just that when he is I think he incorporates it into the story.  I think Martin puts in the details necessary to tell the story he wants to tell. The problem I often see is that people come up with all sorts of "stuff" to, in their opinion/interpretation, bolster their pet theory du jour but there may be no indication Martin ever even thought about it or felt it mattered.  

But I think people should continue to speculate and ask questions.  That's the fun of it and it's exactly what Martin wants.  It's why he's written ASoIaF the way he has.  There are many "answers" that Martin has yet to reveal.  But, again, the Purple Wedding isn't one of them.  Maybe I'm wrong but I can't think of any other plots in ASoIaF that Martin has held forth more revealingly on than he detailed the Purple Wedding in that Rolling Stone interview.  I mean, he gave the world everything on that count: who did it, how they did it, why they did it, and even what he hoped to evoke in readers when they read it! :)    

I sort of feel like we're starting to talk circles.

I don't hold that GRRM lies, but no interview will supersede the books for me unless GRRM says so (Renly's eyes). Until someone can answer why to all of the other things going on in the PW not addressed by "it was Olenna with the poisoned wine in the Throne Room", then the interview won't convince anyone who isn't already inclined that way. The argument's a stalemate. And if it was that simple, then GRRM shot himself in the foot with the repeated and provocative detail of the PW (swords with dragonglass and fire and ruby eyes and runes! + lots of Renly dying by sorcery + Tywin being sketchy when sorcery is brought up = :huh:)

Folks will keep dissecting the PW interview or not until explanations are found for the repeated and provocative details. And one can argue that he's been forthcoming on the PW because there's something to find that he's not ready to have found yet :ph34r: and he's trying to deflect attention away. That LF exposition explanation came a little easy...

If the interview is good enough for you, then great. But I wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't have the intended effect of ending the discussion. GRRM needs to come out and clarify that we have 100% of the information for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I sort of feel like we're starting to talk circles.

I don't hold that GRRM lies, but no interview will supersede the books for me unless GRRM says so (Renly's eyes). Until someone can answer why to all of the other things going on in the PW not addressed by "it was Olenna with the poisoned wine in the Throne Room", then the interview won't convince anyone who isn't already inclined that way. The argument's a stalemate. And if it was that simple, then GRRM shot himself in the foot with the repeated and provocative detail of the PW (swords with dragonglass and fire and ruby eyes and runes! + lots of Renly dying by sorcery + Tywin being sketchy when sorcery is brought up = :huh:)

Folks will keep dissecting the PW interview or not until explanations are found for the repeated and provocative details. And one can argue that he's been forthcoming on the PW because there's something to find that he's not ready to have found yet :ph34r: and he's trying to deflect attention away. That LF exposition explanation came a little easy...

If the interview is good enough for you, then great. But I wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't have the intended effect of ending the discussion. GRRM needs to come out and clarify that we have 100% of the information for that. 

OK, I get that you see things that you think are important and that you think need to be addressed.  I think we all look at aspects of ASoIaF like that sometimes.  My point is that Martin may not agree with any of our opinions, interpretations, etc.  It's his story. We all may see what we think are "repeated and provocative" details...but did Martin intend them to be?  In the case of Joffery's murder, it doesn't seem like it to me, since we have from his own lips what he thinks "careful readers" will conclude about it.  Martin believes he put the details in the story that "careful readers" need to figure out what he wants them to and, most importantly, make readers wrestle with the moral dilemma of either cheering for a murderer or lamenting the death of a very unlikable character (or something along those lines).  That was his intent.

And, for the record, I don't want to end the discussion.  I just don't believe there's anything more to know about the who, what, when, where, how and why of Joffery's murder.  Martin has given us all that (and more besides).  But notice I've avoided saying "PW" in this post and instead have said "Joffery's murder".  That's because I'm certainly open to the possibility that more could have been going on or was being hinted at during Martin's writing of the wedding reception than Joff's murder.

With that being said, do you have any theories on just what the things you see as "repeated and provocative" details may mean in this case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

As I said, I completely get why you so desperately need Martin to be lying or "being coy" in the Rolling Stone article where he completely lays everything out about the Purple Wedding.  You are outright calling Martin a liar.  Very bold of you.  Now, I know you can't prove that assertion but you will doggedly continue to cling to it so that you can continue to indulge in your fan fiction concerning the Purple Wedding.

I'll say it yet again: Martin has very much put this whole issue to bed.  We have the author's own words telling us exactly what happened at the Purple Wedding, how it happened, and most importantly why it happened.  There are still a great many mysteries in ASoIaF but the circumstances surrounding Joffery's murder aren't one of them (unless one chooses to deliberately ignore/misconstrue the author's words on the subject and, basically, call him a liar). 

And none of this is to try to convince you of anything.  It's really for anyone else to read so that they can make an informed decision on what they believe about the Purple Wedding.  Here are Martin's own word yet again:

And, no, Martin saying "and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" does not mean "none of what I am about to say applies to the book" no matter how desperately you need it to:rolleyes:

Hardly. Martin says point blank "I make no promises because I have two more books to write." So he is not lying. He is telling you the gods honest truth: nothing I say here should be taken as proof of anything in the book. If he had laid it all out and everything is explained to his satisfaction, there would be no need to dissemble at all. He does though, so this issue is not put to bed and the real truth will come out. Count on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Putting Garlan in Brightwater Keep considerably strengthens their position as it removes an overmighty bannerman and removes a House with a stronger claim to Highgarden than they have.  As you well know.....

The big happy family you imagine will never happen.  The Tyrells aren't worried about the Lannisters, they are riding their coat tails to power and planning to supplant them.  Getting rid of Joffrey puts Margaery in a far stronger position to influence and manipulate Tommen to secure a pro-Tyrell agenda.  It's almost like that is exactly what Margaery goes on to do....

I know you like to adopt a position and defend it to the bitter end so let's just sidestep the next pointless iteration of yes vs no and you can note why I disagree with your position and I can note you still think it's valid and we can save ourselves a lot of time.  Fell free to fight your one man war over the pie with the rest of the forum though!

Noted, but get ready for when the truth comes out. At least you'll have a frame of reference to understand what really happened with the poisoning, why it happened, how the politics work and, well, virtually everything else. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

So, poison must work EXACTLY the same on a very old man as it does on a young vigorous man in the prime of his life? :laugh:

Timewise, yes. If you drank a straight shot of ammonia, would it burn you instantly? If you poured it into a large glass of water and drank that, would it still burn you instantly but not as badly, or would it take a few minutes to reconcentrate in your throat and then burn you? If you placed a tiny drop of ammonia into a large glass of water, would that burn you instantly, if at all, or would it also take a few minutes and then come back and burn you. Simple, basic scientific principle: dilution does not delay the attack of a contact poison like the strangler, it merely weakens it.

22 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

 So, the Tyrell women have no eyes or ears? Is it impossible to hear rumors? And I am sure littlefinger, the broker of the marriage said nothing to them about the king's proclivities, or how he treated his formerly betrothed. So yeah, we do not see the inner workings of a conspiracy through the eyes of a teenage girl who has been used as a pawn since game of thrones .

Apparently they don't, considering neither Lady O nor Margaery know a thing about what Joffrey has said or done until Sansa explains it all to them. And no, Littlefinger did not say anything to the Tyrells about the king's proclivities; he was the one singing his praises while his men were telling the truth. So apparently it was on his word and his word alone that they agreed to the match.

So now we have a situation in which Lady O, despite all the available sources of information, including her own grandsons, for everything that Joffrey has done to his formerly betrothed, finally learns from Sansa that Joffrey is a monster. And what does she do? She puts her full faith and trust in the very liar and backstabber who got her into this mess, who hasn't even admitted his lies until confronted, and she continues to trust him right up to the point where he has her dropping poison into the very gift that the Tyrells gave to the couple, which can only serve to delay the poison long enough so that Margaery will likely drink from it as well, all in front of 1000 onlookers and at a time when the entire Tyrell family is surrounded by Lannister guards. And where is the known liar and backstabber in all of this? He's safe and sound on his boat out in the bay, ready to split for Essos at the first sign of trouble.

If nothing else bothers you about the wine, this ought to at least give you pause. Where do you get the idea that Lady Olenna Tyrell is this utterly naïve?

22 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

It is a royal wedding. The night would be a long one, with much wine, and many chances for a tyrell to slip a strangler crystal into a glass. After all,a Tyrell would be sitting next to the king all night long  

So you don't think part of the Tyrell plan was to wait until Tyrion became cupbearer first? The idea was to poison him at any old time using the very chalice that the Tyrells gave as a gift with no one there to take the fall? And this plan makes perfect sense to Lady Olenna, who has no idea who among a thousand people might spot someone reaching to the top of a three-foot chalice just before the king drops dead? Honestly, to paraphrase Tyrion, what kind of imbecile would intentionally create such a difficult obstacle for themselves when their entire family will likely face the block if they fail?

Come on, I can tell you are a smart guy. Put yourself in Lady Olenna's head. Why would she intentionally make things more difficult for herself, and choose this particular time to do it? Does she think Margaery is not going to survive the night with Joffrey? If not, then why would it not make more sense to wait until she has born the next heir to the Iron Throne (or two), and then remove Joffrey so that she can rule as regent? Wouldn't ruling in their own right within a year or two be a far better outcome for the Tyrells than trying to influence Tommen when he ascends the throne five years from now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

How about the fact that you don't see the possibility of Cersei killing her son, or the fat man hiring a catspaw to kill bran as any less absurd than mance at harrenall 

When I do see errors in arguments and ideas, either textually or logically, I point them out. I don't just fall back on "stop ignoring what's written in the books and making things up."

Many secrets have yet to be revealed, as Martin himself has said, very clearly and very plainly. Many things that have been written in the books have turned out to be false, and many truths are unwritten until, suddenly, they become written and we all say "ah, so that's how it all makes sense."

So, yeah, I see problems with Cersei being the poisoner, either accidentally or intentionally, and Illyrio hiring the catspaw (although Illyrio supporting Littlefinger and the Littlefinger putting the idea in Joffrey's head to kill a Stark? Both of those are possibilities). But heck, to believe the wine you have to ignore the book and make things up over and over again, so try practicing what you preach friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

Inorite? seriously. One dose of aspirin for a 5 year old, a 30 year old and an 80 year old. The same goes for anesthesia. One single dose, regardless of age, weight, lifestyle, blood pressure, allergies or heart conditions. I stand corrected John Suburbs.

Aspirin is absorbed into the stomach, passed to the bloodstream and builds up in the affected area. This is a completely different process than putting poison directly onto the affected tissue. Same with anesthesia: absorbed into the lungs and passed into the bloodstream. You don't apply anesthetics directly to the brain.

See my ammonia analogy above. You can swap out any other contact poison: bleach, acid, poison ivy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I sort of feel like we're starting to talk circles.

I don't hold that GRRM lies, but no interview will supersede the books for me unless GRRM says so (Renly's eyes). Until someone can answer why to all of the other things going on in the PW not addressed by "it was Olenna with the poisoned wine in the Throne Room", then the interview won't convince anyone who isn't already inclined that way. The argument's a stalemate. And if it was that simple, then GRRM shot himself in the foot with the repeated and provocative detail of the PW (swords with dragonglass and fire and ruby eyes and runes! + lots of Renly dying by sorcery + Tywin being sketchy when sorcery is brought up = :huh:)

Folks will keep dissecting the PW interview or not until explanations are found for the repeated and provocative details. And one can argue that he's been forthcoming on the PW because there's something to find that he's not ready to have found yet :ph34r: and he's trying to deflect attention away. That LF exposition explanation came a little easy...

If the interview is good enough for you, then great. But I wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't have the intended effect of ending the discussion. GRRM needs to come out and clarify that we have 100% of the information for that

Lol, he will. In the next book or two he will reveal the whole thing, just as he revealed the truth about the Arryn murder, the Westerling conspiracy and, as many people anticipate, Jon's parentage.

The thing about the Purple Wedding is that it's not just the minutia that disproves it, or this or that piece of text, but it's own internal logic. Over and over again we have to assume one thing to square it with the text only to assume the exact opposite for another. Examples:

Assumption: Lady Olenna does not know the truth about Joffrey until Sansa reveals it. So then at some later time, Littlefinger, who has not even confessed to this lie, convinces Lady O to purposely give to the king and the queen a giant chalice that is demonstrably more difficult to poison than a simple cup and can only serve to delay the poison long enough so that Margaery will likely drink from it as well? And that she will poison this chalice in front of 1000 people at a time when her entire family is surrounded by Lannister guards all while the liar himself is safe and sound on his boat in the bay? So that means Lady O is not the sharp political operator who successfully navigated her way to the head of the most powerful house in the realm? She really is the scatter-brained dolt that she appears to be in public and is only pretending to be smart in private? And Littlefinger is trusting this idiot with the most important and risky operation of his life?

Assumption: Cressen's wine was more poisoned than Joffrey's. So Joffrey's "deep purple" wine had only a modicum amount of poison but the "flake" of crystal that Cressen put into a normal half-glass is enough to push his to 5x or 6x more poisoned than "deep purple"? And in all the years that the strangler is being used, it is apparently so untrustworthy that it can take anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes to work depending on an endless list of factors, and even a tiny amount is enough to turn normal wine practically black? And no one in all this time has considered the possibility that maybe deploying it in crystal form into wine is probably not the best way to do it, since it can be so easily detected and no one knows exactly how, or even whether, it's going to work?

From start to finish, the wine theory collapses on itself at virtually every point. This alone, not the minutia, not "I make no promises" should give everyone pause that the emperor has no clothes on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

OK, I get that you see things that you think are important and that you think need to be addressed.  I think we all look at aspects of ASoIaF like that sometimes.  My point is that Martin may not agree with any of our opinions, interpretations, etc.  It's his story. We all may see what we think are "repeated and provocative" details...but did Martin intend them to be?  In the case of Joffery's murder, it doesn't seem like it to me, since we have from his own lips what he thinks "careful readers" will conclude about it.  Martin believes he put the details in the story that "careful readers" need to figure out what he wants them to and, most importantly, make readers wrestle with the moral dilemma of either cheering for a murderer or lamenting the death of a very unlikable character (or something along those lines).  That was his intent.

And, for the record, I don't want to end the discussion.  I just don't believe there's anything more to know about the who, what, when, where, how and why of Joffery's murder.  Martin has given us all that (and more besides).  But notice I've avoided saying "PW" in this post and instead have said "Joffery's murder".  That's because I'm certainly open to the possibility that more could have been going on or was being hinted at during Martin's writing of the wedding reception than Joff's murder.

With that being said, do you have any theories on just what the things you see as "repeated and provocative" details may mean in this case?

The bolded is a very valid question. Necessary even. I recall that the moral dilemma had to do with that Joff was being judged at just 13. In an earlier chapter, Tywin was saying "there's still time" to get Joff in a better place or something to that effect. He started out bad, but I think we're supposed to wonder if his environment exacerbated it and if Joff was removed to a better situation if he would not have improved. 

As to what I think is going on? No, I don't have any theories. I’m confused as heck. I have ideas about this detail or that detail but nothing that fits the whole picture—not even close— and right now I’m at the point where if something doesn’t fit all of the details, then it won’t suffice for me. My best guess is that there are multiple things going on, one of which is Olenna and the wine. Maybe they’re different pieces of the same plot, maybe different plans by different people became crossed and interfered with each other, maybe there was some double-crossing in plots. I don’t know. I’m doing a Tyrion reread but am only on ACOK so I'm keeping my eyes open for anything. 

I’m more interested in going back to the start and really laying out who is doing what preceding, during, and right after the PW, what they’re saying, what gets mentioned in context, and seeing if any explanations pop up which might fit all of the facts, not just bits and pieces.

I expect that the PW should read like the RW if we have a complete picture. I don’t recall any info in the RW that wasn’t required for the scene or part of the plot of the betrayal. It all just made sense after we found out what happened.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Hardly. Martin says point blank "I make no promises because I have two more books to write." So he is not lying. He is telling you the gods honest truth: nothing I say here should be taken as proof of anything in the book. If he had laid it all out and everything is explained to his satisfaction, there would be no need to dissemble at all. He does though, so this issue is not put to bed and the real truth will come out. Count on it.

And around and around we go!  I completely get how much you desperately need Martin to be lying in the Rolling Stone interview on the subject of the PW...but he's not.  Also, just for anyone else reading this, the very first three words Martin utters after the interviewer's statement are "In the books".  So, yeah, he's definitely talking about the books.  And, no, there's no "dissembling" at all.  That's such a blatantly disingenuous, self-serving "interpretation" on your part:rolleyes:  Martin's not concealing anything in the interview.  Exactly the opposite, he's completely laying out everything that happened with Joff's murder, why it was done, and even what he hoped to evoke in readers' minds when reading it.

The case of who, what, when, where, how, and why Joffery was murdered is completely and utterly closed.  But, yes, you desperately need it not to be for your PW-related fan fiction that Tyrion was really the target and the poison was actually in the pie to be anything other than a complete non-starter (which it is). 

Now, finally, I challenge you to back up your assertion that Martin is lying in the Rolling Stone interview with something other than your opinion.  And, by the way, "dissembling" is lying (I look forward to you trying to retreat into semantics on this point).  I get that you want to both pretend that Martin is lying in the interview and not call him a liar.  But you can't have it both ways.  He's either telling the truth or he's not.  I take him at his word.  Here's the Rolling Stone interview excerpt again for anyone who may question the circumstances of Joff's murder and wants to know the truth:

Quote

In an upcoming Rolling Stone interview with George R.R. Martin, the writer behind the popular Game of Thrones novels offers the following comments during a discussion of whether his characters’ deeds can be redeemed: 

Martin: Who kills Joffrey? 

Rolling Stone: That killing apparently happens early in this fourth season. The Song of Ice and Fire books, of course, are well past the poisoning of King Joffrey. 

Martin: In the books — and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal — the conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa’s hair net, so that if anyone actually did think it was poison, then Sansa would be blamed for it. Sansa had certainly good reason for it.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She certainly had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Everything she’d heard about him, he was wildly unstable, and he was about to marry her beloved granddaughter. The Queen of Thorns had studied Joffrey well enough that she knew that at some point he would get bored with Margaery, and Margaery would be maltreated, the same way that Sansa had been. Whereas if she removed him then her granddaughter might still get the crown but without all of the danger. So is that a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know. That’s what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...