Jump to content

Brad Stark

Members
  • Content Count

    1,341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brad Stark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

3,626 profile views
  1. On the one hand, I pictured a huge tower Lyanna and Rhaegar lived in for months or years, with a spiral staircase Ned and friends climbed during a sword fight to the death with the Kingsguard. On the other hand, I pictured Ned suddenly getting mad and pulling a building over in 1 heave ho. Obviously, different ideas of the tower. I don't think any narrative fits where Ned labors for weeks to demolish a structure. But this doesn't have to be the case for the tower to be habitable. It probably wasn't built to modern code, and probably didn't face much weather, and tearing down a tower is easier than putting one up. If it were built on sand, or out of blocks without cement mortar, it might be very stable but easy enough to tear down with a little persistence. I never did, but knew kids who spent the night in tree houses. Probably not safe, but possible, and a big guy like Ned would have no trouble pulling them down in one heave ho.
  2. The author does not necessarily know anything about Reek, possibly not even that Reek is a person. The wording is unusual and if the author is not Ramsay, it likely is someone who heard him say "I want my Reek" or similar. Someone who knows a lot but didn't hear Ramsay would write "I want Reek". Did the writer believe Theon may make it to Jon ahead of the letter? If not, what is the point of including this at all?
  3. I don't see how the timelines factor in. We can be certain the letter isn't 100% honest regardless of who wrote it. Ramsay as the author saying Stannis died is not the letter being from the future, just Ramsay lying to piss Jon off. The inclusion of Reek and fAraya's escape are strong points towards Ramsay being the author, since none of the other candidates seem to know this. But Mel is the only candidate with means to know things far away.
  4. As I said, the biggest argument for Mel is the tone and timing of her chapters in ADWD. You also have to ask what the motive of the letter was. It clearly was to make Jon mad and march South or get killed, it was clearly not to get Jon to appease Ramsay. Is antagonizing Jon out of character for Ramsay? Not really, he stands to lose a lot in Jon actually matches south, but might be crazy enough anyway. Stannis and Mance make little sense to me. They had a far better chance to get help from Jon earlier, and didn't. Why try to get him to move South now? Both are far too arrogant to want Jon's help, let alone scheme elaborately to trick him into helping. Manderly perhaps has motive tied to revenge for the Red Wedding, but this is a long shot. The Freys and Lannisters are far more likely targets of his revenge so an eleborate plan to get Jon to move South against Ramsay seems far out there.
  5. A cheap cop out is Mel could have seen anything in her flames. But we know from grrm that Stannis is not dead. So it seems regardless of author, the pink letter contains some speculation, not all of which is correct. Imo the pink letter was written for Jon, so it doesn't need to be more accurate than his knowledge.
  6. I hate to keep repeating old posts, but reread the end of ADWD with the suspicion Mel wrote the pink letter. It shows up right after a dramatic change in her attitude toward Jon, she goes from trying really hard to convince him to being frustrated with him and giving up on him. Then she leaves and is nowhere to be found right when the rebellion happens. If you believe Jon is AA, this is also a great twist of irony.
  7. It isn't so much fascination with one type of creature called a dragon. It is more calling many different fantastic creatures dragons. What St. George killed is not on your Chinese Zodiac.
  8. Don't we have a SSM about Sansa no longer being a Stark when Lady died?
  9. Everyone goes back to the Reeds' oath. I know I've posted this before, but for me, it is more important, along the same lines and not discussed as much: This gives us a lot of insight in the relationship between Light and Darkness, and by extension, Fire and Ice. We have several possibilities: 1) The shadows are evil and dark and have nothing to do with R'hllor, Light or Fire - and Mel is only rationalizing. 2) The Lord of Light really has domain over shadows, which are distinctly different from the endless, shapeless darkness brought by the Others. 3) There is a Yin/Yang relationship. Light cannot exist without Darkness, nor can Darkness exist without Light. Magic, be it Fire, Ice, Light, Dark, etc - is just altering and manipulating the balance. GRRM is not going to give us hard fast rules on magic. But 3) would explain some of its inner workings, and the magic used by Mel, the Children of the Forest, the Rhoynar, the Shadowbinders, etc - is all essentially the same thing.
  10. Well, this could go either way. Resurrection could be "born again" but it could simply be someone taking up his mantle. I disagree with your assumption that Azor Ahai has nothing to do with the Starks. If someone fought the Others with a sword, they likely did it in Westerous where the continent extends north and the Others are. The Daynes may be better fits, but AA isn't an Oriental hero, rather an Oriental legend about a Westerosi hero. This fits J=R+L, if a Stark has to be Azor Ahai and the only relevant Targaryen power is prophecy - they know it will be one of their descendents, not because it has to be, but just because it happens to be.
  11. The Azor Ahai legend talks about a dead man coming back to life. We assume this is someone who lived thousands of years ago - but what if it is not? What if Jon is AA and has to be reborn as Jon among smoke and salt?
  12. I think it focuses you on whatever was on your mind at death and you no longer care about other things. Beric cared about the small folk, and was following House Stark's orders. He accepted his death as part of combat, and has no special feelings about how he died. He forgets his family and past life to help small folk, and possibly sacrifices himself for House Stark. Cat is probably more upset about her death than Beric, but this is overshadowed by her feelings of being betrayed by the Freys and losing her son. Jon is on a high to take back Winterfell and possibly take back his role as a Stark, and was betrayed by the Watch. We don't really know his state of mind at the end. He might take vengeance on his betrayers, the entire Watch, or may forgive them. He may be obsessed with the Bolton, Winterfell or neither.
  13. Possibly, but I don't see Jon getting to Winterfell while dead. If they interact, it will be after Jon is raised. Given what GRRM said about Gandolf's death, and Cat having a purpose, I believe she exists as a warning about what could happen with Jon.
  14. Stoneheart cannot ever be satisfied. She wants endless suffering of anyone connected to the Red Wedding, it will never be enough. At some point, no one will be left alive she can take revenge on, and then I would expect her to just lay down and die - if she is still around. Jon will come back with the same singular purpose - but in his case, he just gave his Winterfell speech. So he might be obsessed with Winterfell, the Stark family, the Watch and/or the Boltons. Did we ever get an explanation why Berric choose to resurrect Catylyn at the cost of his own life? What was his motivation?
  15. Lady Stoneheart seems to be of a single minded motivation - revenge for Rob and the Red Wedding. I doubt she'd have anything against Jon if they meet, she probably barely remembers him. The problem with her resurrecting Jon is she too far away.
×
×
  • Create New...