Springwatch

Not a lot of fantasy authors feel the need to talk about maths at all, but George does, we get a couple of heavy nudges. Arya is very good at maths. Sansa is not, and may need a steward to manage her accounts. Gold has an in-world metaphorical link to 'sums and numbers'. So maybe Arya's character is gold? The sun and not the moon? Elsewhere, twelve houses in the Planetos zodiac, each with its ruler. I like the sound of that.

Um... yeah indeed. A heavy dose of sugar over who knows how much intellectual fibre. It might be ok. Anyway, good students will do something good with it.

Readers are all different. You keep a strong sense of the real world, but I think many or most actually don't. I don't. If SR was a real boy, I couldn't and wouldn't talk lightly of him, but he's fictional and so the emotion isn't there. I think it's useful sometimes to consider SR without compassion. How does he appear to the lords of the Vale? SR combines weakness (mental and physical) with paranoia, murderous intent and future absolute political power. SR as overlord is a future that should cause his lords extreme anxiety. No wonder they're so enthusiastic about Harry, and (they can't be separated), death-of-SR.

You probably are, you know! This course could be a bit of intellectual sugar to tempt the students in, warm up their analytical and writing skills, express their values etc. And to use european medieval culture for a lens, they will first have to learn some, so that's all good. At first I thought they were mad for introducing asoiaf (think of the reading time!), but I guess they meant the tv series, which many students could have seen already.

The associations are there, but you might be interested in this thread: the seven hells seem to follow their own rules. https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/153005-frozen-hell/ ETA Heaven is a strange place too:

Literal. Actual dragons, actual crows, actual swords. Metaphorical (?). Targs, warmongers, soldiers. I guess this is the god-level or similar: the category of singers, dreamers, destiny, prophecy, hive-minds, maws, whatever. We really don't have enough information to speculate on this, except maybe the first book, where I bet the thrones are Ice and Fire.

The Mormont women - and the Sandsnakes - are just powerful enough to insist on their own choice of relationship, but not important enough for it matter much. Arya is different - she's the daughter of a paramount lord, and her family can seal a major political alliance with her marriage (e.g. Arianne/Viserys). Once married she can advance her family's cause (e.g. Cersei promoting the Lannisters). Whether she likes it or not, Arya is part of the game of thrones, and if she's allowed to drop out, the Starks have missed a trick.

[ omg. I was only away for a few weeks, and now I'm three whole Renly threads behind. I feel like Rip van Winkle. At current reading speeds I will never catch up. ]

Because then Bran and Rickon are probably dead. If Arya inherits, Sansa's probably dead as well. Isn't that the lesson from Aegon the Unlikely? So Arya the Unlikely is a bit of a nerve-wracking prospect too.

Please don't. I've not read the tumblr yet (quotes and everything!). Not seen the show either.

We've done this. If the children are bastards, Stannis is the legitimate heir. It suits Renly to claim that Stannis has no better claim than his own.

I don't understand what 'cosplay' is, but I think this references Cressen:

Cersei's arc has been plunging towards evil, alcoholism, and rash thinking. In agot, she was cautious. Besides, we may see inside Cersei's head, but Renly can't. Renly hasn't told Cersei he wants to replace her with Margaery. She doesn't know. It's not a motive for her. I'm not sure what Cersei wanted for Renly. Is this the quote you're thinking of? 'his [Eddard's] meddling had forced her to rid herself of Robert sooner than she would have liked, before she could deal with his pestilential brothers.' I'm not sure what she means here, but probably not murder. Stannis is out of her reach, so how could she murder him, or 'deal' with him any other way? She could get at Renly, but here's the thing - she doesn't do it. Varys puts it differently: 'Robert was becoming unruly, and she needed to be rid of him to free her hands to deal with his brothers.' So in her version, it would have been easier to deal with the brothers before Robert's death. In his version, the opposite. Maybe Cersei is being unreliable here. The obvious way to 'deal' with the Baratheon brothers is show of force, after taking power. As happens. Slippery. We're discussing why Renly would be afraid of Cersei. You were claiming he'd seen enough of Cersei to see how she operates. I said he hadn't seen her murder anyone. So what he thinks doesn't really answer the question of why. Jon Arryn died of a stomach complaint, attended by the best physicians in the land (apparently). And it's possible. He was an old man. So why is Renly predisposed to think it's murder? What desperate need has Cersei to murder Jon Arryn anyway? (Jaime is a separate issue. He's a known hothead who attacks openly. He's gone from the city anyway.)

Maybe she should have let Renly go, but kept back Loras as the honoured but reluctant guest of the throne.

This isn't rocket science, it's pretty simple. If Cersei can see the value in a hostage (and she does), and in sparing Ned (she does), then she can see value in Renly. Tyrion and Tywin are way overrated by the fandom, and Cersei gets underrated. Which doesn't mean I think she's a master tactician, but she's not the dumby-dumb-dumb-dumb Cersei we hear about on the forums. GRRM doesn't write like that. Spiteful and cruel, yes, but I don't see the rest at all. She was incredibly, incredibly cautious about killing Robert. He's not a threat at all. Unless he knows about the twincest. Um. Probably. I suppose, but I don't really remember. I'm stuck on the seduction scene. I'm convinced they have history though. It was almost shocking when the royal visit is discussed and nice Ned talks of the youngest child last seen 'sucking at the Lannister woman's teat'. How charmless is that? He sounds like a Lannister himself. Renly is young and handsome and witty, so I'm sure Cersei likes him by default. He knows how to flatter too, as shown by the kneeling scene in front of the wheelhouse. If she thinks he knows her secret though, then yes, she'll destroy him. He hasn't seen her murder anyone. Mostly what he'll have seen is Cersei's best effort at dutiful daughter and pliant wife etc. Her power has been soft power - she charms, she nags, she rages, she manipulates. None of which would bother Renly. He wouldn't expect the jump to murder unless Cersei felt cornered and desperate - as she would if the twincest could be exposed at any moment.

Right. But as said, killing Renly makes things worse for the Lannisters (empowers Stannis), and mistreating Renly makes things worse (stirs up the Stormlands). And Renly is no threat at present: if he claimed the regency he'd be refused; and if he said Robert was murdered, he'd be laughed out of court because everybody knows a boar killed Robert in a hunting accident. On the other hand, a live Renly could do a huge amount of good for the Lannisters by keeping the Stormlands quiet. He might do this for the reward of Stannis' holdings, and the death of Stannis. ETA2 The only thing that could override all these factors is the twincest issue.

As ever, Stannis is unpopular and Renly is young with no track record, so probably Tywin would be considered the best candidate among the uncles. Not that it matters - they'd fight it out anyway. It's a startling thought that the regicide was expected - Varys did, of course, and he hints a lot, but I can't imagine it being talked of. I mean, the only thing we see is Cersei telling Robert not to fight in the melee, and Lancel giving over the wineskin on request, under Renly's very eyes - Renly actually saw the 'murder', and still can do nothing about it. I think myself he wanted the Lannisters gone because they're hard to live with: greedy, power-grabbing and ruthless. For a short while, maybe, but patience would run out. Sons and daughters can be taken as hostages, that's accepted practice, but not high lords. Cersei would have to let Renly go, or face the consequences. Executions of high lords are nearly as troublesome as the murders. No, Cersei does much better with a tame deer than a dead one, so Renly is physically safe, she can't touch him. And yet he's afraid, which to me needs an explanation.

No sign of it though. Renly and Stannis never claim the regency, and no-one suggests it to them. Even Robert chose Ned, not a Baratheon. So I have to believe the claim is not strong. Even Renly had stayed in KL, what threat would he be to Cersei? He has no military strength at court; he have to swear loyalty to Joff like everybody else did. And Joff is acting and accepted as a king in that period - he can execute Ned; he can reject a Baratheon regent. Agree! War is how Tywin will establish Lannister power, not assassination. Renly and Stannis both understand this too, and raise their armies. Peace can be declared after a war and treaties made that would keep Lannister rule secure. In contrast, a third mysterious death of a high lord under Cersei's tender regime will raise suspicion and rebellion among all the non-Lannister high lords. She's not likely to do it, and she has no good motive - If Renly dies, Stannis will reclaim all his power. If it's less than death, the Stormlands will rise in his defence just as the North did for Ned.

Renly knew. Jumping past Stannis in the succession is credible, because Stannis is extremely unpopular. Jumping past four legitimate heirs destroys the whole principle of succession - Even if Renly could force through his 'claim' with massive military force, his children would have no more right to rule than he did. The OP is correct - Cersei's children have to go. Besides, on the night of Robert's death, Renly was terrified of Cersei winning power. Ned refused his pleas to control her, so Renly ran in the middle of the night. Why? He's done nothing to Cersei. The only thing is Cersei's terrible secret, which she'd kill to protect. Her actual knowledge of Renly doesn't matter here, only that he fears being suspected.

Well...... the thread is about a riddle. I've got that fuzzy feeling the readers have been set a riddle we're not really seeing yet. Right at the start we have much play about a lens being an object that helps us see, and a secret language, and the dead direwolf being a sign to be learned from. These feel like puzzle elements, and even now they fit nowhere. Certainly not necessary to the plot. Every time I see the quote, Reader you would do well to keep your nose in your books, I feel a poke in my ribs across the fourth wall. His publisher got played though. And it did end happily for all concerned. Me neither. I've not watched much of the show, but I do believe there are clues there: people notice things given unexpected emphasis - a necklace of dragonflies, a mysterious white horse, etc - those feel like they had meaning for the author (if not for anyone else). He might have completely different rules of engagement for interview. All's fair in love and war, and an interview with hungry fans is both.

A favourite poster of mine also; never noticed much about Dany strangely. Now appears as @assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar, which I guess means the account is sort of retired, but I was always bad at picking up on hints, and anyway, lots of good stuff there. It feels like there was a golden age in a way, but in hindsight posters could be very strict. Couldn't stray off topic. Or even disagree sometimes.

Agree. That might be true for Cersei, at least - if he chose her name very carefully (as allegedly he does), he might not want readers to latch on to Circe if there was more than one inspiration for the name. His other reasons might mean more to him. He can be bold. He's been reported as describing the original outline to his publisher as 'making shit up'. Are we really so different to that publisher? Do we have more rights to candour and factual accuracy than they did? Because we're sort of in the same position that we don't know the bits he hasn't written yet, and we're curious. Credit to @The Fattest Leech for this very interesting post: https://fattestleechoficeandfire.com/2020/07/08/that-1993-outline-making-up-shit/

Looks like Petyr is the heir to Arryn - I thought he had 'high' imagery, and there's loads! 'the effortless manner of a high lord', says Sansa. 'Petyr's so clever, he'll rise high, he will, he will', says Lysa. 'I knew he'd rise high', says Catelyn. 'Littlefinger's rise had been arrow-swift', says Tyrion.

I'm not a an expert on the genre, but I liked the looks of the trailer. On the downside, there's zero sense of character in it - which is probably to be expected in a tiny trailer, but the books' characterisations are huge fun, and tbh, the shock value of just how wicked Arthur's people can be. Maybe, probably, all that is going to be lost, and replaced with a simpler goodies versus badies tale. Hope not.

If I had to choose, I'd say the theme is free will, or slavery, but to be honest, I'd never have thought of using the books as a way of analysing real-world humanity. It can be done of course (and has been), but it's not what I expect from high fantasy, and this is very high fantasy. Or sci-fi. ETA Example, from my (high fantasy) viewpoint, all these endless character parallels aren't meta-textual, but magic. Characters are forced through a cookie-cutter; they dangle on puppet strings and act and re-enact mummeries not of their choosing. The puppeteers are the giants who must be slain. Getting the climate back on track is a bonus.