Jump to content

Ser Petyr Parker

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ser Petyr Parker

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ser Petyr Parker

    So how does pouring molten gold on someone's head kill you?

    In the end that article doesn't really add much. Since the steam is just a product of heating an organism largely made up of water, it's just a roundabout way of saying the heat kills you. You might just as well say "It's not the hot gold that kills you but the hot skull!"
  2. Ser Petyr Parker

    Why a betrothal between Sansa and Joffrey?

    Heh, sorry. "As you know, your father, the king" is a reference to implausible exposition that tells rather than shows. I thought that was why you chose those words. I found a blog post that explains it a bit more: http://blog.rachelcotterill.com/2010/04/as-you-know-your-father-king.html And there's a TV Tropes page about the same idea, but it just calls it "As you know": http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AsYouKnow
  3. Ser Petyr Parker

    So how does pouring molten gold on someone's head kill you?

    You're confused about how pouring something over at over 1,000 °C over someone's head might kill them?
  4. Ser Petyr Parker

    Why a betrothal between Sansa and Joffrey?

    As he knew.
  5. Ser Petyr Parker

    Little Questions That Don't Fit Anywhere Else Part 3

    That was wights. I don't know how they could have possibly come up with that figure, though. Did Dany say it? How does she know the difference between 50k wights and 100k?
  6. Ser Petyr Parker

    Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

    You're right. I was confusing myself somehow. I've edited my OP.
  7. Ser Petyr Parker

    "He has to know, we have to tell him..." WHY?

    My guess: she is the betrayer in all three cases, and she will be the one betraying Jon. I mean, I'm not trying bash Dany here, but out of the two, who is more likely to betray the other? She is the more pragmatic one, and although she mostly tries to be decent, she has a far more flexible approach to truth, lies and loyalty than Jon.
  8. Ser Petyr Parker

    "He has to know, we have to tell him..." WHY?

    It's just the decent thing to do. If you were in Jon's position and a friend or family member found out a big secret like that, how you feel if they kept it to themselves because they decided you don't need to know right now? Plus he's the king. You don't get to just keep secrets like that from the king. I like this. Encyclopedia Bran just thinks knowledge = good. The more the better.
  9. A lot of people seem really hung up on it, but I'm not sure we're supposed to be. I don't get the impression that we're supposed to be thinking "Uh-oh! If only they knew!" At least not when it comes to incest. Westeros is full of people marrying their cousins, and Jon and Dany's are as related/unrelated as first cousins, i.e. 25%. Edit: this part was obviously wrong. And why should we care? Incest is a problem for two reasons: Emotionally, because people who grow up together tend not to become sexually attracted to one another, and practically, because inbreeding is risky. But Jon and Dany didn't grow up together, and the risks of inbreeding are overblown. So the main question is whether or not, in the show, the incestuous relationship is supposed to be a problem. The side questions that will no doubt be covered is how much of a problem people think it is anyway.
  10. I admit I haven't looked through 24 pages yet for a response but... wat? Every time I think about this it makes less sense.
  11. This above, unless something like this below: I thought the whole point was the "game of thrones" is for fools who don't see the bigger picture, and the Others/White Walkers are the real threat. But then the series is called "Game of Thrones". I always thought this was a mistake, but maybe they've changed the whole premise of the series. On the other hand, especially in the books, I've always thought it's possible we'll find out it's not as simple as good versus evil and that the Others might turn out to have sympathetic motivations. Maybe to them, humans are some kind of evil fire demon. Maybe the very presence of humans makes things painfully hot for them, as they make humans cold. Maybe as far as they're concerned the Long Night is just how things are supposed to be, and they're fighting to stop these evil fire demons burning and melting everything with their horrifying endless summer. Seems a bit lame, though.
  12. Ser Petyr Parker

    Jaqen H'ghar's nonsense

    Jaqen was only forced into taking part in the Weasel Soup incident if you assume it's better to kill people who haven't been "chosen" than it is to kill yourself. That could definitely be true for the FM - maybe suicide is worse than killing people not on the list - but we don't know. And yes, the Kindly Man says a lot of stuff about not deciding who lives or dies. I'm not saying they don't believe that, or that they do choose every time. I'm just saying that, no matter what he says there, there are reasons to think it's not that simple, including Jaqen apparently putting self-preservation before the divine kill list. I don't know why you'd say "If you think they are inconsistent, don't blame me." Did I give the impression I was blaming you? I'm just trying to find a way to make sense of it all.
  13. I'm sure this has been discussed many times before, but I have some thoughts about the identity of the Knight of the Laughing Tree, so I thought I'd summarise all the evidence for and against different theories that I can think of, and then just leave it here and see what happens. Perhaps this has all been said before, but this is all my own work, so I hope some of it will be new to some of you. There are only three likely candidates, the way I see it: Ned, Benjen and Lyanna. This is based on the assumption that the KotLT is one of the people featured in Meera's story, and that it couldn't be Brandon as he was too tall. It also leaves out the idea that it could be Howland himself, which I don't find convincing. Benjen: As far as I can tell, we have no reason to think it was him, but not much evidence that it wasn't either. He would have been a bit young at the time, but perhaps not impossibly so. I think that's all we can say about Benjen. If it's him, I think we need a good explanation. Lyanna: Aspects of this theory make sense, and I sort of want to believe it. Rhaegar was sent to find the KotLT and supposedly failed, but shortly afterwards seemed to find himself infatuated with Lyanna. We know he was trying to fulfil prophesies of three-headed dragons, and apparently he didn't think Elia was enough to help him there. She was frail, whereas if Lyanna was the KotLT she would have shown herself to be a strong woman, perhaps a perfect mother for a "dragon". Perhaps he found her and took a shine to her, so lied to Aerys when he said he didn't find the Knight. On the other hand, there seems to be evidence against Lyanna as the mystery knight: Most obviously, the fact the KotLT won several jousts. We're repeatedly told Lyanna was a good rider, and at least once that being a good rider is important when jousting ("three quarters" of it, according to Jaime), but never that being a good rider is enough to joust well, and never that Lyanna has practised jousting. She secretly trains with a sword, but practising jousting would be much harder to hide, and although sword skills are useful, she'd never expect to have to use lances, which are for tourneys and organised battles. We do know the three knights the KotLT defeats previously did well, so it's fair to assume whoever defeated all three must be a good jouster. Slight counterpoint: Ser Jorah was able to win multiple jousts against the odds at one tourney. Counter-counterpoint: Jorah would have actually trained in jousting, and if it was common for people to just "get lucky" and win a joust, it's unlikely winning would be so prestigious. The "booming voice". I know some people might credit this to the Knight's helm, but it's a bit unrealistic. A woman is unlikely to sound like a man if she's speaking loudly and clearly, and a helm might disguise the voice a bit, but not change its nature completely. The voice would become muffled, not deeper. Slight counterpoints: As Syrio quite rightly tells Arya, people often see what they expect to see. A person dressed as a knight would be assumed to be a man, and for those who don't "listen with their ears", might seem to sound like one too. Counter-counterpoint: This is a bit weak, but we have already seen a woman dressed as a knight and mistaken for a man: Brienne, when Catelyn first sees her in Renly's melee. But Catelyn doesn't hear hear voice and has no opportunity to judge what it sounds like before Brienne's identity is revealed. This seems like a missed opportunity to set a precedent or leave a clue that the KotLT could be a woman. If Catelyn had heard Brienne say "Yield!" and still assumed there was a man under the armour, we'd have a nice clue. Ned: There is nothing strong to support this theory either, but I'd almost be disappointed if the circumstantial evidence for him turns out to be nothing. I really like the first part: The "booming voice" again: We have some evidence that Ned is capable of a booming voice. This would mean nothing in a court of law, but in this series you never know: The person who Jon thinks has a lord's voice is Donal Noye. How else is his voice described? And then we have this: So Jon Arryn taught Robert and Ned to use "a good battlefield voice", which in Robert's case (at least) is a "boom". Donal Noye's booming voice reminds Jon of "a lord" and what Ned taught him. So we don't exactly ever have Ned's voice described as capable of "booming", but we have a lot of circumstantial evidence that he is capable of such a thing. This comes together so well that I'd be surprised and disappointed if it weren't deliberate. Some people say if it were Ned, this would "explain" Howland Reed's loyalty to him. Counterpoint: I don't find this convincing. From what little we know of Howland, the Reeds, and Crannogmen in general, they don't seem the sort to place that much importance on someone winning a joust. Howland just came from the Isle of Faces, which must have made jousting seem particularly frivolous, and in general the Crannogmen don't seem that interested in knightly ideas of honour, with their "sneaky" fighting tactics. Howland might appreciate the gesture, but I don't think he'd see it as a "forever in your debt" type thing. Howland is loyal to Ned because the Reeds are sworn to the Starks and because Ned is a good lord. That's the kind of honour the Reeds believe in, and some foolishness at a tourney pales in comparison to ancient allegiances and oaths. Counter-counterpoint: If the events at the tourney were so unimportant to the Reeds, Meera probably wouldn't know the story so well.
  14. Ser Petyr Parker

    Jaqen H'ghar's nonsense

    Well, I suppose religious people can rationalise anything if they want to believe it. But it seems to me that Jaqen was able to choose to kill people not specifically named or otherwise identified in the Weasel Soup incident. He also joined the Brave Companions, which must have made avoiding killing difficult, and he offered to help fight when Amory Lorch attacks. Perhaps he gained some sort of "divine inspiration" as you said, or perhaps the rules are different for battles and when given orders. But I think you're downplaying how much choice was involved in the FM origin story. Note that the Kindly Man specifically uses the word "chose". As you say, the original Faceless Man was guided by the prayers, but there's nothing divine about being guided by listening to other people's prayers - he listened to their pain and chose the one who seemed to suffer the most. There's no claim that he heard the gods speaking back. It's clear he thought he was doing God's/the gods' work, but the Kindly Man does nothing to emphasise that he was simply following divine instructions without making his own judgements. Is there any evidence for the FM ever talking about it as a gift for someone other than the person who's dying? As for anyone being able to hire them, there are a few references to them being ruinously expensive, but Arya's first mission is unlikely to have been on behalf of anyone rich. I know some people think the FM charge according to their client's means. I don't recall ever seeing much evidence for that idea, but I doubt they're just there for the ridiculously rich.
  15. Ser Petyr Parker

    Jaqen H'ghar's nonsense

    Yep, that's about it. Thanks for summarising. That's what he wants you to think. Peculiar ideas, yes. But you'd expect them to make sense on some level. But although I'm not sure, I agree that it doesn't make much sense for him to be trying to recruit her either. I don't know what you look for in a Faceless Man, but Arya doesn't seem to be it, with her obsession with revenge. OK, it's not the best example. I just tried to think of a death that was avoided and remembered that one. My view is kind of deterministic so some people might disagree on a fundamental level, but my view is that in that exact situation there could only be one outcome. If you change no variables, your result is always the same. So if you had the right information you could look at Arya, the fire, and the cage with the prisoners inside, and know that Arya would always save them. But even if you don't think that way, like I said, where do you draw the line and say someone's life has been saved or not? Am I thinking about this too much? If they're not supposed to choose, it doesn't fit well with their origin story which has the original Faceless Man taking it upon himself to murder the people he thinks would appreciate death the most. But you made me think of a theory that might make sense: What I always found confusing is that they claim to see death as a gift, but they can also be hired to assassinate people for clients with grievances against their targets, and Jaqen seemed quite unready to die (unless it was something else he was afraid of - suicide specifically, rather than death, perhaps). But what if the assassination business is just a necessity? It could be as simple as a way to raise money, but what if they have life to pay for, and therefore need death? A shrewd person might wonder why they don't take money for the deaths they have to cause anyway, and a kind person might decide they could pay off a lot of their debt by finding all the people who want to die anyway.