Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FictionIsntReal

  1. None of the main books take place while this was occurring, so we don't know what information got to who at what time. We've got accounts from afterward, in which Brandon's response is salient because of what happened afterward. Just because someone is caught/observed doesn't mean they deliberately "made themselves known" or "wanted anyone to know". Perhaps he incorrectly thought nobody would know until later! He hasn't acted in a trustworthy fashion, but by setting himself at odds with various Lords Paramount, he has proven himself not to be on the same page as them! Aerys needs to throw enough troops at Robert to defeat him at the Trident, and he can afford to have a smaller number in KL because defenders have an advantage behind walls. He can trust Rhaegar to fight Robert because Rhaegar has made himself Robert's enemy. Also, Aerys has Rhaegar's family as hostages in KL. Who accepts that theory? The text gives no indication Aerys ever heard of the ToJ. Rhaegar had been a very popular prince, and by birth he outranks everyone else at the Trident. Lewyn is Dornish, and many Westerosi still don't like the Dornish. Mace Tyrell's host from the Reach was besieging Storm's End. Perhaps he could have spared more troops for the Trident while still keeping up that siege. That's a calculation someone would have to make, and not an area where you can just assume the Mad King would do what you think is most sensible. Getting rid of Robert was taking priority at that point. Viserys already had someone looking after him across the Narrow Sea, and didn't really need extra swords immediately. Rhaegar had given them orders for the ToJ, and Jon was helpless without them. The KG aren't proclaiming Jon to be heir, but they still feel obligated to protect him with their lives.
  2. There is no "guaranteed attraction", particularly not for people who haven't even met yet. How many of those has he actually interacted with? Was, in the past, whereas any hypothetical meeting between them would be in the future.
  3. Where did it say that? You'll have to use your imagination because that's not actually in the text. He "may have"? We can imagine that he built a thousand, then burned them just so he could build them again as long as we're making stuff up! We don't know the scale of shipbuilding occurred, and nobody makes any reference to its cost, so we really can't say. What "cost"? Did we hear of him hiring any mercenaries or really doing anything to take on debt at that time? And who was lending to him back when he was a rebel? Here I think you're not entirely off-base. Littlefinger has gotten way wealthier in a short amount of time than is possible without him skimming those increased revenues for himself, and people have some awareness of this without thinking that makes him disqualified for the position. I do think others are unaware of the scale of his skimming because not even Tyrion can make heads or tails of how complicated LF's books are, as the bulk of the money is not just being dumped into assets obviously connected to LF. I think that's the sort of "normal" corruption people expect, only with actually existing employees kicking back rather than fictional ones merely on the books. How do you know he's not that wealthy? We know he's wealthy enough to buy off a number of the Lords Declarant and get Sansa betrothed to Harry the Heir even while posing as merely his bastard. His meager lands might not cost much, but they also produce less revenue than a more landed lord. The Tyrells are rich precisely because they have a lot of fertile land, and their feasting doesn't put a dent in that.
  4. Steven Attewell made this argument years ago, originally at Tower of the Hand, and now at his wordpress site: Who Stole Westeros? I see some people bringing up the idea that LF was brought into resolve some pre-existing problems with the realm's finances, but the books don't say anything about that (or even who was Master of Coin while he was in Gulltown).
  5. The thread was originally about the number of books remaining, but then you brought in your crackpot theory accepted by no one else in the thread, resulting in multiple pages consisting entirely of CamiloRP & me arguing with you about said theory rather than the number of books. I "appreciate" your work as much as it deserves appreciation. I actually don't think it deserves nearly as much time as I have spent reading it, but I don't like such nonsense to remain unanswered. Yeah, someone is wrong on the internet. They are "related" but not the same. You simply look for words (and not even the same word in this case) in different books and then proclaim a parallel, even in cases like this where so many things are opposite. An "opposite" is typically not a "parallel", but rather the opposite! When things are supposed to contrast, the more common word is "foil". You've talked about two sphinxes at a temple, but that says nothing about whether Alleras has any kind of doppelganger. Alleras is the only person called a sphinx, and Aemon only speaks of one sphinx. You've explained with things like multicolored hair even though that DOESN'T apply to Alleras. I didn't "forget", I explained why I reject your "evidence". Which you have repeatedly failed to do. One can sometimes make an argument from parsimony, that everything fits together simply given a certain assumption. There are many meta-arguments against reliance on parsimony, but it is a common notion. But you aren't resolving lots of open questions with a minimum of assumptions, instead you've got a long chain of assumptions, which is not very parsimonious. We know there's a representation of two sphinxes, we don't know that says anything about any parallel to Alleras. He never said there's any connection between sphinxes and heads of the dragon. He also didn't say there's any connection between the Great Shepherd and the dragon. No, she's not speaking, she's just thinking to herself. Jaqen is not "related" to Rorge, he's just locked up alongside him (as is Biter, who per GRRM does have a pre-existing connection to Rorge). You don't know what it means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. You should read up some legal analysis of the burden of proof. The reasonable doubt standard arose from the belief that a member of a jury would have their soul damned by God if they convicted an innocent man. You haven't gotten anyone reading to be willing to risk damning their soul (assuming they believe themselves to have one), instead we reject it without facing any risk for agreeing. The notion of you getting a random selection of 12 to unanimously endorse your theory would be more ludicrous still! As I have said repeatedly, no they are not. I have not forgotten, go back and read my prior responses. Also read up on "burden of proof": you need to prove your novel theory you've tossed into the room like a dead skunk, nobody else needs to prove anything not to accept it. An author who populated it with many other members other than Jaqen! FM's are not supposed to be recognizable as FM at all. How they publicly behave in a mask is not determined by the mere fact that they are an FM, but instead what suits the role they are playing. He was swearing an oath to a Westerosi, and "refined" Lorathi speech patterns rooted in self-denial would be less suited to that purpose. What are the false identities of Vargo Hoat, Urswyck, Utt, Qyburn, Shagwell, Zollo, Timeon, Pyg, Iggo, Togg Joth, Three Toes or Biter? You haven't established those. The phrase "swineherd prince" doesn't appear anywhere in ASoIaF, you simply grabbed it from elsewhere. No, as was pointed out many fantasy characters fit the characteristics you seize on. And there are no central characters in the "fellowship" at the tavern, the novices are instead all new characters. I reject your assertion that either is actually a "metaphor for the three heads of the dragon". The rule of three is just way too common. When Tyrion drinks arbor gold on his wedding night, that has nothing to do with lies, it's just wine. And when he is urinating off the Wall, that has nothing to do with truth, it's just urine. There's nothing at all contradictory about that. Illyrio remembers him as a child, and his memories are sentimental. What would make no sense is sending him the clothes of an entirely different child. No, as I said, the phrase never appears in this series. That has only been established for YG, not Jaqen. No, the Tyrion character really is supposed to be the murderer. And NONE of the people killed in the play were killed by Jaqen. It's not established that Jaqen is "the red right hand" (even in the play, that's Tyrion, not the Stranger), nor have Jaqen's kills been part of any discernible "vengeance" on his part. Some things repeat themselves, but other things don't. Twice in a row the Lord of Winterfell has been executed by the King in KL and his eldest living son has risen up in rebellion against a spawn of incest... but it turned out very differently the second time compared to the first. NO, SHE DOESN'T. She asks if he would even kill a king, and then when he replies yes she tells him to kill himself, but that is not the same as calling him a king. I agree, which is one of the big problems with your method of argumentation. You rely so much on so many assumptions which are NOT established. Those are very different things. One is a deliberate ornamentation, the other is something that could happen merely as the result of being very cold (which would not be considered desirable to kiss). I don't think Myrcella has done anything comparable in bravery to Dany. Dany has lived among the Dothraki, and even been embraced by them. She even ate a whole horse heart! Dany has also learned multiple languages, like Arya. No, it's not "well-established". For example, Jon likes Arya more than Sansa, because Arya likes him and doesn't dismiss him as the bastard half-brother. But this doesn't mean he wouldn't be attracted to a girl like Sansa. In fact, Ygritte & Sansa are both redheads and he uses lines recommended by Sansa when talking to women! As of her latest chapters, she hasn't had any lovers. I don't think you get to deem them as having gone "astray" when the show supported their theories and not yours. NO, the third head ITSELF is not reborn, instead the reborn emerge FROM the third head. So more like Thoros of Myr than the show's version of Jon after season 5. You haven't met even a minimal burden of proof for showing that Arya will marry at all. Daenerys was in the original pitch letter, and has from the first book been the most obvious "head of the dragon" (Viserys was really the only other obvious candidate in that book, but his death showed Dany was more important). The pitch letter said nothing about the love triangle having anything to do with "heads of the dragon". It appears to be about the fringe theory of some Swedish journalist. He kills him to take his face. How do you know that's not what he's doing? Why would I do that? Neither person is mentioned there. This is like you trying to take dialogue from Pate's prologue and inserting it in the mouth of Elia. They are completely different. The NW is a penal colony which people of multiple faiths are sentenced to. The FM are a cult which people voluntarily serve out of religious devotion. When someone says they have "promises to keep", that's referring to promises they themselves made, not a promise predating their birth. Anywhere in Westeros you can commit suicide. There's no need to go to another continent to a religious organization the Westerosi would regard as infidels. The Palestone Tower was close enough by that Ashara actually did jump out of it! Not a cliff, a tower. And which stories deny she jumped? Which stories are those? Some stories may not mention a baby, but I don't recall any denying she had one (stillborn or otherwise). It's Tyrion's guess. Neither of those things are in the text. In the Waif's story, the poison failed to kill her because her stepmother did NOT go to the HoBaW. In your theory, the Waif herself DID go to the HoBaW to die, and we see that people who do that really do die rather than surviving a poisoning. Not only is that not established, it's well known that RHAEGAR'S actions (and the resulting ones of his father) started the war. It doesn't really make sense the way language is normally used. "Looked to me instead of Stark" implies looking in a similar manner, rather than an opposite one. But it didn't say "her attention would have been focused on me instead of Stark", it says "looked to". No, the text of the Waif's story doesn't mention anything about a tourney. It does mention her father & stepmother, who aren't characters at all in any Harrenhall story we've heard. No one uses the word "ethereal" to describe her. That word occurs nowhere in the series. Everyone agrees she was beautiful, with Selmy insisting she was the most beautiful there. We hear from the GC that Illyrio has made the plans they have tried to follow, but because he's so physically removed from things they have to act independently of his plans (Harry Strickland is the most reluctant to do so, but he also disavows responsibility for agreeing to any of Illyrio's plan in the first place). As I have said, sentimental reasons. Those are the last things he has of YG's, and this is his last chance to send them before YG heads to Daenerys and then Westeros. It has not been established he ever had any child of his own. That hasn't been established either. The only person ever referred to as such had his head smashed. You don't actually know Jaqen would recognize his childhood clothes if Illyrio sent them. Pigs are often considered dirty (enough for eating them to be tabbo under both Judaism & Islam) so reference to them is a common source of derision. Hence parents telling children they eat like a pig, or their room looks like a "pigsty", or even a dirty Peanuts character being named "pigpen". Do we know this "foster mother" ever saw those old clothes in the first place? Does that party include Tyrion? Other people's clothes are going to be too large for him. And since he's trying to avoid looking like a well-known dwarf previously at the court of KL, court clothes are less than ideal for him. Why wouldn't she face the third? There are lots of fires, they don't all represent dragon fires. No, it is not. As I have said repeatedly, you don't seem to understand what makes something "clear and obvious" or "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is related to your failure to convince anybody. You simply seize on words and then claim there is a "parallel", often with a scene that doesn't actually exist in the text. The way one should argue is to start with and as much as possible remain with the text, as that is established and agreed upon by everyone. Extrapolations & extra assumptions should be minimized. If other people can't agree with your initial extrapolation from the text, DO NOT then go ahead and make further arguments which depend on that extrapolation! Instead you need to go back to common ground and work from there until you reach the first disagreement. Biter wasn't creating any fire, instead he was going to be burned by the fire. More evidence that you have no idea what is "clear". There are lots of things established in the text and agreed upon by other readers, those things are "more clear". She's not trying to "tame" him, she has no interest in a domesticated Biter. She'd prefer if he wasn't there at all. "Lucifer" does mean "lightbringer", but the sword in ASoIaF has nothing to do with an angel-turned-devil. Cersei's question itself established that. As readers, we do have a lot more information than Cersei. But the cryptic prophecies are not expected to be "solved" by readers until after the prophesied events occur. Making them cryptic prevents any spoiling of future events, but afterward readers can go back and make connections. I didn't say we shouldn't analyze it, but I do think you're terrible at analysis. For example, just for this prophecy you insisted Maggie said two different things "in the same sentence", when that was not the case at all. You don't care enough to be accurate in your analysis, and when an inaccuracy is pointed out it makes no difference to you because your theory never really depended on any evidence in the first place and was not vulnerable to falsification in your eyes. You are the one who brought up how people are "remembered", which I have never regarded as significant. Jaime is in fact Cersei's younger brother, regardless of memory. Aegon has no surviving older siblings. As he said with Ned, he hadn't wanted to be king in the first place, it was Jon Arryn who insisted he had the best claim. And he was willing to abandon it all if that didn't risk Joffrey taking the throne alongside Cersei as his regent. Yes to the second part, which is related to why I say no to the first. She's really more like Tyrion in that book than Robert. Even her deliberately hurting Taena parallels Tyrion frightening that prostitute in ADWD. Robert was only up for good times and had a sense of shame about hurting Cersei rather than some notion that he was beyond morality. He actually did kill her father. Jaqen killed neither. We saw him shoot Tywin to death! It was never established that Tywin was poisoned at all, he was still alive and talking coherently when Tyrion killed him. I "notice" only Olenna, Oberyn merely poisoned Gregor. Neither of them is Jaqen, of course. To me that makes it less likely that any Martell was plotting to kill Tywin. This is yet another thing that hasn't been established and you are throwing out there without any textual support. Olenna was working with LF, who has no siblings to be valonqar to! LF supplied the poison to Dontos and from him to Sansa and then Olenna. Tywin was not killed by poison but by crossbow bolts. The scheming between LF & Olenna occurred in ACoK, when Jaqen was busy in the Riverlands. He is really to pre-occuppied to have come back to KL and supplied poison to multiple people who had no reason to expect him to be there when they were plotting in the previous book. Especially since you think Jaqen went from Harrenhall to the HoBaW and then to Pyke before the Citadel! You have just misinterpreted the prophecy. You yourself quoted GRRM on who killed Joffrey, and it wasn't a valonqar. Myrcella & Tommen are spread apart, so they're unlikely to be killed by the same person (and we know the Tyrells DON'T want to kill Tommen at all). Sigh if you must, but a swineherd and a swine are very different things (even moreso than the pig vs the chicken in the Scrum parable), and your indifference to such distinctions is a big problem with your method of argument. I know this is going to be another thing which isn't established but only in your head, but I'll bite: how is he going to die and how to do you know. He's a busy man travelling all over, and there are too many people who would want Cersei dead. Beauty IS subjective!
  6. As I said, we don't know where Rhaegar did this or how visible it was or how recognizable he was. We don't actually know that it wasn't a kidnapping, and at any rate the Starks would regard it as such since they had already arranged otherwise for Lyanna. No, we don't know that he was doing any plotting with any members of the STAB bloc. He was implied to be in cahoots with House Whent, who are bannermen of the Tullies but were not at that time linked to the Starks. What is "this point"? Rhaegar was absent between then and the Trident. And Lewyn Martell WAS sent with Rhaegar to lead an army there, with Elia serving as a hostage to motivate him. Whent was absent the whole time (due to being in cahoots with Rhaegar alongside Arthur Dayne), and Hightower was sent to find Rhaegar and never came back. Tyrell was busy besieging Storm's End, and Tywin wasn't responding until after the Trident. I would think the people whose deaths Aerys ordered would actually be the last people :) Are you expecting the Mad King to be like Tywin? He was mad! Rhaegar was expecting to win the battle, and I expect that's what he told the KG when he ordered them to stay at the ToJ. Once he lost (and we don't know how long it took for them to hear about that), they were too far from KL to get there in time.
  7. I say the three heads of the dragon are all going to be people mentioned in the pitch letter, NOT butterweedstrover's crackpot theory which derailed that other thread.
  8. @butterweedstrover I hope you're happy you derailed an existing thread rather than starting a separate one for your theory. "Mat" and "matted" are different words. A floor mat is not really "matted". NO. It's never described as "matted" at all! Nor is it even indicated that Alleras' last bath was all that recent. What about mead? Why lump it in with beer rather than wine, which is also made from fruit rather than grains? Jaqen is never referred to as a sphinx. Yes, it is always true! Assuming the conclusion is a LOGICAL FALLACY! You can do the OPPOSITE, by starting with an assumption you want to disprove and showing it leads to a contradiction. You plainly don't understand logic, which is related to why you don't understand your failure to demonstrate anything. What do you mean by this? You haven't established Jaqen is a sphinx, and Aemon doesn't say anything about there being multiple sphinxes. He merely says "the sphinx", and if there were multiple ones he wouldn't be doing anything to pin down WHICH his statement was referring to. Yes, it matters, because Leo is the one talking! You regularly disregard WHY a character would say a particular thing, as if they weren't distinct characters at all. Even the POV characters in this story can be unreliable, and since Lazy Leo is just insulting people for fun, he's particularly unreliable and his insults are evidence chiefly of his own character. First off, you've got those the wrong way around. In one of them we have prose which doesn't represent dialogue but is from Arya's POV and is her comparing a memory of a drawing of an ape to RORGE, not JAQEN. In another, it is not even POV text but instead Leo and he's not even referring directly to Alleras but instead an unknown mother. That doesn't actually "tie" anyone in any equivalent way. You are merely searching for phrases that appear in both storylines however dissimilarly they are used for the two characters. You are again assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove! No, they're a group of mercenaries with many members other than Jaqen and existed before he joined them. If membership in the Brave Companions is supposed to "prove" anything, it must do so for all of its members. YOU are the one trying to prove it. The text itself does nothing to indicate that membership in the Bloody Mummers is of special significance to Jaqen and no one else. I never argued that Sandor, Rorge & Lem are all the same person. I am instead denying the conclusion you are trying to draw from them all wearing the same helmet! NO, you have NOT "established" anything! No, you don't actually know how to establish anything, which is why you always fail to do so. No, we don't "know" any of that, those are characters you grabbed from entirely different stories! That doesn't prove that say, Terry Brooks, has even read Nennius despite writing "modern fantasy". Arya actually does join a troupe of mummers while working for the FM. No, I don't agree. And it's not that "curious" because these things are just fan theories. I think many would deny Dany is that much like Myrcella. She hasn't even met Euron. I doubt she would like a guy who impregnates a woman and then cuts out her tongue and imprisons her in his ship. Did Drogo have "colorful hair"? None of those people is Aegon VI. In the show, he really was half-Targaryen. They predicted something that actually happened in the show. I don't think you're in any position to ding them for inaccuracy. No, we don't know any such thing. None of the discussion of "heads of the dragon" even mentions a "devourer". You've instead taken something applying to the Great Shepherd and misapplied it somewhere entirely different. Even in the Great Shepherd analogy, the head itself is not said to be "reborn", any more than the devouring head is said to be "dying". Instead the dying & reborn enter & exit the two heads. You keep misapplying metaphors because you don't care about accuracy enough to check if they actually fit. No, we don't know that either. The two are very far apart. YG doesn't prevent Jon from anything. No, it's just in your head, which is why it doesn't occur to other people. No, and asserting it again like Lewis Carroll's Bellman does not actually make it so. Are you going to derail this thread again with another fringe theory? At least link to something supporting your claim. He also kills Pate. Killing is his job, I don't think we need to stretch our imagination at all to see him doing that both before & after he met Arya. He is the one who proposes to Arya that he give her three deaths in the first place. You believing that would explain why you can persistently write nonsense accepted only by you. People aren't first "told" they are no one and then enlisted in the FM. They join the FM for some reason, and then give up their identity to become no one. The story she actually tells is one in which she joins as payment for the FM killing her stepmother. That is in the text. The ides of her doing "penance" for her "sins" is not. What could they tell him that would make him WANT to remain in the FM? You plainly do not know what it means to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt", so I don't think you could convict the Waif with all the time in the world to present your "evidence". Not if you're in Westeros, that's an entirely different continent! How did she get there? Did she swim across right after falling? In the text we only have a reference to her having a stillborn daughter. A random number is less likely to be a round number. It is just a guess. That is just your theory, certainly not something widely accepted in Westeros! He was one of Rhaegar's friends, Ashara was merely Elia's handmaid (until she was sent home). It is a popular fan theory, but not proven. Ashara is not said to be burdened with any "sin", nor is the Waif. Westerosi would deal with guilt via the Faith of the Seven, not this Essosi death cult. The theory that Jyanna Reed is Ashara is plainly inconsistent with your theory that Ashara is the Waif (who doesn't even have purple eyes). I don't accept that theory, but just as it hasn't been proven it hasn't been disproven either. Again, that's not in the text, you made it up. Asserting it again changes nothing! You need to quote AWOIAF where you think the passages support your claim. Although, given your track record, I expect you will fall on your face again. This is you making things up, not the text. He's not saying that! If she's looking to Selmy instead of Stark, is she looking to Selmy as a threat!? That makes no sense! You've made this up, it's not in the text. That's not describing her as "ethereal and almost dead". You should also note that people think of her eyes as "haunting" AFTER she died, when Bran is told a story containing her she's described as having "laughing" eyes. That is one of the reasons people think she's Jyanna Reed. With everything else you've done a laughable job of "proving" anything. Is there some character-based reason for that? Sending the child (NOT baby) clothes to the grown-up version of the same child makes some kind of sentimental logic. Sending them to an entirely different grownup makes no sense at all! I couldn't from that age. Under your theory, why would he expect them to behave any differently? He left when JC had been exiled for about 5 years, so Illyrio knew only his childhood likes, not what he would be interested in as an adult. You haven't established any such thing (you haven't established Jaqen was ever there at all, but you certainly haven't established the length of time). HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I would like you see you try a case in court to see how a jury would treat your notion of "reasonable doubt". And you still haven't established Lemore is YG's mother. Were these clothes knitted by YG's kin? Or bought from somewhere, because Illyrio really is rich enough to act like he's buying things "at Nordstrom rack". Yes, if I couldn't wear it anymore. YG left when he was young, he didn't have any clothes there large enough to wear. Yeah, Illyrio sent them for sentimental reasons, then Lemore made practical use of them. This is something you made up, it's not in the text. WHY would he send those things to someone he has no reason at all to expect would care about them!? My mother wound up using some of my really old clothes as rags. Why don't you provide a quote? No, there are no dragons fighting in that scene. In your version, there are only two. Why not more? No, this is again just you asserting things and having no idea how to actually demonstrate anything. Then it was pointless of you to ask "who is Biter representing?" Different in that no "swineherd prince" is mentioned in the text at all, and is instead something you are inserting from elsewhere! Biter seriously injures Brienne, he's not "only a device" for some metaphor that's just in your head. This is just you repeating yourself, still misapplying things from one area into another. Paradise Lost is not "the text", it's an entirely different work! GRRM has characters using terminology Cersei heard from Maggie prior to the flashback with Maggie, but Maggie herself has no reason to talk like characters will later. Cersei asks how many children she'll have, Maggie doesn't actually use the possessive "your" to describe their relation to Cersei. She does refer to "their" crowns & shrouds and "your" to refer to Cersei's tears & throat. NO, Maggie never indicates it's a "riddle" nor would there be any way for Cersei to "solve" it at that time with the information she has. We actually get inside Melisandre's head when she's getting a vision of the future, and it turns out those are genuinely hard to interpret! They're not just made hard to understand for fun. How Jaime is remembered is irrelevant, him being born after Cersei is what makes him a little brother. Aegon has no older siblings left, so he is nobody's little brother. No, Robert didn't have all the schemes she did. He didn't even want to rule. Being gored by a boar vs strangled by a little brother don't seem like parallels at all. And nobody in ASoIaF "knows" anybody as a "swineherd prince". Even in your bogus theory, a swineherd is not a swine! He's not one now. An entirely different story which you rather than GRRM are grafting onto ASoIaF. It's been a while since I read that, so who got strangled to death? And it's possible YG could hire Jaqen to kill Cersei, but it wouldn't be personal for Jaqen. I often am, whereas you are so often incorrect (as with your statement about Maggie saying something in "the same sentence"). This is because you do not care about accuracy, you are just making up whatever to fit your fringe theory. Why have you been arguing this point at all!? It is agreed by all the characters in the story, including Gregor himself! He knew that he was sent to kill Rhaegar's children, and he smashed the skull of an infant that appeared to be Aegon's age. The baby-swap could explain that away, but it's not really "no idea", and instead a mistaken idea (due to being deliberately misled) in that case. From who!? Elia, Amory & Gregor are all dead. There's no one left to serve as a witness to what happened there. That IS written with capitals because it is a name, a proper noun. You keep writing "Valonqar" that way, but THE TEXT ITSELF DID NOT. Merely being part of a prophecy doesn't making anything a capitalized title. I didn't say she speaks cryptically "on purpose". Prophets seem to speak cryptically because they don't have direct access to the truth in an understandable manner. She actually holds Joffrey more dear than her younger children. And Joffrey was poisoned by Olenna Tyrell, with the help of Littlefinger. Maggie didn't actually say anyone "younger and more beautiful" would take away her children, the arrival of such a person is merely supposed to indicate the end of Cersei's time as queen. No, Maggie didn't say that one person will do all those things. And it's not like Jaqen killed Joffrey! Maggie doesn't describe him that way. There are many characters younger than Rhaegar when the books begin, but you will need to provide evidence of any of them being described as "more beautiful" than him. Your hope is again unfounded, because you have no idea what kind of evidence is "clear and obvious" rather than laughable. A president is always the president of something. I don't think you have a solid enough grasp of Maggie to say what she "would" do in any given circumstance. Like I said, you seem to disregard who is speaking and why they specifically would say any particular thing. Cersei specifically asked about her own children, and Maggie answered. Cersei left angrily before Maggie could answer any question about the valonqar.
  9. Some now believe in present-tense, I'm arguing people didn't know Rhaegar was at the ToJ at the time. How public was it? Who witnessed it? We don't know. Aerys' other commanders have failed, and Rhaegar at minimum has an incentive to defeat the houses he wronged into rebellion. Additionally, Aerys has Rhaegar's family as hostages in KL (this is also Aerys' leverage against Lewyn Martell during the same battle). Who says Rhaegar was plotting with lords Stark or Baratheon? Aerys may have mistakenly believed that, but he's also insane. At any rate, once Brandon Stark starts calling for Rhaegar to come out & die Aerys regards his house as a bigger threat than his own son. Not precisely, they were obeying the order of someone who was (at the time) the king's heir. That's very different from Jaime or Toyne more directly betraying their kings.
  10. No, I don't think so. Aerys didn't know where Rhaegar was or he would have been retrieved earlier. Jon Connington would definitely have sent people to Rhaegar if he knew. Rhaegar was doing things secretly, which is also why Robert Baratheon didn't send a larger force there and instead Ned was able to handpick a smaller number of people. The ToJ is far from KL but near Starfall, and if Wylla had already been sent from Starfall to the ToJ (and perhaps they kept the tower supplied in other ways) people there would have known, and Ned knows at least one person in Starfall, who (as others here pointed out) might wind up feeling guilty enough about telling him to commit suicide.
  11. Westeros may indeed have very different standards, but an important distinction is that Ned actually saw Robert strike Cersei. He didn't see Robert rape Cersei.
  12. Joffrey threatened to rape Sansa despite her marriage to Tyrion, but as far as we know he died a virgin.
  13. But "matted" is not the same as "mat". In Jaqen's case, his hair might not naturally be like that, but something happened (he got dirty for an extended period of time) that caused it to get matted. For Alleras, his hair is naturally described as a mat even if he's bathed recently. No duh, there are a LOT of references to alcohol. That's not the same position at all! Jaqen would greatly prefer to be in Alleras' position of having alcohol rather than wanting it, for one thing. Jaqen being Aegon VI is what you are trying to prove, you can't assume that as evidence for your argument with that conclusion! Leo has never seen Alleras' mother, he doesn't know what she actually looks like, he's just coming up with insults. It matters because of the things he has in common with Jaqen. If Jaqen has trait X and you say that trait implies Y about Jaqen, and Rorge has the same trait, shouldn't that also imply Y about Rorge? And Lem Lemoncloak takes it after Rorge, without being a Bloody Mummer. That is again the very thing you are trying to prove, you can't use that as evidence for your argument which is supposed to prove it. You don't know that, and you certainly don't know what GRRM even remembers from college. It's a secret up until the end of Clash when he discards his identity. Yes, I disagree about Lemore being Serra. The so-called "Bible codes" were also "in the text" in that people could find them there, but it was just imagining patterns. You wouldn't know what "reasonable doubt" was if it slapped you across the face. No jury would convict Jaqen of being Aegon VI. Congratulations, you found one other person on the entire internet for your supposedly "obvious" theory. The Quora link didn't load when I tried that one. Because it's not obvious at all. Obvious things are commonly noticed. He commits multiple murders for Arya alone, plus as an FM it's his job. We don't know what specifically Rorge & Biter did to get there either, but from what we do see of them it's not that surprising. We don't know the precise reasons he, Rorge, or Biter were sent there. The common factor seems to be that other people find them scary. Slavery isn't legal in Bravos, he would have to willingly go through with the whole thing. And unlike the Waif, he wouldn't have any personal reason to feel like he owes anything to the HoBaW. How can they be sure that will happen to Jaqen rather than him just deciding he doesn't feel like it? Yet you are basing your theory of her identity on the age she claims to be despite her not looking that age! Your "explanation" was woefully lacking in evidence. You only think you know. As far as I know, there is just one instance where he says anything related to that. An SSM asked if her body was found after she jumped, and he said no... but we wouldn't necessarily expect her body to be found. Based on Tyrion's estimate of her age rather than anything definitive? Griff is really Jon Connington. Why would Ashara but not JonCon be proof of "realness"? Varys is a mummer. If Varys took young Aegon from KL to be raised by his accomplice in Pentos for his own scheme (something you believe actually happened up until Illyrio had a kid later), that Aegon would then be "the mummer's dragon". How does she "fit"? And how do you know that if she is alive she's been revealed rather than waiting in the wings (Howland Reed still hasn't appeared, and coincidentally there's a popular theory his wife is Ashara). I don't "remember" any such thing because it's nowhere in the text! You just made it up! Handmaid, not champion. This is again something you made up which is nowhere in the text. So she claims, even though earlier you were saying she's unreliable. Who described her that way and when? Why would I trust you when you have been wrong so often? He didn't actually get to meet them when he handed over the trunk to Duck. He doesn't know what's going to happen to those things. He liked it as a boy (which is why Illyrio sends it), but he's not a little boy anymore. Sending it to someone never known to have liked it in the first place because someone else liked it would make no sense. I disagree that Lemore is the mother, or that a mother wouldn't get rid of a child's clothes many years after said child has grown out of them. I disagree that YG is her son, and at any rate he's too big for those clothes! He can't wear them, so she's re-using them for someone smaller who can... which people have been doing for as long as children's clothes have existed. It wasn't any plan, it was just Lemore making practical use of what she had for the unexpected addition of Tyrion to the group. ILLYRIO associates those things with him because ILLYRIO'S last memories of YG are with those things. YG himself has been growing up all this time, he does not have the same mental associations. I wouldn't remember my clothes from that age! What "other cloths"? I just quoted the section where it said she split EACH garment. The point is not holding someone "responsible" like there's any moral valence. I'm pointing out that splitting things apart and stitching them back together is simple enough for Tyrion to do (as YG requested). Tyrion would not be able to convert those child-sized clothes into something YG could wear. I wouldn't remember mine. Illyrio doesn't know what's going to be done with those things. Those are just the last things he has from YG, and it's not like he was going to use those clothes on some other kid. Why send them to the WRONG person!? YG hasn't used those since he was 5 and can no longer fit in them! The burning of KL hasn't even happened yet. Just like with your imagined conversation between Elia & Rhaegar you can't "derive parallels" by just making up one of the two sides! In the show there was only one dragon when KL got burned, whereas you are claiming there will be two. You thought wrong, as you so often do. I was pointing out holes in your logic, not accepting your interpretation. You are the one who asked "And who is Biter representing?". I deny that he must represent anything other than himself. I haven't seen that very commonly. Nor your red dragon blooms. Your theory is still a fringe crackpot one rather than a common one, so you haven't demonstrated anything. Not by Maggie. Maggie doesn't speak like that guy generally. She's speaking cryptically & prophetically rather than conversationally, and she's not handing over a severed head to Cersei. But if Maggie is saying he's going to kill Cersei, he can't be little anymore! Unless his skeleton is getting re-animated or something. "The old king" can also mean "the previous king" as opposed to "the new king". He is not currently an old man on the throne. Maggie didn't say anything about a dead king strangling Cersei, but instead a little brother. And Aegon hasn't been anyone's brother since the sack. Are you now arguing he didn't? I know people think he warged into Ghost (like Robb did into Grey Wind) and will come back, but are you saying he's merely wounded but alive? Collective responsibility extending over families is an existing concept in that world (that's why there's a tradition of taking hostages), but it's not usually expressed by strangling the person related to the person who wronged you. I don't understand why you are arguing this point at all. Two dead children were recovered from the Red Keep. Tywin has admitted he sent Amory & Gregor to kill them, with Tywin giving Amory's report on his own actions and Gregor confessing to raping Elia and killing her with her "whelp". What else could be the case and when could that ever be revealed? NO! He said "I killed her screaming whelp", in the singular, not the plural "whelps". You claiming a mistruth where there was none puts your reading comprehension into question. No, it's not written with a capital 'V' like a title, but a lowercase 'v' like an ordinary word. One word is shorter than two. In what other cases could she replace multiple words with a single Valyrian one? Three syllables for "valonqar" vs four for "little brother", so it is shorter in terms of both words & syllables. But her next words AREN'T "and when". Instead she says "Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you" in response to Cersei's question about children, following it up with "Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds" before Cersei can respond. She's responding to a completely different question (about children rather than Cersei being queen) by the time she brings up any valonqar. There's not "a comma" in between those two sections, but an entirely new question from Cersei and multiple clauses from Maggie. IT'S NOT THE SAME SENTENCE, LEARN TO READ! Every "the" is also an "a". The president is a president, the king is a king, the sultan of swat is a sultan of swat. The person handing over the head is claiming it is a specific head that Cersei wanted. In fact, he is wrong, because it is the wrong head. If he'd just said it's "a valonqar", that wouldn't mean much, because there are many little brothers.
  14. The first is Alleras normally, when presumably he's bathed not too long ago. The second is Jaqen only when he HASN'T in a long time, and is filthy. And we would expect Rorge to have similar hair for that reason. In the first case "he" is Pate, guilty & thirsty, NOT Alleras. In the second case, "a man" is Jaqen. There is no evidence that Jaqen is half-Dornish, nor that people of mixed-parentage have bi-colored hair. I'm glad you included this bonus: it shows how your method "proves too much"! Rorge wasn't part of your theory, but you can make the supposed "parallels" with him. He's already dead and we don't expect to learn any more about him, he is just as he appeared to be. Anything he has in common with Alleras is merely a coincidence. Is Rorge? What are you talking about? There's no equivalent for "the Sphinx is the riddle, not the riddler" for Jaqen. That's the subject of multiple plays from Shakespeare, which are historical fiction. "The Bloody Hand" in the Mercy chapter is directly isnpired by Richard III (and people had earlier been noting that Tyrion seemed to be inspired by both Shakespeare's Richard III and the title character of I Claudius, which GRRM has recently plugged). Again, is there evidence for GRRM drawing from sources that early? The Epic of Gilgamesh might be said by some to be the "first" fantasy story, but that doesn't establish any direct link from it to ASoIaF. Does being a Faceless Man not qualify as a secret? YOU CAN'T ASSUME YOUR CONCLUSION IN ORDER TO PROVE IT! THAT'S "BEGGING THE QUESTION". HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU!? That's not "proof" of anything. Varys was a mummer slave as a child, and after being sold to a sorceror who castrated him he worked himself up to becoming the most notable thief in Myr. It was only after he fled Myr for Pentos that he met Illyrio, at which time Illyrio was a bravo rather than a "child". You don't actually know that, you simply made it up. So you have no verifiable evidence of ANYONE ELSE on the entire internet who thinks Jaqen is Aegon VI. YG was entirely cut, but JAQEN WAS NOT. Jaqen even re-appears in Braavos, but we don't get any of the Alchemist or Pate because D&D didn't deem the Oldtown plot to be that important. I already did, and stand by what I said. They look different. Most notably, murder. No, it's not. He could just quit if he decides he doesn't like it! The Waif has an explanation for why she's there: in repayment for the FM killing her wicked stepmother. Why would Jaqen feel any such obligation under your theory? YOU still don't know about the Waif. There's no evidence for your theory about her. To ILLYRIO there is an important connection between those things & YG: those are connected to his most recent memories of YG. YG himself and his companions don't have the same perspective, because he's grown up amongst them and they think of him as the young man he is now rather than the child from years ago. There really would be no point of Illyrio sending things to YG if they were never connected to him in the first place but instead to Jaqen! Illyrio didn't plan for that, Lemore decided to do that. And it made sense from her POV. Because he associates them with YG, not Jaqen! That chest is described as "packed with a child's clothing" and Lemore is said to have "slit <b>each</b> garment apart". I don't see a reference to any spare clothes that could be in grownup YG's size. Cutting things in half and stitching halves back together is simpler than resizing, and can be done "crudely". Even Tyrion was able to contribute, and he's no tailor. Taking a collection of children's clothes and turning them into something a young adult can wear would be a much different task, particularly as YG is not being presented as a jester. Like I said, I don't think Illyrio thought that far out. Tyrion was not part of his plan, Varys simply sent Tyrion to him after things went down in KL. WHY!? If they have nothing to do with YG, there is no reason at all to send them! If he wants to get rid of them, he can simply throw them in the street at any time. What's bad about it? What has been lost? Is there a child who could really use those clothes? No, she's not. Biter is not a dragon and Arya didn't tame him. You don't know that. You haven't "demonstrated" anything. You just keep asserting things. The dragon tamer chapter does not depict the burning of KL! Who says he must represent anything other than himself? Why is one dragon supposed to be represented by Biter and another by smoke? Those two "representations" have nothing in common other than the lack of a full tongue (even though dragons do have tongues). And what about the third dragon? Commons sense is, by definition, COMMON. And nobody but you believes in this theory! You haven't "established" anything. How does being the former exclude being the latter? WHO remembers him as the brother of anyone rather than the son of Rhaegar? In contrast, people do think of Jaime & Tyrion as the Queen's brothers. But under your theory, Aegon is Jaqen, who DID live long enough! Cersei can't very well be strangled by somebody who died young. Her family did, but NOT Cersei herself. And of the people responsible, Tywin was killed by Tyrion, Amory by Vargo Hoat, and Gregor seems to be undead. If Cersei is to be blamed for anything, it's cheating on her obligations to the Martells regarding Gregor. Gregor is notorious for the deaths in his family (and Sandor's injury) along with the fate of many of his servants and wives. He lashes out very easily. Oberyn did, and Gregor admitted it during the trial by combat! Since everyone knows there was a child of Aegon's age with a smashed head, and Tywin has admitted to sending Gregor into the Red Keep where the children & Elia were, I don't know why you bother to argue about this point. You're not a character in this fictional world, you don't get to grant any titles actually referenced in it. That's two words. Yup, that works perfectly well. Although it's not a line she actually said, instead there are separate lines in response to different questions and no indication that the subjects of the different responses are related to each other. Rickon was in the show for the first three seasons, which was also the time during which he has appeared so far in the books. They already ticked a lot of people off with the sept scene where Cersei's verbal indications of consent were left out. To then have her rapist strangle her would be a lot on top of that. Particularly since fan-favorite Brienne is still supposed to sympathize with him. As it is, the show still had her die with Jaime's had literally around her neck. Your valonqar is a valonqar, why can't that valonqar be the valonqar? Tysha didn't mean much on the show but was still included.
  15. And I take it you have no way of responding to me or @frenin
  16. The quote perfectly fits someone who "just happens to bathe". Lazy Leo is insulting everyone, and the full quote is as follows: "Your mother was a monkey from the Summer Isles. The Dornish will fuck anything with a hole between its legs. Meaning no offense. You may be brown as a nut, but at least you bathe. Unlike our spotted pig boy." He is both calling Alleras part-monkey (and animals are not known to bathe), and then noting that him being "brown as a nut" is despite bathing (which Leo is putting forward as a low bar) rather than from being covered in mud, then seguing to an insult of Pate (falling below that low bar). I'm talking about what already happened. Alleras is directly tied to riddles in a way that Jaqen is not. I think he's more into historical fiction than actual history. Yeah, I've read Monmouth's history. I'm not aware of any evidence GRRM has drawn directly from him rather than later Arthuriana. But Theon wasn't some fake identity, and he's not even a Faceless Man. He's just prone to smiling. It could be, we just have no particular reason to believe this. And in the same book the Alchemist takes the identity of Pate! Too bad about Biter staying Biter, he doesn't have the acting chops to be anyone else. According to you. For a loving couple, yes it does seem strange. You'd be more likely to expect that from people who are estranged. Illyrio was blackballed immediately after marrying Serra. He knew he was giving something up by marrying her. This is not something he needed to come to appreciate later. That's not an explanation for WHY. There's no evidence for that. Westerosi noblewomen are able to adjust themselves to fostering, but admittedly Serra is just some Lysene bed-slave. She wanted to be with him when he was in a coma, she left even Bran after the assassination attempt. Your assumption is that Aegon WAS sent away early on, which is actually less likely given your characterization of her. Give one example of a person other than you who thinks Jaqen is Aegon VI. R+L=J was confirmed by the show, and figuring it out was a requirement for D&D to adapt it in the first place. Nothing comparable exists for this, and you are the only one to believe it. A 3 year old is half the age of a six year old, they look a lot more like babies. Because he commits crimes. Your assumption that they wanted to prevent him from claiming his position would imply that his death would be desirable. Sending him toe HoBaW would not make him ineligible for any inherited title, although it would separate him from the people he knew previously if he actually went through it (which they can't guarntee, which is a reason not to send him there in the first place). He's been apart from YG for years and has held on to YG's childhood things. This was to be the last chance to meetup before he joined the GC to invade Westeros. If there was ever a time to send those things (and arguably there isn't, he could just throw them away), it's now. Illyrio doesn't actually know if YG will eat the candied ginger, he just thinks he will because he did in the past. Sending it to someone you DON'T know ever liked it doesn't make sense. What other spare pair of clothing does she have? It's harder to change the size of clothing. For some dwarf she's trying to disguise, why not? I don't think he thought far enough ahead to acquire any motley for Tyrion. Tyrion is a later addition along for the ride. Why not? Why else wound he send those to the wrong person? What you can do is try to take on the perspective of someone who doesn't already believe in your theory and try to think of what evidence would convince such a person. So far you've presented a lot of stuff that's just in your head rather than in the text and tendentious symbolism. What makes one valonqar THE valonqar? Not enough to strangle Cersei with her own hands. This isn't a detective novel, it's a big sprawling fantasy series. The big mystery everyone has latched onto is R+L=J. Because Gregor would murder whoever said it! Who calls it a "title"? And who would grant such a title? She speaks Valyrian and there's no single-word equivalent in Common. Cersei tried to convince Jaime to take the position in AFfC, and she's running low on allies (the last man she appointed Hand fled). Additionally, since he has a golden hand, a chain of golden hands is like a plural version of that hand, particularly if Jaime is the one using the chain as a weapon. Why? The person at the top of the political order usually doesn't personally kill the person previously occupying that spot. Maggie doesn't even mention the valonqar until after the younger more beautiful bit. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to first introduce the valonqar and then say that person will do both things? You expect them to bring up a prophecy containing a Valyrian word that would have to be translated later, so they could have the payoff seasons later? They even brought up Tysha in the first season but never mentioned her later on. I guess if LSH kills Jaime he's much less likely to kill Cersei, but otherwise I'd expect him to return to KL. He's related to CERSEI, just as Jaime is. And Tyrion killing Joffrey & Tyrin (years after his birth killed Joanna) serves as confirmation to Cersei that she was right about him. More was told when they were starting to run out of book material. Season 2 was early in the process, with GRRM still contributing episodes, but there was still no swearing in front of a heart-tree.
  17. How many times? "Jaqen H'ghar" is not presented as a riddle. I think he's less influenced by "the classics" than by 20th century historical fiction & fantasy. I've mentioned to CamiloRP how he's directly borrowed from The Accursed Kings (something he's explicitly cited as an inspiration) and cribbed from Lovecraft, but there's lots and lots of other examples. Theon is described this way: "He smiled a lot, as if the world were a secret joke that only he was clever enough to understand". Evidence is evidence regardless of who you want to talk about. If joining the Bloody Mummers is evidence for Jaqen, then it must be evidence for Biter & Rorge as well. You stating that "evidence is meant for him" doesn't make it so. BECAUSE HE WANTS HIS BELOVED WIFE WITH HIM! WHY would he agree to a plan that sends his wife & son away from him for years? Couldn't he get that from someone more like Lemore presents herself to be? Haldon seems to really be just a half-maester, and he's giving guidance to YG. Then wouldn't he want her with him rather than away for years? You keep getting surprised because your beliefs have such poor correspondence to reality. I'm guessing NOBODY AT ALL. You can hope that a meteor made of solid gold lands on your front-lawn, but there's no actual reason to expect that. 6 vs 3 is a MUCH more noticeable difference. Tyrion has no children of his own either! WHY!? WHY!? None of your reasoning makes any sense as the sort of thing someone would actually come up with in such circumstances. You are just trying to twist what evidence we do have to fit your crackpot theory. You are the one who said sending the chest was "the plan"! That's all of YG's stuff that he has left. It still doesn't make sense. Thinking of Jaqen shouldn't cause him to send such things to an entirely different person unless his brain is scrambled. He's sending all of YG's stuff that he has left. What old clothing? And would it fit, like a child's clothes would? She is deliberately attempting to make Tyrion look like a common jester rather than a wanted nobleman. There's no "convincing" required. We all start out not believing in your theory, and as your evidence has been laughable, we continue not believing it. He's not Cersei's valonqar specifically, and he didn't grow up with siblings as a valonqar to them. [Does he have motive to want Cersei dead?] Out of power, yes, dead, no. He doesn't have any personal beef with her, unlike Cersei's actual valonqars. I reject your hint's answer. Important characters have been in the series from the beginning. Aegon was believed to be dead all this time, so people just spoke of him as a dead child. Jaqen & YG have only actually appeared in a small number of chapters. "Valonqar" is not a translation of a name, but a relationship. Tyrion chokes Shae to death with a chain of golden hands. Jaime could do that to Cersei. In the story being told by the books, Cersei & Jaime's relationship deteriorates. She requests him to come save her, but Jaime thinks she's unfaithful to him and burns her letter. How has Cersei & Jaime's relationship not set up a violent blowup? Tyrion's screwed up relationship with his father results in patricide. This is more of that screwed up Lannister family dynamic (the Freys also have family in-fighting, but of a more grubby and less important sort). That's why CERSEI can't guess correctly. But readers know in that very book how her relationship with Jaime has soured. No, when GRRM first met with D&D he asked them who Jon Snow's mother was before he agreed to let them adapt the books. We don't hear of him following that up with "And were his parents married?", because that wasn't important.
  18. No, just that his actual plan for quashing the rumors is to have Cersei remarried rather than to kill Stannis.
  19. Your method of analysis has too many degrees of freedom, leading to what Andrew Gelman calls the garden of forking paths. If we specify ahead of time what sort of analysis we will do to a set of data and then draw the conclusions which follow from that, it's more credible than if we change our standards afterward so we can still reach a desired conclusion. How is that "more than just ephemeral"? The name "Jaqen" isn't presented as a riddle at all. It's just some (presumably Lorathi) name. Yes, but YOU were citing the scene from the show where she was running through KL when Dany attacked. I don't recall her saying any such thing in that scene from the show. NO, wyrms are a separate species from wyverns. I have brought up the theory that Valyrian bloodmages combined firewyrms with wyverns to create dragons, but they are typically thought of as distinct. How do you know he wouldn't be glib? I don't see any reason why not. Plus, as noted, Rorge & Biter joined the Bloody Mummers also. Must they also be false identities!? Tyrion doesn't guess she's the same woman whose picture he saw, even though he figured out the real reason for YG's dyed hair. Maybe... she doesn't actually look like the woman in the picture because she's a different person! I didn't ask about HER willingness to do this, but ILLYRIO'S to permit that. All of your examples are irrelevant for that question. Who else has embraced your brand of tinfoil? It doesn't seem like it actually was that much of a secret, since Barristan thinks of her having a stillborn girl and Cersei suggests Ned stole her child. Because that's from years ago! It would have been easier to compare YG's age to Aegon's because small differences in time are relatively larger at young ages. Why would Varys go along with such a bizarre plan? WHY was "the plan" to send a chest of Jaqen's things to YG!? Yes, tearing apart the clothes and stitching them back together makes them look like motley, appropriate for a dwarf jester, rather than just a child's clothes. YG is too old for those clothes. When kids outgrow their clothes, parents tend to give them to smaller children or to Goodwill. And "any piece of clothing in the box" was used, it was all similar. Because, as I said (and as did you, unintentionally) he's not the most obvious! Nope, Jaime is closer to the person she believes to be the valonqar, and she never suspected Jaime because of the assumption that he will always love her. He's not taking the throne for himself (even if that was the plan under the pitch letter) and won't have underlings to seize it for him, but he has personally killed the person on the throne before. Your "evidence" is not overwhelming, and your theory is crackpot rather than obvious. You are arguing with the entire world here while insisting you are the only sensible person. It's not just me who isn't convinced, nobody is. You need to think for yourself about why that is, and then come up with arguments that we don't laugh at so much. No, I think the show simplified things. R+L=J is important, details about marriage less so. Right, and so he doesn't actually hold that against the show. He doesn't judge all scifi by the standards of scifi. As far as I can tell, he has little interest in hard scifi at all. Maybe in the movies, I don't think the original TV show spent much time near Earth at all. No, that's not what the quote means. "Sufficiently advanced" means advanced far beyond our capacity to understand it. If you went back in time and showed modern technology to a caveman, they would probably think it was magic. Characters within a scifi story don't regard contemporary technology as magical, just as we don't think of it that way ourselves. Characters might encounter new tech they don't understand, and the distinguishing thing about a scifi story (as opposed to fantasy) is that they CAN come to understand it as just a new technology over the course of the story. I'm not aware of Clarke ever writing fantasy stories. If you read the trilogy, you would know that a human transforms into a sandworm. It's not hard science. The whole Butlerian Jihad abolishing computers & forcefields blocking ranged weapons is so he can have a more old-timey version of the future (imitated by Star Wars) in which he can set his version of a Muhammad story. I hadn't heard that, could you provide a cite? I don't get that impression at all. As is well known, "GRRM can't math" and he says things like Westeros has more advanced medicine than the real medieval world even while the maternal mortality rate is ridiculously higher. He's inspired by existing winged animals, but I don't think he actually did any calculations (other people have attempted) regarding how large they could be while still being capable of displacing enough air with their wings to counteract their body weight, and how large their wings could get without snapping. He wanted Balerion to be enormous (FAR larger than any flying animal we know of), so he's enormous. Similar to how dragons can breathe fire without burning up their own insides: just accept it. He didn't say the rules are the same. He generalizes different stories being about Faulkner's "human heart in conflict with itself" (which is not really typical of hard scifi), and then refers to various genre trappings as "furniture". He even notes that Lovecraft's scifi horror is basically opposed to the standards of Campbell's scifi, even while also noting a real similarty between Lovecraft & Campbell scifi horror stories. Lovecraft himself wouldn't necessarily follow the same "rules" between a Dreamlands story & a cosmic horror story. You were citing a passage from GRRM where he was using Eisenstein & Williams as two examples. You said they were "hard sci-fi according to the author", even though neither seems to be described as "hard" scifi by anybody but you. YOU think it's weird, but your determination as to what qualified as "hard scifi" is what we've been disputing. Yes, that's why he said hard scifi is a SUBSET of "geek fiction", which he then defined as quoted. Neither is hard scifi. Instead of scifi, the more relevant comparison would be another variety of fantasy. And in fact GRRM has criticized how Tolkien brought back Gandalf in a stronger form, and handwaved away how well Aragorn ruled at the end (I don't think he cared as much about Smaug's front-legs). Tolkien wanted to write something along the lines of the ancient myths he studied as a philologist but intended for a modern audience, and since those sagas don't really delve into the weeds of proper governance many would consider the latter criticism pointless. But GRRM wants to write different kinds of stories. Tolkien & C. S. Lewis criticized the work of E. R. Eddison for its amorality (which some have compared to ASoIaF), infusing their own fantasies with their Christian beliefs (much more subtly in the case of Tolkien compared to Lewis). But Star Trek is scifi, whereas Jurassic Park isn't Christian (even "softcore") at all. I don't read that as a complaint. He's noting that unrelated species can't actually interbreed (in a humorous manner), but we can embrace fiction not only despite discarding reality but even because of it. Star Trek is written scifi. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I could compare those two hypothetical kinds of lawyers. I do and have brought up those things while discussing the movie! It's a popular and successful movie because of many other characteristics, but I think it would have been a better film without those things. Other people disagree with me though. You asked for what evidence is there that he would include it. I'm saying that the multiple references to interspecies breeding, including explicitly using the same name as Lovecraft's "Deep Ones" who interbred with humans in Lovecraft's story and are described similarly in the worldbook, are evidence. The newborn dragons suckling at Dany's breasts like she was really their mother is evidence. Not incontervertible evidence, so I think agnosticism is still a valid position, but it's evidence. What's an instance of him borrowing something and making it more scientifically accurate? And he directly borrows from Accursed Kings numerous times without making it any more "progressive". Our Vampires Are Different is an incredibly common trope, not that much evidence of being scientific. That notion in particular seems to have originated with Bram Stoker rather than earlier vampire fiction.
  20. Then shouldn't his hair be red & white & BLACK? Girls plural, both of whom are Starks. So why doesn't this "symbolism" apply to both? How much is "very much"? Isn't there just one instance of him bathing? He is not said to be such at the time, unlike Alleras. She didn't eat any worms on the show. And an urban environment like KL would be less wormy than the Riverlands. To be fair, if it applies to at least two out of the three, it's understandable why people think the third would fit the same mold. That's not an answer to the question of how he would behave IF Jaqen was a real identity he had stolen. You are incapable of considering the alternative, which is what we'd need to evaluate to compare possibilities. Hasn't your argument been that there was no "the real Jaqen"? Where is she? What woman have we seen with blue eyes and golden hair streaked with silver? And Illyrio is fine with that? He just explained the serious consequences for marrying her in the first place, and now he's letting her go? Nobody but you thinks these things! Elia was at Harrenhal, and I don't think her maesters would have permitted that much travel near the time she was giving birth. Instead we first hear of the newborn Aegon later, near the turn of the year. Whether Tyrion has more accurate beliefs than Connington is at dispute here. And since Connington met YG at a much earlier age, and has been with him for a MUCH longer time, he has much more & better evidence than Tyrion. You can't argue we should dismiss his view as "delusional" because someone at a comparative disadvantge like Tyrion thinks differently! That hasn't actually been shown. We can speculate about Varys. And I just speculated that he wouldn't send the actual Aegon VI to the Faceless Men. I was quoting you! Me: "But then why send those to an entirely different child!?" You: "Because that was the plan, Ilyrio was the biological father." "Basic" is a default if you don't put any more work into something. And fancy people have fancy clothes, Tyrion is not supposed to seem fancy while he's on the run. Cersei already parsed the sentence as having YMB refer to "queen" before Margaery came into the picture. Because it's the natural way of parsing the sentence. Cersei's paranoia & false beliefs do affect WHICH "queen" she thinks it is, just like which "valonqar" she fears will kill her. Who will be on trial? I assume not "Robert Strong" himself, since Gregor already confessed and he was eligible for the King's Justice to behead him. I agree, he is NOT the most obvious. That makes it less of a surprise he's not on such lists! You are the only one who finds it so. You have a crackpot theory you have failed to convince anyone of because your evidence is nonsense. Yeah, the show got ahead of the books. He said "if you are", not "I am". There's no reason at all to assume that the former statement is actually supposed to mean the latter. Correct, which is not the case with actual hard scifi authors. Try searching the authors on wikipedia's page for hard science fiction and you'll see that they & their work are commonly labelled that way. Find a list of people considered to be hard scifi authors (that wikipedia page would help) and search for their names plus phrases comparing scifi and fantasy. That's funny, since Frank Herbert is one of the few explicitly categorized as "soft": "he deliberately spent little time on the details of [Dune's] futuristic technology so he could devote it chiefly to addressing the politics of humanity, rather than the future of humanity's technology" You are both randos on the internet, one claiming a story is "hard" scifi and the other claiming it's "soft". I don't need to believe either, but from everything else you've written I get the impression that you don't understand what hard scifi is. Famously? I think not. Lovecraft was more "into science" (he wanted to be a scientist when he was young, but wasn't good enough at math) and would frequently inject recent scientific findings into his stories, even while those stories were not "hard" scifi and (per GRRM) more the opposite. Despite that seeming to violate Ernst Mayr's species concept, I would say it IS compatible, because an easy to overlook caveat of that concept is whether the two would normally interact. Lions & tigers can in fact interbreed, but are typically thought of as different species because they don't overlap in the wild. He likes existing two-legged dragons like Vermithrax. What is he losing by sticking to that model? He specifically thinks it was a big deal that it was on TV. He said he didn't appreciate how big a deal it was at that time, because he'd been reading lots of books featuring similar things (I assume that includes Lovecraft), but that a book that sells a few thousand copies has less impact than a TV show. Have you never heard of Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear"? Do you know the revelation about all of humanity in "At the Mountains of Madness"? I don't think you can so easily assume that what he includes or doesn't in one set of works determines what will be in another, particularly in a different genre. He might "want to explore", but I stand by my statement that we haven't actually gotten much of it in the published books. What have I claimed is "clear"? Yeah, I already linked to a review of a work you called hard scifi which explicitly called it "the softest of soft science fiction", so it's obviously not just me. Neither of us could find any references to him as a hard scifi writer, we only have your word which is impossible to verify about what your friends have verbally told you. Yup, many authors but not GRRM, because he's not a hard scifi writer. If I try searching for "Phyllis Eisenstein" "hard science fiction", I don't find anyone referring to her or her work that way. Same with if I replace her name with "Alaric the Minstrel" or "Born to Exile". That's how Walter Jon Williams (not a name I selected, but one you did) defines hard scifi! Although, to be technical, he said it's a subset of the larger category defined by that. He's not giving the plot of a specific book he is DEFINING a term. If you said "most hard scifi takes place in interwar Los Angeles, featuring a private detective as the protagonist" I would say you're confusing it with hard-boiled. I just quoted an actual scifi author, one you described as hard scifi, defining it in a way you now dismiss! Those terms seem to be much less clearly defined than hard scifi (where I was just able to quote a scifi author explicitly defining), and neither is hard scifi and thus wouldn't be expected to be bound by the constraints of hard scifi. That's something from our world you're familiar with, but Wisdom Hallyne was theorizing that dragons might have returned (due to changes in effectiveness of alchemist techniques) even before word of that had actually gotten back to him. The link isn't gotten from answering a "Is magic real? Yes/No" question. It's from following a course of study that the Citadel expects to have a certain result (which was the case for Luwin, but not for Marwyn). Why isn't R2D2 acceptable in a romcom? Granted, he's on Dagobah rather than in the romcom section of Empire Strikes Back (on the Millenium Falcon with Han & Leia), but there's not actually anything incompatible about it. If he was the lead in a romcom, that might admittedly pose some issues. But a scifi romcom is entirely possible. For an example, see Emily Carmichael's short film Stryka (which also mixes in the heist genre). Of course, it's not "hard scifi", as that typically comes without blending of other genres. He's talking different varieties of scifi. It makes sense to compare them to each other. Whether the speaker is a hard-core Christian is irrelevant, but if I heard that statement I would guess that the film is simultaneously combining Christianity and dinosaurs, which the speaker (incorrectly) regards as incompatible. No, the way to say that is "Fun movie, but as a hard-core Christian, it makes no sense to me". That section of the talk was about diversity in scifi/fantasy, so he's lauding what Star Trek did (even while adding a parenthetical about it violating actual science) before moving on to the increasing diversity of voices within those genres. He's not "complaining" about Star Trek or that specific plot element in it. If I was going to discuss a lawyer who doesn't care about science, I might very well bring up a "science loving lawyer". One can bang on the facts, while the other must bang on the law or the table. But GRRM was talking about Star Trek, not lawyers. Two kinds of scifi can be compared to each other. Wings is a drama film which won the first Best Picture, and people DO fly (in airplanes). People flying is not a violation of drama. Superman falls short by dramatic criteria because the villains are too comical, and Superman can too easily undo what had been a big dramatic incident in the climax. I can say that despite not having published any drama screenplays! It means he's not merely using fantastical creatures as metaphors for his own distinctive fantasy powers, but instead as they are usually used in fantasy. Lovecraft wrote horror, and his scifi was placed by GRRM at the opposite pole from Campbell. Lovecraft also wrote Dunsany-inspired fantasy in his Dreamlands material. There's some mixing of his Dreamlands stuff with "Cthulhu Mythos" and cosmic horror, but he didn't face even the small constraints of reality he abided in the latter when he was writing Dreamlands stuff. GRRM didn't actually set up the premise that genetics works differently in this secondary world, he had Ned Stark come to a conclusion based on (what we would regard as) insufficient evidence, but then be proven correct because it was convenient for the plot that he figured it out and had that confrontation with Cersei. And Lovecraft had much wilder examples of interbreeding in our actual world, so I don't know why GRRM can't borrow from him (as he's explicitly doing with his Deep Ones) and have that happen in his secondary world. The fact that it's not hard sci fi is why it isn't bound by the same constraints. GRRM explicitly said it was hard scifi for which that doesn't make sense, not "hard fantasy", which is a label I haven't even heard of him claiming for himself. What are those rules? What are those limits? What plausible explanation have we gotten? No, the same author can write different things in their fantasy vs scifi. Although most hard scifi writers wouldn't write fantasy at all. There are multiple references to it in ASoIaF itself, and the world cribs from other literature where such interbreeding existed (with said interbreeding explicitly being referenced for those borrowed elements).
  21. That's counting your chickens before they hatch. They haven't really done anything to silence him after the Blackwater. The Blackfish seems to think he can hold out for a long time. Any "loyalty" on the part of the Martells is quite dubious.
  22. I would say they're all minor characters, though Rorge & Biter are even more minor than Jaqen. The "symbolism" is all in your head though. What does "Jaqen" claiming to be proud to be Lorathi make him made-up? If this was a real person with a stolen identity, would Jaqen not say that? Would you like to provide some more quotes for comparison? Again, your memory has been wrong before in this thread. You have not established any reason for anyone to rely on your memory. You date GRRM's statement to 1999, after A Clash of Kings was published, so you can't include stuff from A Feast for Crows. This is even later. Again, symbolism that is just in your head. Who is "they" and why do they need her child? We don't know she was in KL (rather than Dragonstone), nor do we actually know she was in contact with them after she left due to her pregnancy. Rhaegar wasn't accessible between leaving Elia for Lyanna and returning to fight at the Trident. This is not in the text. Her child that Barristan said was a stillborn girl? If the conception dates to Harrenhal, I don't think the age would fit Aegon. Connington has spent years with YG. He has much more evidence than Tyrion. What about Varys? I don't think he's sentimental, and he wouldn't send a potentially valuable asset to a death cult. Plus, what makes you think Illyrio is interested in "redemption"? Why would "the plan" be to send Jaqen's clothes to YG!? Yup, Tyrion is wearing basic motley rather than something fancy. I acknowledge Cersei gets things wrong, but I don't think this amounts to her failing to parse a sentence. For example, she assumes the valonqar must be Tyrion rather than Jaime because she loves one and hates the other, but this has nothing to do with how the sentence is constructed. When she's paranoid about the "younger, more beautiful queen" she's unreliable about WHICH "queen" this will be, but not that it is a YMBQ. That doesn't seem like an argument for Aegon VI, since he DOES aim to take her throne and is unlikely to "cast her down" if he doesn't do that. That's irrelevant to how she's constructing a sentence. Only to you! By your own admission, nobody else takes your theory seriously, which you can't understand. Like Oliver Cromwell, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken. You need to be able to think from the perspective of anyone other than you, because we don't buy into your theory, and you can't persuade people with arguments starting from the premise that you are right. You need to understand why people think the way they do in order to get them to see why they're wrong. You get nowhere near this, and instead resemble Sideshow Bob repeatedly stepping on rakes or Daffy Duck continually yelling "Duck season, fire!" and getting his beak shot. One of those was confirmed by the TV show, the other was not. You proclaiming something to be a "fact" does not make it so. And Jon's parentage is a mystery that multiple characters have wondered about since the first book. This is not comparable. You are repeating the word "blood" a lot, but Maggy using Cersei's blood does nothing to establish that anyone she's referring to is Valyrian. No, he said "if you're a hard scifi writer" not "I'm a hard scifi writer". Then why aren't people other than you categorizing him or those works that way? Find me one person regarded as a hard scifi writer (not GRRM, since that's who we're arguing about) who has said that. According to that reviewer I linked, the premise. Per wikipedia "The term is formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences". GRRM is more interested in the "soft" social sciences (though ASoIaF does not have realistic linguistics, political science, history, economics, etc) than the hard, but he's mostly a student of the humanities rather than even a scientific analysis of society. We're not talking about a science experiment, what would it mean to "approve of it scientifically"? Whether GRRM approves of something is not determined by science. "Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. Fantasy is the towers of Minas Tirith, the ancient stones of Gormenghast, the halls of Camelot. Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines." When reality makes for a less interesting story (or when it's just inconvenient for his plot, as with Baratheon genetics) he has no problem discarding it in his writing. If he approves of it politically then that logically means HE APPROVES OF IT. You can argue that this is a rare circumstance unlikely to be repeated, but actually make that argument rather than saying he doesn't approve of something he actually approves of. Certainly, not everything. But the Lovecraftian influence in ASoIaF is less via Lovecraft's more fantasy-inspired Dreamlands (and of course, not Lovecraft's notoriouis racism), but instead via the Deep Ones from Shadow Over Innsmouth, who cross-breed with humans. And in ASoIaF creatures of the same name are described by maester Theron as "queer, misshapen race of half men sired by creatures of the salt seas upon human women". That's directly and explicitly cribbing Lovecraft's interspecies breeding, even if it's maester speculation. Are you talking about time travel in ASoIaF? We really haven't gotten much of that. Like what? Both you and butterweedstrover are saying something is "clear", even if each of you is the only one who finds it to be so for the thing you are arguing. Is there anyone other than you who actually thinks this? It's less common for anything to be referred to as "soft scifi". "Hard scifi" was coined earlier to refer to a subset of scifi, and it wasn't thought that there needed to be a term for scifi that wasn't hard. It's simply not referred to as "hard", which seems to be the case with GRRM's work. Don't you think it curious that a hard scifi writer is never referred to as such? If I click that link I get told the page is unavailable for viewing. Does this contain the text you wanted to link to? https://fattestleechoficeandfire.com/2020/06/29/the-furniture-rules-martinworld/ And as far as I can tell, neither Phyllis Eisenstein nor Walter Jon Williams are considered hard scifi. The latter said this about the categorization: Does GRRM write about plot, character & setting or "a series of technical problems to be solved"? I don't think anyone in Westeros considers sweetsleep to be magic, but at the same time it's not something where GRRM needs to abide by scientific restrictions. In another thread I was arguing about the Strangler poison and how polar substanes dissolve in other polar substances (like water) rather than non-polar (like lipids), which is actual science from our world, but since GRRM made up the Strangler he doesn't actually need to abide by the rules I expect. That's something we know even less about, which is not like hard scifi where the readers are supposed to be able to figure out the implications given the premise. We know Dany actually hatched dragon eggs and survived entering a pyre via magic. We know Rhaegar himself is dead, and Dany is the one known Targaryen left after Aemon. That's true, but dragons are explicitly linked to magic. Magicians in Qarth are able to do more impressive things than they could before, and the Alchemists guild links the potency of their wildfire formulas to the return of dragons. A lot of their "study" consists of denying that it's real. The maester attitude is more doubtful than hostile toward magic. For Luwin, the effect was to disabuse him of his youthful hope in magic. I think that was intentional. If I wanted to discuss a specific element of Star Wars, (let's say, midichlorians) I could note that it wouldn't be acceptable in a hard scifi story. GRRM was discussing the specific issue of Spock's mixed parentage. The point is relevant whether or not there's a hard scifi writer present. It works for the story, science be damned. Lawyer? I don't think you can expect a person speaking live to always use the hypothetical you find ideal. And Star Trek is scifi, not actual science. H. P. Lovecraft was into science, but he included things even more extreme than that (and in the link I provided from Dreamsongs he even used Lovecraft as the least scientific pole of scifi horror). The fact that the ST writers ARE scifi writers is why a different scifi writer (rather than a scientist) would be a relevant comparison. There's a standard for hard scifi which would prohibit Spock's parentage, ST is a different kind of scifi, and GRRM is fine with that. Yes, it was always going to be high fantasy (unlike Fevre Dream). That's a lot of vagueries. He wasn't using terms like "hard" or "soft" there, and he didn't say their fire powers wouldn't be "really powerful-mystical magic" (if they were going to play the same role as dragons, they would have to be powerful). He was already using sigils as metaphors for houses, and he considered having the Targaryen dragon merely be metaphorical. So going "full" fantasy for him there meant actually including those familiar fantasy creatures. But not HARD science. Lovecraft also showed a "scientific mind", while still straying extremely far from science. That idea seems to come out of nowhere to me. Unless by "magic" you mean "the convenience of the author". And GRRM has also said he'd prefer not to bother mentioning eye color because it's actually hard to notice and he's sometimes inconsistent (as with Renly). Hard scifi doesn't rely on such "maybes", the reader is supposed to be able to understand how things work. Let's try playing "taboo" with the word "grounded". What does that mean for magic in this series? What would the opposite be like? For good examples of hard science fiction taken to the extreme of not being fiction I'd recommend Asimov's Not as We Know It: The Chemistry of Life" and Robin Hanson's "The Age of Em". Both more speculative than you usually find in non-fiction, but not actually making up any fictional facts and merely saying what might exist. What do you mean by that?
  23. What was WHOSE name? His bastard's mother. I would call those "specifications" rather than "clues" (Robert himself doesn't remember the answer), and Ned's answer is supposed to match ALL of them. Answering a question which includes "your bastard's mother" as requiring that is a correct parsing! WHY would Robert be thinking of this woman whose name he can't remember? Because she's the mother of Ned's bastard! That's really all Robert knows about her (aside from her being common, which is of course not specific). Yeah, that's answering Robert's question about his bastard's mother. Which determines which name Ned should give! If Robert had said "Who is the woman I'm thinking of, you know the one, your wife" it would be incorrect if Ned said "Wylla", because she's not Ned's wife. Even if Robert had been misinformed as to the actual name of Ned's wife somehow, it would be a lie if Ned said that. The woman Robert is thinking of is the common-born mother of Ned's bastard. And the specification isn't "The woman I heard is your bastard's mother", it's "your bastard's mother". The answer Ned gives must fit that by the normal rules of language. He states it as fact, even swearing on the honor of his house when Arya is skeptical (while technically the thing he swears is that Wylla was his wetnurse, he has assumed Arya already knew she was Jon Snow's mother). How would Ned know which woman Robert was thinking of in order to tell him previously? The only reason Robert is trying to remember this woman at all is because of her connection to Ned's bastard. That's what Ned had told Robert. He didn't walk up to Robert and say "You're thinking about a woman named Wylla". How could your imagined scenario in the past have gone? If he'd had multiple common women. WHICH woman? His bastard's mother. Why would he believe this without Ned telling him? In the one instance we actually have of Robert discussing it, his knowledge is based on Ned telling him before (and then Ned tells him it again). Cat didn't assume Wylla was Jon's mother, and Ned is less willing to talk to her about Jon's parentage. The difference between them is that Ned isn't willing to tell Cat anything, but Ned will tell Robert the name "Wylla". We don't know whether Ned "appeared at Starfall with her" or if she was already there. What "bunch of other information"? That's not window dressing! If I said "What's the name of that movie I'm thinking of, you know where the newspaperman dies saying "Rosebud"", and you replied "Citizen Kane" then Citizen Kane must be the movie where the newspaperman says that when he dies. If I just said "What's the name of the movie I'm thinking of", I'd fail to specify it in a way you could answer. Robert had actually been told prior to this, as he mentions. No, Robert isn't "telling" Ned anything, he's asking a question which included that as a specification. If Robert had a really short memory so that Ned started by saying "My bastard's mother is named Wylla", and then Robert promptly forgot and asked "What was that woman's name, one you told me about, your bastard's mother?" and Ned replied "Wylla" he would again be saying that Wylla is his bastard's mother not merely that he had told Robert that name. Robert didn't say "The one I think is your bastard's mother", he said "your bastard's mother". The one you attribute to me actually does fit much better. It's part of the question. If Robert had said "What's her name, and by the way this Arbor gold is excellent, you know, your bastard's mother", then the bit about Arbor gold would indeed be an irrelevant rambling Ned doesn't need to correct if they're drinking something else. But the bit about her being Ned's bastard's mother isn't a mere "ramble", it's specifying who Robert is referring to! If Robert had referred to her as "Jon and Robb's mother", under the mistaken belief that they're full siblings, it would be incorrect for Ned to give the same answer. It's relevant because ROBERT made it so. It specifies who he's asking about, in a way that my Arbor gold hypothetical doesn't. I expect that Robert did hear about Ned relieving the siege at Storm's End, after which he dispatched Stannis to Dragonstone. We still don't know how Ned knew where to look, we only know that he selected a very small number of people to accompany him, and that to me suggests secrecy. Varys has a lot more sources in KL than elsewhere. Assuming R+L=J, the Daynes appear to have conspired with Ned to cover up the truth, and not even Varys has given any indication that he knows better. In order for news to arrive that quickly from Starfall I think a raven would be necessary, and access to those is much more limited compared to modern communication tech. Yes, I think Ned told Robert that he had a bastard and Wylla was his mother. It's not "completely the opposite", since when Robert asks about his bastard's mother he gives the name "Wylla" again. Robert said Ned had told him before, and Ned would have had no reason to tell him "You're thinking of a woman named Wylla". If Ned merely had a nursemaid and Robert asked her name, then the correct answer to Robert's question would be "I didn't tell you that", just as a hypothetical where Cat asks the nursemaid's name wouldn't be identifying Jon's mother. Something we have no evidence for. Robert certainly thinks it was, insofar as Ned told him her name. "Who's your bastard's mother?" "A common woman named Wylla, and I don't want to talk about it". Is that minimalist & shut down enough? How do you think the conversation went? Robert thinks Ned told him before, and that's the only reason for Ned to tell him & Robert to have any memory of it. It's not inconsistent for him to say "Wylla" both times when Robert asks about his bastard's mother. It's a lie agreed upon. She was available to nurse Jon (and is lowborn enough they can easily order her around/bribe her), and since the truth is to be avoided, Wylla is who they can name. And that is the name given by both Eddard & Edric. There's no particular reason for Starfall to employ her as a wetnurse later just because Ned had shown up with her. I don't think I understand the question. Ned went with just a small number of men to the Tower, not with any women he could point to as the mother. We don't know what he was expecting when he went there. When people give different answers, like the fisherman's daughter or Ashara, it's more likely they're making guesses. But if someone gives the same name as Ned (even while Ned normally avoids discussing the subject at all), I suspect coordination. Where did she come from? If she was there (which is entirely plausible, for the reasons you gave), my guess is Starfall. It's nearby, Arthur Dayne is there, and as Rhaegar's closest confidant he would be trusted with arranging such a thing. Other people knowing Arthur is at the Tower could also explain how Ned knew to look there, since he knows someone at Starfall. How is saying "we don't know" making an assumption? No we don't "know" such a thing. It's entirely possible that Edric is repeating a deliberate lie. I don't think it's "massive" at all. The Daynes were already aligned with the loyalists, and the new regime was taking a light touch with Dorne after what happened to Elia & her children. Ned actually has met Ashara before, Barristan seems to think there was enough trust for her to "look to Stark". And there's no evidence Varys has even heard of this "vast public lie" about Wylla which we only know of Ned telling Robert. Ned is focused on Jon, but to him talk about Ashara touches on that. So he prohibits any mention of her, including the bits I quoted which don't mention Jon. If you've heard of the idea of "building a wall around the Talmud", Ned is similarly not taking any chances here. None of that block of text mentioned Jon at all! It was entirely about the Daynes. What she heard is "that name", and it is that name which Cat says was never spoken of again. Ashara exists and there are people who remember her, regardless of Jon. Ok, there doubt in the fandom, but that's the public perception in Westeros, and a reason to gossip about her. The Daynes are a famous family, and if the new lord of Winterfell is somehow responsible for the deaths of both elder siblings within a short span of time, that's interesting. We know there's gossip about Ned's fight with Arthur (including rumors that it was single combat), and since the sword is famous people talk about Ned returning Dawn. It's not merely local. Cat, Cersei & Barristan all know about Ashara's suicide (or "suicide", if you prefer). Harwin has also heard about her. Arya probably would have heard if Ned hadn't prohibited any such talk. Maybe, or maybe not, but that was centuries ago, before the Seven Kingdoms were unified. Ashara is someone Arya's father actually interacted with. Are you referring to when Cat asked rather than when Robert asked? He doesn't want to talk about it, a short lie is enough. The hierarchy might be a bit flatter there, but it's still a hierarchy. Ned doesn't do anything about Mycah's murder, because he's a smallfolk. He does do something about peasants in the Riverlands being raided... because the feudal lords there forced said peasants to go to KL requesting the crown's help. For more on Ned being a product of his culture, he's willing to indulge Arya's sword-practice... but still insists she's going to grow up to be proper lady who has sons that get to do the things she aspires to do herself.
  24. I think opponents of the Lannisters would continue to make that argument.
  25. No, he never actually called himself a hard scifi writer or referred to anything he wrote as hard scifi. A hard scifi work begins with a scientific premise (like the unusually high surface gravity of Hal Clement's Mesklin) and explores the implications from there. Merely being a post-apocalyptic world in which humanity diverged into distinct races wouldn't separate the story from Sword of Shannara. He says a hard scifi writer would consider it nonsense, and indeed it doesn't make any scientific sense. But GRRM is not an IRB prohibiting a scientific experiment, he's a writer of fiction... just as Star Trek is fiction. And he approves of that specific element in Star Trek. I haven't seen any actual quote from GRRM where he said "I wouldn't do such a thing". Instead the lore for Westeros seems to crib from writers like Lovecraft who DID do such things. The rules in this series aren't clear, and the actual implications of the extended seasons in Westeros aren't really explored either. It's a commonplace observation that "GRRM can't math", and a hard scifi writer depicting such a world would actually dive into the math of how to support such a population through such seasons. People have also brought up how little sense it makes that Westeros is so politically & linguistically unified (even speaking Common north of the Wall!) given its size & duration of settlement, and how actual dynasties in our history didn't last nearly as long as GRRM's. GRRM isn't interested in that kind of realism, he wants things larger than life, even if no structure like the Wall could actually exist. Now you are the one assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove! Which interview, and when in it? I don't know what you're getting at. Milk of the poppy influences skinchanging? The maesters attempt to put a scientific gloss on things... but they are regularly wrong for disbelieving in magic! They think the Others are just a myth, but we know they're real. They dismiss Barth (who's always right, because he believes in magic) on dragons changing sex, but Aemon confirms Barth's accuracy while dying (and we know Dany is the real magical deal). It would be entirely sensible to note that various elements of Star Wars would not pass the muster by the standards of hard scifi, but work just fine as space opera. How would it not make sense for him to be using a hypothetical hard scifi writer rather than himself? What interviews? Or is it just the one where he approved of Spock being an interspecies mix? I don't agree that "full fantasy" means "soft fantasy" and the alternative is "hard fantasy". There's even a division within fantasy literature of "high fantasy" with a Tolkien-esque "secondary world" and "low fantasy" in which the fantastical intrudes on our world. The latter can be just as "soft" as the former, even if a much smaller portion of the world is fantastical. I disagree. The genetics make no scientific sense, along with the other things I already mentioned above in this very reply. The main way he handles that is by having magic be absent from the world for a long time so it's not changing things. Although there would still need to be magical explanation for the existence of something like the Wall (and there is no "hard" explanation for that). I suppose that's another similarity between Theon & Jaqen, since the latter also took on a new name after Clash of Kings. Why not? If joining the Brave Companions is supposed to indicate someone is a mummer, shouldn't it apply to all the Bloody Mummers? How do you know he's really not? If he was placed in some other part of the dungeon, changing his face wouldn't set him free. How do we "know" that about Jaqen but not Alchemist? Your memory has been wrong so often, why should anyone trust you? If she had gotten pregnant, she wouldn't have stayed in that position. And, indeed, Ned found her at Starfall rather than KL. Tyrion is making a guess, he doesn't actually know. Connington has been with this kid since roughly 288, so about 12 years. He would have a much better idea. Connington was in the GC for five years before leaving in "disgrace" and faking his death. That's a short enough timeline that two years would be quite visible. Correct, he was in the GC for five years and would know a newborn couldn't be Aegon. He would know how old Aegon should be, and a child too underdeveloped wouldn't seem right to him at the time. The plausible error range for him is wider vs Catelyn seeing how old infants Jon vs Robb are, but still not as wide as for Tyrion. Why not? Isn't sending him to the Faceless Men effectively obliterating whoever he was before? He could decide not to send his son out at all. As Illyrio himself notes, to crown the child is to kill it. "Their own child"? Did Varys give birth to YG? But then why send those to an entirely different child!? I don't know of any other young child who would have old clothes at Illyrio's manse. The text didn't say "botched", it said "crude". A dwarf can wear "crude" motley without ruining any illusion that he's a jester. It comes directly after that! The way language works is that "until" refers to a preceding clause if it comes later in the sentence, or a later clause if it's at the beginning of the sentence. I know Cersei is frequently wrong, but she is at least able to parse a sentence in her own language. If I said "President you shall be, until comes another to defeat you during your next election" there's no need for any prior sentence for "another" to refer to. It would simply refer to the next President, who will defeat you and become President as a result. Maggie never calls anyone else beautiful. Nor does Cersei during her conversation with Maggie. Theon was known for smiling frequently. He even named his horse "Smiler"! Your "evidence" is nonsense. Whether you call her Lannister or Baratheon, she's still part of an enemy faction. Someone earlier in the thread said you don't have what amounts to a "theory" but instead a "hypothesis". I don't feel the need to distinguish it that way here, but you can't proclaim something to be the truth when it hasn't been confirmed and you're the only one who even takes the idea seriously. "Theory" is how others are going to regard it, and in your interactions with them you can't expect them to regard it as truth. How is he a "primary candidate"? He's not a brother to Cersei at all, and didn't even grow up with any siblings. And the Valyrian word doesn't indicate a Valyrian person, unless there's a group of Valyrians and one gets a nickname among the others (although even a nickname like "Jorah the Andal" is inaccurate).
  • Create New...