Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Azarial

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. They made a deal with Jon directly because he asked. Jon thinks they are separate, so he worries about paying it back. It doesn't disprove anything. I still find this no less likely than other options. My personal original thought was that it was a loan to Jon not the NW and them killing him means they get nothing. But there are lots of options and like to consider them all.
  2. I always thought that the fire being used to keep skinchangers out meant that you couldn't skinchange a dragon, or that you need to be a person animated by fire to do so at the very least. We also hear about how dragons are smarter than people and wonder if there were skin changing involved if it wouldn't be the inverse. Where the dragon not the human is in charge. I thought this meant he could see through the comet. People in world note the comet overhead in the scenes linked with all the visions he has while in a coma. Then there is the Burning Bran(d) stuff. I think he controls, or is the comet and that is metaphorically linked to a flaming sword and a dragon but not literally. So he is flying, just not in the way most seem to think. Just what I noticed, and I guess it could be coincidence but...
  3. I can see what you described being one possible answer. I can also see that it would be included in IT lump debt that we see Stannis take on without asking many questions. I see it being added to the bulk debt prior to Stannis signing as a plus in their mind, since he agrees to pay all IT debt with no amendments. They know how desperate for funds he is, and his rigidity would be a plus in favor of him paying it back and they made him agreeing to pay all debts no questions asked one of their terms for giving him the money, in short he has no choice. Tycho also knows that Stannis is living at the wall, left his family at the wall in the care of Jon etc. so there are some pretty good reasons to believe he would.
  4. Because they are granting Stannis a new loan for the IT, so clearly they are granting loans to the IT so long as it's to a new ruler. And Tycho said outright to Jon that they view the NW as servants of the IT, and Stannis was directly linked with the wall. It's not much of a leap. The fact that they view themselves as separate and choose their own leader is irrelevant. It's what the IB believes that matters.
  5. Tycho said that he viewed the NW as servants of the Iron Throne, so I agree that the reason Jon found securing the loan 'too easy' was that they were simply adding it to the IT debt, like @CamiloRP said. But can also see this being the end of the IB when the IT no longer exists and there is no one to pay the loan back. Especially given all the things @John Suburbs said about the Iron Bank being overextended and not being able to absorb the losses.
  6. Thank you! I keep hearing people say the Starks, the descendants of the Stone Kings of the North, with their Stoney expressions, and their granite castle, and stone grey eyes and stone direwolves curled at their feet that guard against ice are ice...somehow? And keep wondering if I'm reading a different story. Glad to see it's not just me Dragon Stone, Stone eggs, some Valyrian house killed off the rest with the FM who founded Bravos, also linked to Stone. Both Starks and Targs are stone. Prior to Aegon the Targs watched for threats from the East (fire) while the Starks watched for threats from the North (Ice) It's not that complicated! They are both Stone, they are both on the same freakin side (Or were until Aerys snapped). And seeing a white haired woman (likely a child of the Forrest) sacrifice a man , likely a Stark given how much it upset Bran, doesn't mean the Starks sacrificed people. Just like the Valyrians the Targs opposed used blood sacrifice to hatch dragons, but the Targs hatched them by placing them in the cradle, no sacrifice. One does not equal the other just because there are some similar aspects. And the Direwolves are a warning that Winter AKA ice is coming. It's spelled out in the books. A warning of something doesn't mean a direct causal link. A historical connection to something doesn't mean culpability in the current generation either. Unless you think Dany is an evil slaver who should have burned up like her Valyrian ancestors? No? Well, if that's true that she isn't linked to her ancestors in that way, than it's also true for the Starks. Brandon Ice eyes and the Nights King may be evil, but that doesn't mean current Starks are by default. It's faulty logic to claim otherwise. Especially since the one thing both families have in common is fighting against these historical evils. Why do so many people ignore the stone references? How can you understand anything if you ignore 1/3 of the symbolism?
  7. He believes in the seven, and miracles but he believes most of the 'magic' he has seen is tricks and lies. So he is far more of a sceptic than anyone else blindly following Stannis. He openly questions everything, this is one of the reasons Stannis values his council so much. He believes is the shadow baby as he saw it, but he knows it's evil and sees the toll it took on Stannis. He doesn't trust the rest (and is right not to). He didn't agree with the leaches, he didn't believe in them being responsible for the deaths of Rob and Jeof, and Renly, but knew Stannis did. He knew 'lightbringer' was a fake, he didn't buy into the whole burning people for wind thing, and felt that if any wind came from it it was evil. I think his level headedness and not believing everything out of hand would give him credibility. Could be wrong, but it is normally easier to believe the fantastical from someone you know doesn't believe in things easily in my opinion. And since Shadow babies aren't that far removed from icy shadows AKA Others, he is a good fit for seeing them as they do seem to be parallel creatures based off the stories of their creation--the whole the women would lay with them and create half human monsters bit sounds like an inverse of the shadow baby to me. I mean Mel a fire monster lay with a mortal man and created a half human shadow (a shadow with Stannis's face) sounds really similar to me. Regardless, him being the biggest magical non believer doesn't mean he believes in nothing. I meant it as a sliding scale not a black and white coin toss. He believes the least of Stannis's men and questions everything, and this fact is well known given that he was imprisoned for it. That was what I meant, although apparently it was unclear, my bad.
  8. It is possible that Brandon was tasked with finding Ned a suitable match, and that the "turn to Stark" was about a marriage alliance. So it could be true and one sided. She was said to have been dishonored, and the best way to solve that is marriage, and would explain why Barristan is so fond of Ned along with the Dayne's fondness of him in general. As he would have agreed to save her honor by marrying her. Add to that the fact that this would have ended the Rhyswell hopes of a Stark match (Ben was to young, and said to have decided to join the watch around the same time) and it all fits. Then Ashara's kid dies, her brother dies, and Ned married someone else and turns up with a bastard kid and her killing herself from the shame and grief of it all makes a lot more sense too. To the thread in general: As to the secret tunnel I thought Lewin mentioned this to Theon when trying to convince him to go to the wall? and wasn't there mention of a cave entrance near Long Lake? It's been a few years since my last re-read but I thought it was implied (Not stated, just hints) that the cave in blocked the entrance, but it existed and lead to long lake. Could be misremembering but that would be an odd thing to misremember. I Always thought the crypts linked up with the tunnels that should be around the roots of the weirwood, just seems logical given all the other weirwoods we know of having cave systems for the children surrounding them.
  9. Even if it's all over Davos would be a great POV to see the aftermath. Cotters letter just doesn't seem like enough closure on the situation. And Davos being so level headed would be a really good person to spread the word about the Others being real, even if the Southron fools don't listen to him about 'Lordly' things they should listen about this, since he is their camps biggest magical non believer.
  10. I thought I was one of the only ones that had this suspicion. Nice to see someone else got the same impression. The true beauty part is what made me wonder if it was possible given Vary's seeming to think Aegon was the real deal when talking with Kevin. Well, that and Ashara's death, there are hints in the wording around that as well, especially if her baby was with Brandon. Actually I've found a few clues to it being true. I don't think it's a strong theory yet, but I don't think it's weak sauce it just hasn't been fleshed out yet.
  11. I think he wrote her to show another aspect of the power dichotomy. She is showing how difficult it is for an outsider to rule a place because they don't know the culture, and don't know who they should trust, and as an outsider the people don't trust them regardless of their intent, or who they are as a person. She is also showing how one person making calls on justice on a case to case basis is inherently flawed. She has no standard set of rules and it causes her a lot of difficulty. We are shown by characters like Jamie and Jon how strict rules with no room for interpretation or circumstance is flawed, she is showing the opposite extreme to that. George is showing both extremes and their pitfalls so that he can establish a middle ground in the end without it coming out of nowhere and feeling unearned. I don't see how her failing to win negates her character. If she loses and lives I think it would be very interesting to read how she handles that. Likewise, I think her letting that dream go in order to save Westeros instead of defeating it would be a fantastic arc for her. Remember she didn't want Westeros, Visery's did. From the moment she started living his goals and dreams and forgot hers she has been unfulfilled and unhappy. She wants a home (not Westeros, a real home) and a loving family. She will never get that if she wins, so her getting the throne means she as a character loses on a personal level. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think her winning a throne she never wanted, and ruling a country she hasn't seen since she was an infant, and even then she was only on Dragonstone she has never been to Westeros proper, all while making her to miserable forever is the only way for her arc to have meaning? Then ask yourself what other ways of ending her story would give her arc meaning. Then you'll have your answer. I'm assuming you connected with her on a personal level, not just with her arc of becoming queen, so think about what you connected with when Visery's was still alive and she wasn't dreaming of being queen, and think if he lived what would you want for her in the end? Whatever that answer is, her rediscovering that goal/dream will give her character arc meaning. For me it was her desire for a home like the one with the red door, and a loving family and personal security and I don't want her to give that up to become queen as we've already seen what giving up love for a crown does to a person and Cersei 2.0 isn't how I want Dany's story to end. Someone born and raised there who knows the people and the culture. I also don't think anyone could rule the whole thing effectively. I think it should be broken into at least 4 parts-The far north (I'm assuming the wall and Nights watch are going to be gone), the north, central, and the south AKA Dorn. As it is too big, with to many separate climates and needs to be effectively ruled as one country prior to technology existing. If it were broken into 4 kingdoms, there may be a great king or emperor over the other 4 who would be more of a figure head, and we know who that is. I don't get him as a day to day ruler, but a figurehead I can see. And some new checks and balances, GRRM doesn't strike me as the type to put in an absolute ruler. I never thought she was a Mary-Sue, and have never bothered to discus anything with anyone who is calling any character a Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu, as I don't think anyone making those assessments is being honest about the characters. I find the whole picking sides and arguing thing tedious as it detracts from being able to discuss the story objectively. And the people who call characters Mary/Gary tend to be the ones arguing for one sole character and use this to try and discredit the other characters they perceive as being in their way.
  12. There is a lot that people who compare her to a psycho chose to ignore. Her empathy with the Waif. Her horror at what she experienced through her first face. Her seeking to know what people did to deserve death, not being willing to kill blindly (I don't think the FM take on blind killers, this was a test and she passed). They don't want the people to be judged based on emotion, they look for the impartial truth. So much of her training is about this, like a judge in modern times. Her caring for Weasel and the others in the Riverlands even when she knows she'd be safer alone. Her going to try and save Gendry after he was captured instead of abandoning him. Her willingness to forgive the Hound enough to not be willing to harm him (not enough to send help, but still!) despite her hating him longer than any other character. Her love of her family, psychos don't feel love. They only mimic it. Her clinging to reminders of home and family. Her longing for her family and safety. These aren't the things psychos think about, or do. There are very few true psychos in the books. And no main characters that I can think of. Roose is the closest to a true cold psycho I can think of. He's cold, emotionless, his son was murdered and he just accepted it and declared the murderer his heir. That is a psychopath.
  13. I'm not arguing that I believed that lol. But we aren't told so it is the most extreme option, no matter how unlikely. Most likely is that Howland dealt with the bones, and Ned dealt with Jon ensuring neither was ever linked with the other, and explaining why only Ned was mentioned as going to Starfall. I was simply giving an example of the worst possible thing Varys could have said to Robert. The if Robert heard this Ned would have to lie extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities. I hadn't really thought of what Robert heard, and your option never occurred to me as most people seem to think he heard nothing (silly) or that Ned, Howland, and Wylla all stayed together and made up a story (some that Ashara was also involved) that Varys then relayed(complicated). But my belief of Ned and Howland split up, agreeing to meet at the port near Starfall at a set time, fits pretty well with yours as it removes the complication of there being a second lord present as a possible father. Having Ned, a woman and a baby riding up like a family really works with your theory. And that's my current head cannon until GRRM says different. Plus we have an example of this sort of action with Brienne and Pod, as well as Dunk and Egg, so why not here too.
  14. I always thought he'd hear something. Just wasn't sure what. It could have been Ned turned up with Lyanna's body and a baby and nothing else for all we know. Exactly what was reported would impact if Ned would need to lie. Since Vary's would be trying to win over Robert he would want to tell him something big. That is why my mind never went to something as simple as your explanation. But now that I've heard the missing piece I like it, really. This part I've seen you explain before, and it always made sense to me. It was just the one detail about how the past conversation would have gone that previously kept me from being fully sold on the Ned wouldn't need to lie at all even in the past, I was 90% sold on this theory working before and now I 100% get the theory, and it does fit.
  • Create New...