Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by YeniAy_Ottoman

  1. @DaerontheDaring First of all, I sincerely thank you. I became a member of this forum years ago, but since I realized that the members were active recently (nobody was writing at that time, I left too) I started to write again. Ever since I came back I observed a weird form of discussion on this forum (not saying for everyone); Let me just say that it is not a healthy shape in general. That's why I was very happy to see your healthy method. I find it more enjoyable to discuss with people who think differently because we can have longer conversations. Of course, if I'm not a burden to you, I'll ask for something. As you can imagine, English is not my native language, so I can understand wrong some of the things you wrote. Please correct me when you think something like this is happening. Now what I understand correctly is that the basis of your thinking basically rests on three things(of course according to the arguments I have presented). 1- Age gap 2- Arya is the only positive woman Jon knows about(?) So naturally he thinks about her all the time(?) 3- The fact that the author continues to keep some things does not show that he continues to keep the love plot; example; as the main character Tyrion's plot has changed so much (?) Now ... As you said, Martin discovers many characters and stories along the way. This can be a very troublesome situation for a gardener writer. Yet we know that Martin knows the end of the story of all the Stark children and the great Lannisters; We also know that characters like Jon, Arya, and Tyrion wrote as planned from the very beginning. He said he knew who was going to die and who will marry. ( It is a fact that not everything was explained in the letter. For example, Cersei and his other children are not mentioned, but we can infer between the lines that they exist. Therefore, we cannot know exactly how many of the additions you mentioned are not or are in the first place. It is a closed box for us. For example, Meereen ... While ASOIAF was 3 volumes, Dany was coming in volume 2. Did Martin have planned 3 city conquests in the first phase or not? Not like now but a quick one. Because if you pay attention, the conquest of the first three cities in book 3 happened quickly in one book, but then Dany decided to stay in Meereen because the volume of the book increased and naturally the story expanded. Perhaps it was not in the plan at all, and again, city conquests were added as the story expanded. We do not know. We can't be sure.) Let's remember some of his statements In general, we see that GRRM sticks to the storyline and even to the plot in his explanations. In my Outline review article, I have already examined each of them and stated how and which ones have changed. Tyrion example; Tyrion's storline is exactly the same. Tyrion first fought on the side of his own family and was betrayed by them, establishing a close relationship with some of the Stark children, and then becoming enemies of his own family and changing sides ... Is there any deviation in this storyline? No. I'm sure it caught your attention, I marked it with bold already ... Martin says there are no deviations in the plot in his statement, but adds that he has changed some of his plans. So we can see it as the official explanation of why we don't see all of the plot mentioned in the letter in the books, kind of. We continue with Tyrion. Tyrion was not married to Sansa in the first place. He made friends with Arya and fell in love with her, fighting for her with Jon. Tyrion fought Robb and then burned Winterfell. Finally, he moved to the Stark side. So a significant part of Tyrion's plot has changed, but his arc is the same. The reason for this is two; "other plot inspiration" and "forced changes in the expanding story." Despite that, he fought alongside the Stark army alongside his family, plotted ... He befriended Jon, not Arya (probably the most accurate plot, because for Dance 2 and more, Tyrion's relationship with all dragons is important, and only with Jon having close friendship, it will be much more important in the future). Tyrion was betrayed by Jaime (and other family members) and waged war on his own family, changing sides. This cannot be presented as a 100% claim (we do not write the book after all, we cannot say 100% to any claim), but I think it would be correct to think that Tyrion will be with the Starks as well as the Targ in the future. Since this part of Tyrion's arc is not yet complete, we can offer many possibilities. It is noteworthy that Tyrion marries Sansa and Sansa marries a Lannister in every way. So there is a reason why Tyrion was attached to the Starks and Sansa's marital status was locked up by the Lannisters. I will not comment on Sansa, but from the point of view of Tyrion ... it can be predicted that Tyrion's connection with the Starks in some way from the first plan will have a significant effect on the story. I hope I didn't explain it complicated. :I So in general the Tyrion example shows us this. In general, we can see that GRRM holds every plot that will affect characters' arc. That's exactly why GRRM says "I know what Jon, Arya and Tyrion's arc will be from the very beginning", there is no change in this matter, only some plots change. Tyrion has no love for Arya. It is healthy to assume that this was not a crucial plot for Tyrion, because Martin changed that. Of course, if Tyrion is not planning to do anything in the future when he meets the Starks again ... I think this possibility may still be possible (because Thysa's description is somewhat reminiscent of Arya, and also what happened in the Arya and dwarf scene in Mercy POV seemed to be a sign of that, but it could just a wave to the old idea), but it's a low probability for me. Still as you can see i cannot ignore some possible signs. Here we can discuss what effect a love between Jon and Arya might have for their arc and the significance of this influence. Based on this, we can offer some ideas on whether Martin has decided to keep this love plan. BUT! As a fandom, we can discuss which plot causes what kind of arc change, but as a result, it is not 100% certain as everyone will only write their own predictions. Arguing basically doesn't make much sense, as different points of view will produce different results. Because there is no certainty of the conclusion to be drawn, it is all possible, what matters is what the author thinks and wants. We cannot both know if the love for Jon-Arya is from "changing plans" since we cannot reach a definitive conclusion on the possibilities, and it may be healthy for us to admit that we cannot definitely claim it. Of course you "you think it changed, I think not." But as I said, if we start talking about this arc-plot effect, we cannot come to a conclusion. It might be better if I say what I wanted to say at the end now. The current discussion is generally based on "probability" and "story base" thoughts. I call this "story math". The mathematics of the story is pregnant with many plots (I don't know if there is such an idiom in English, but there is an idiom called "pregnant" in Turkish. This means that the x issue can cause many events to happen, but which one is not certain.) Therefore, some of our comments that we will make based on story math will not be wrong basically. We just don't know which boy Martin will choose. Whether either party's interpretation is justified will depend entirely on Martin's choice. This leads us to a new dead end, right? Some of my friends often comment only on the basis of story math and form theories. But Martin said something. Foreshadowings and signs. You can comment with story math for some writers, because not every writer uses foreshadowing and markup, but Martin uses it extensively. According to him, if we follow them and combine them correctly, we can predict some events. I even heard that some fans had guessed the end of the story correctly. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of foreshadowing in the first book as well, he regretted that. I passed it all, in the first book, it's the sign of the end of the story (somewhere in the first half). In other words, we have to make interpretations by looking at them while creating and commenting on the mathematics of the story. I gave a link where a member showed a lot of possible foreshadowing over the course of 5 books. I think a theory should be discussed along with these. 1- Age Gap - 2 - Arya is the only positive woman Jon knows about(?) So naturally he thinks about her all the time(?) This young age issue is very troubling among fandom, it is very understandable. The characters are very young. Martin had already wanted a swift transition at first, but he couldn't. So he came up with the idea of a 5-year gap, but he did not succeed in this. He wanted to use 5 years for Arya and Bran to grow up. Of course in another interview she had said about all the children and the dragon, but she often said she wanted Arya and Bran to grow up. So all the children in general, Arya and Bran in particular ... He even said that adult characters could not expect Arya to enter puberty. Elsewhere, "If it has to conquer the world at age 12, so be it." he said. So age has been a bit of a problem for Martin as well, but he has been looking for a solution to this. The thing is, in a story that he planned in 6 volumes and intends to make a 5-year gap, you cannot imagine that he gave up the plots that he planned and gave signs in the beginning because he could not solve the age problem while 2-3 books are left to the end of the story. Martin said he would not give up on his plans he had given his hints. If he does it, it would make him a liar, and he is not a liar, he said. But don't think that Martin is giving up about this age thing completely. BTW, I didn't understand those Tyrion-Aerys and Jon and Arya's 20-year-old interpretation???? As we approach this age issue, we interpret according to today's moral taboos and assume the same in the story, but it is not. This is the wrong approach. Jon is 16, Arya is 11. In the next book he will be 17, Arya will be 12. Maybe she will be 13 in the end, we do not know. I argued about this age issue with someone else, so I'm hoping it won't be a problem if I copy and paste my comment. When we look at the story, love and marriage at a young age often appear in the history of asoiaf. In fact, it occurs in the middle ages of our universe. When you enter adolescence in the Middle Ages, in the laws and social perception of that period, you are young people who have reached the age of marriage, not children. If you try to judge that period with the perception of today, it would be wrong. Perhaps 100 years from now, people will see 18-year-olds marrying is immoral. Maybe the age of marriage for them will be 20. We cannot know this from today. But different periods bring different perceptions and conditions. We have to look at each age from its own window. Historians know this very well. As a result, we have to overcome this age problem in the books. "Imagine their age a few years older," said Martin. I tend to do it like this, I recommend it. Back to ASOIAF ... In Asoiaf, girls bloom at the age of 12. This indicates that the age of marriage has come. There are also much younger marriages. These are political of course. But these are happening. So the people of westeros accept this in their minds and don't see it as immoral. For example; When Jon heard about the marriage, did he find it immoral for Ramsay's age to marry 11-year-old Arya? No, he just hated it, but not because of age. Or the marriage of Sansa and Tyrion? In fact, he did not comment on that at all. Well, did Cat or Robb comment on that? Yes, it's true they hated this marriage, but considering the age gap between two years old, did they take it immoral? No. If I remember correctly, one of Alysanne's daughters married an elderly Arryn at a very young age. Nobody called it immoral. The girl Quentyn falls in love with is 12 years old. When she blossomed, the prince wanted to marry her. As far as I remember, the girl had done something of her own to attract the prince's attention. Arya will be 12 years old in the new book(at least). Martin announced that she was going to go to puberty. Reading Mercy POV, no one cannot tell that Arya is sexually incapable of using her femininity or reaching sexual maturity. -- If you remember Sansa POV, LF told Sansa that marriages with a difference in age could be better. Sansa also accepted this and thought positively. What I want to show here is that such things are acceptable in that culture. How many age difference is there between Rhaegar and Lyanna? At least 5-7. No one commented on Rhaegar's kidnapping a much younger girl, they commented on other matters. So I think you need to put the age issue aside, you're not talking about a valid cultural perception for asoiaf. This is our cultural perception, today's taboo. Today we call anyone who has sex with a 14-year-old girl pedophilia, but there was no such perception 100-150 years ago. But look, I find it a bit hypocritical to suggest that Arya will have an affair with Gendry when the subject of age is mentioned. "There's a 5 year difference between Jon and Arya, so that can't be!" Then why do people think that Arya might be with a man older than her? Do you know the age difference between Arya and Gendry? 5! Arya and Jon? 5! So? The age difference is an obstacle for Jon and Arya, but ok for Arya and Gendry? We're not commenting that Jon fell in love with Arya's memory. We say that all these events, these words and actions, are a foreshadowing from the author. Sibling love is of course a taboo. Well, that's the point in the story. Didn't you read Outline? This love between the two is pain for them. Why is that? Because they think of each other as real brothers, when they learn that they are cousins, they relax. This is one of the things that makes this love interesting in the story. (If you can choose the people to fall in love with, tell us your secret. So that nobody will suffer love. ) Jon's remembrance of Arya by looking at Ygritte, just You can't interpret because she is his only surviving relative and that Arya is the only positive female figure, it is very meaningless. The fact that these two characters think of each other so often has nothing to do with Melisandre. How did you interpret this, I can't be sure. Let's say, Melisandre is responsible for this in the 5th book, who is responsible for the other books? This is an unbasic and misinterpretation. Since the first book, Jon and Arya often think of each other. Arya wishes she would be with Jon while still in KL; Jon wishes the same ... Arya's laughter is the thing what Jon warms his inside in the cold weather when he left WF. Both think each other in abundance as the text allows. Since Jon learns that Arya is alive and is going to marry Ramsay, he thinks of her more often throughout the book, not because of Melisandre. Do you need someone else to think of someone you love and worry about in your life? Does this make sense? Jon thinks about Arya even as he dies. Actually, this is a very nice parallel with Jon's dad. Why is that? Rhaegar died for Lyanna, and he was thinking of Lyanna as he died. Jon also died for Arya, and he was thinking of Arya as he died. That's what I call parallelism! We have to admit, this is really a sign. At least it's fair to admit that it's a thought-provoking and remarkable detail. After all, what's the point of thinking of their each other this way in a fictional story? Shouldn't you think about this? I'm a writer, I don't write too many scenes to show that the two characters to sibling love each other. No one doubts Robb and Jon's love and close bond for each other, but have 40-50 scenes written about the two? No. Why? Because the current number is enough. But if I'm going to write love about two characters, then I'll write 40-50 scenes over 5 books. To give clues to this, I have to do this anyway so when this happens, people shouldn't say "Where did this come from?" Did I get this positive woman thing wrong? Because this comment sounds more weird. So a really weird comment for me. Please do not take me wrong. Why? We are talking about someone who compares the body of his lover with that of his sister. Yes, Arya's only "positive" figure in the female character around Jon. Other figures, Cat-Sansa and others ... They treat Jon badly or coldly. This causes Jon's female taste to be women like Arya. Jon likes women who act like Arya. Remember what Jon thinks of Mycella, he doesn't like traditional ladies. This is why Jon felt emotional towards Ygritte and flirted with Val. It is obvious that he likes her. That's why when Jon saw the girl, he immediately remembered Arya, because Ygritte's not only personality but even her hair messiness looks like Arya. But if these women were like other traditional women, they would never be of interest to Jon. Anyway, the taste of male-female of all of us, begins to take shape when we are children. But I would never compare the body of a man I fell in love with to the bodies of my father or brothers! It's vile! Even this thought bothers me. Normal nobody does that! Did you? Jon falls in love with a woman, has sex with her, and compares that woman's body to Arya's body from the very beginning. No matter where we read these scenes from the story, it's odd and nauseous for everyone. Something really disgusting. I guess you think Arya will be headed to RL when she returns? So there is also a "time" problem? I do not think like this. https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/158500-aryas-return-to-westeros-to-where/ Also, the time problem is more likely to be with Dany, as you would accept that they will both get together halfway through the last book at the earliest (assuming Dance 2 will be between Aegon-Dany). After that, the dawn war… well. Jon has spent more time with Arya in the past, and when she comes back, she will spend more time with Jon in every way. So the relationship between the two already has an infrastructure, it will just turn into something else. You are 100% sure that there will be a relationship between Jon and Val, I have never confirmed such a theory. Martin too. A possible relationship between Jon and Dany cannot be a parallel to that of Rhaegar and Lyanna. Whose son is Jon? Rhaegar! Such a comment could have been made if Jon was Ned's son; Ice and fire met again ... But Jon is a Targ. It is both ice and fire. He is Rhaegar's son. If Jon and Arya are together, then it will be the way you say. Rhaegar's son Jon Targ, Arya who looks like Lyanna ... Rhaegar and Lyanna become a continuation of his love. I understood the basics of your thinking, if I understood correctly what you wrote. But as you will see, I see a lot of empty point in your thinking, so I had objections. I'm sorry if I used the wrong word. Thank you.
  2. @Springwatch I do not think that the information written in the books with the GRRM's explanation contradicts, everything is very clear to me. There is also no point or benefit in rejecting a uncontradictory explanation and believing in something the opposite. If you look at the complete explanation of GRRM, in SSM; It speaks very clearly about the mistakes that Ned made himself, I did not include all of them in the quote, but I did not need it, because in the sentence mentioned about Sansa, in fact, "all the blame is not Sansa, there are other factors." There was an explanation. There was more than one reason why an event occurred. There is more than one reason for what happened to Ned, and what Sansa telling Cersei the information he knew is just one of them. There is no point in denying something very obvious so stubbornly. It is very unnecessary. No character is faultless, but why Dany and Sansa stans try to make their characters' mistakes and wrongs seem right, it's ridiculous. Moreover, it causes very tiring and boring discussions for the rest of the fandom. Jon has mistakes, Arya has mistakes, Tyrion and the other characters have mistakes. Naturally, Sansa also has its mistakes. Let's accept this fact, we will all be happy, be sure.
  3. This should have been explained to D&D.
  4. You got me wrong. I'm talking about a terrible blizzard like on the show. I am not showing Show as a reference, I am showing an example. I never use Show as a reference. D&D is someone who let swim dragons in the sea! D&D is someone who sharpens a Valyria sword with a whetstone! I cannot use the fiction of such people as references for books!
  5. He is it in 2006. "The second Dance of Dragons does not have to mean Dany's invasion. SSM: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Comic_Con_San_Diego_CA_July_20_232/
  6. I say snow storm. Like on the show. Rain bothers but snow storm? I did not think so.
  7. It's one thing not to want a theory to happen, it's another to accept the facts about whether it will happen or not. I see some people often say, "I don't want it, so I prefer to ignore every evidence that exists," by their actions. Anyway. There are so many hints about it. Of course, I do not have a 100% claim, but I think this situation continues. If you look at the review here, you can see that GRRM has stayed faitfull to the storyline in general, and even some important plots. I already quoted it there, GRRM also said that the plot didn't deviate much, it just the story is extended. For example; by whom was Winterfell burned in the letter? Tyrion, Lannisters. With whom did Jon fought for Arya? Tyrion. Let's look at the books now. Who was Winterfell burned by? Ramsay, Boltons. With whom did Jon fought for Arya and will he fight in the next book? Ramsay! "I want my bride back!" As you can see, GRRM kept the same plot, only swapping Tyrion and Ramsay. He kept the warm relationship between Jon and Arya, kept Needle (jon gave it). GRRM has kept the plot where Jon is split between his vows and desire to help his family / Arya... and go on. Now it is difficult to argue that this plot is completely abandoned while all this is on the table. Even Jon's plot in book 5 is entirely based on Arya. Jon eventually dies because of Arya, and Arya is the "anchor" that Jon will need to return from the dead. You can check here my comment about the anchor thing. And possibly for Arya, it will be Jon himself who will make her leave FM(Hearing his death). Over the course of 5 books, Arya has thought Jon at least 42 times; Jon has thought of Arya at least 48 times. Considering that they think about their other siblings 3-5 times, this is quite extreme. Then somebody comes along and says, "No, it won't be love for between these two, you're presenting a very weak meta." What is powerful meta for these people? With the arguments they stole from other ship theories? Or are they arguments they fabricate by making up things that are not in the books? Or by interpreting a single prophetic phrase as they wish? Of course! On the other hand, a ship theory with countless strong arguments 5 books and what I wrote above has a weak basic! You may not want this ship theory, you may find it disgusting ... It has nothing to do with the argument. The important thing here is whether GRRM left a clue about it ... And he did! At least, "I still have doubts, but it looks like something serious is on the table, I can't ignore it." you should be able to say. Thanks.
  8. Of course, the moment they go to a cold place, they do not suddenly weaken. In time ... Just because dragons are standing on the snow, their firepower doesn't disappear, I don't mean such a thing... but if they get into a blizzard, I don't think they will be able to fly. Dragons were very uneasy even in the rain. Think about it this way, how would you be able to move in extremely cold weather? Can you act with all your efficiency? No. I beliebe dragons are like that. In the snow storm ... as I said, they probably can't fly. Geography for Dorne, meteorological for the north.
  9. We can make predictions about Jon by looking at these explanations of GRRM. After Jon returns to his human body, he will not be no doubt be the same Jon, but I don't expect a 180-degree transformation. As a result, a completely opposite personality to the old Jon makes the new Jon completely alien to the reader and causes us to feel odd. Jon's experience of death is a bit like Cat. Both were betrayed from their point of view and suffered from not being able to protect their loved ones. Death and such a traumatic death will naturally make Jon have a more brutal and darker personality(I believe he'll be like old winter kings). For example; The old Jon would not kill the FF children he took as hostages, but probably the new Jon can. We wouldn't want to bet on what the new Jon will or won't do by looking at the old Jon. Tormund often said to Jon in book 5, "Black-hearted black bastard." This is a sign. Another small detail is the purpose of the deceased to return ... If we look at GRRM's words ... if there is no incomplete job for the deceased person, that person probably won't come back from death. Jon has an unfinished job, Arya. For Beric it was his duty (grrm said) and for Cat it was the revenge of her children / family. For Jon, it's Arya ... So the anchor that will bring Jon back from the dead will be about her love for Arya and desire to rescue her and to protect her. This "unfinished jop" issue is a nice detail, because if you pay attention, it fits with ghost myths. As far as I know, there are stories in Western culture where people with unfinished jobs come back as ghosts, at least in popular stories and movies. Actually, I see this in the far east movies as well. I don't know if it is a culture settled there or they imported this myth from the west .. Anyway, it is a story that is generally used today. Ghosts are usually spirits seeking revenge (Cat) or spirits who cannot leave their loved ones and want to help (Jon). GRRM wrote a ghost myth. Jon's wolf's name is Ghost. I don't think Jon will return as the fire or ice wight either. I think he will return thanks to Ghost and the magic within himself, and of course the magic in the wall will be useful (Melisandre said that the spells she made while she was here were stronger). Jon is both ice and fire because of his parents. He needs to preserve this feature. If he is resurrected by one of the two forces then he cannot be both and Jon's parental twist will be meaningless. (If Bran is to be king, for Jon this blood tie could only mean for balance in the next war.) So Jon will be resurrected by his warg power, with the old northern powers ... There are lots of people who will see Jon die and resurrect. Apart from members of the NW and FF, there are also northern lords there; Mountain Lords, like Flint. When they asked GRRM why Beric's crew was changed their religion, he answered: "Because they saw R'hllor resurrect a dead person, and I would have believed it if I had seen it too." Remember the reaction Arya gave when she witnessed this, she didn't actually react badly. Wargs are being killed south of The Wall, that's what Haggon said. Jojen also said that people would look badly. Despite this, everyone did nothing, even though they knew Jon was a warg. Certainly, these things are a little bit luck, a little bit related to the mental construction of that society. Since we are reading a fictional story, in this case it's all about what GRRM wants. People will be afraid. They'll see Jon comes back from the dead. This is both something to fear and something to admire. You wouldn't try again to kill someone who died but didn't stay dead. Because you start to see him as immortal. You are afraid of him In that case, you want to obey such a person, because he is someone to be afraid of. On the other hand, immortality is the desire of many people, people generally fear death. Here is someone who has conquered death. Such a person is admired. The Mountain Lords are not there for fun, Jon never believed in their reason for coming. I think they were sent by Manderly and Reed. After all, Jon is Robb's heir. They came to watch their king. This new situation of Jon also means a stronger glimmer of hope for the north. The Starks were nearly extinct, there are no men who could have children except Jon and Rickon. Jon is an adult, Rickon and Bran are a child. Winter is coming, and a winter king is needed to lead north at such a time. Jon is someone who can fulfill this need. A Stark returning from the dead! A wolf that won't stay dead even if you kill him! Jon will be seen as a miraculous, and the people of the north will quickly bond around him. What is the meaning of the name Jon? Gift from God. We writers give names that reflect the personality or arc of the characters. We do not give names that do not serve a purpose. Of course there will be problems, everything will not be perfect, but I think the general portrait will be like this. Throughout the 5 books, the Starks were in terrible decline ... GRRM, in his letter "Things will be bad for the Starks before things get better." he said. Now is the time for the Starks to rise again. Bad thing for Stark enemies, winter is coming babe, for all of you!
  10. No, I mean geographic conditions are necessary to resist dragons; The mountainous region of Dorne and the cold, snowy weather of the north are a good advantage (dragons hate cold and blizzards and become weak).
  11. There may be scorpions in ships. We do not know this. However, just because you have 1000 ships, you do not send 1000 ships to war, this is technically a very serious financial burden, and if the other person already has (figuratively speaking) 15 ships, 10-15 or 20 ships would be enough. So you send as many forces as you think you can defeat the enemy. The power of the Targs was not the number of ships or soldiers, but the dragons. So any ship or military aid was undoubtedly inadequate, because no soldiers and ships could easily resist dragons. Geographical advantages such as Dorne or the north are needed.
  12. Since I remembered it that way, I interpreted it as a "help" against dragons.
  13. I would be grateful if you let me know later. Thank you.
  14. I may be mistaken, did Vale rent the ships? It remained in my mind that Braavos "sent".
  15. But I think Aegon will drive the white dragon too. So we'll have Valyrians with two dragons (and Jon). We know that Braavos sent ships to support Vale 300 years ago during the conquest, even then they did not take a good look at the Targ. They got along well from time to time as a matter of policy, that's right. They had dragons, after all, and they could use that. Do will they want to support Jon against Aegon and Dany? I'm not sure, Jon will have a dragon too. It is necessary to think better about Braavos, but I think we can make the most comfortable guesses after the 6th book.
  16. Pretty interesting approach. True, there was an iron mine. IB gets its name from here. I had forgotten that while writing. But yes, the mine was used as a kind of casing. The IB's treasury resource was investors' money, not a mining income.
  17. You used words that make me feel like you are describing Dany. No one can expect a person to be out of emotion. We are human beings, not robots. Even if you are an animal, animals also have emotions. What makes a person human; it's about how much you can master those emotions. No human being is perfect, naturally every person stumbles from time to time. The problem is those who stumble often ... Jon is a person who can dominate his emotions most of the time. Jon has his own desires and ambitions, but he dominates them. I can give the similarity of the Jon-Theon as an example of this. This is what I have to say is what is said and approved by the GRRM itself. Jon and Theon are two characters with similar circumstances and similar feelings. The two of them grew up under Ned's supervision, and both never really belonged to the Stark family but wanted to be. Theon is in his current state as he allows his ambitions and desires to poison him. Theon, as you say, is someone who moves with his emotions. Jon, on the other hand, has come to terms with what is happening and doesn't let his ambitions and desires poison him. Jon coped well with being a bastard. Theon wants to be a hero like Jon, but he could never be and is poisoned by his desires. Theon is Jon's foil character. Looking at Theon is the answer to the question of what he would turn into if Jon were the prisoner of his desires. For example; Despite all his desires when Stannis made his offer, Jon chose to stick to his vows. Despite his feelings for Ygritte, he chose to stick to his vows. Despite his father and Robb, he again chose to stick to his vows. If he was Theon, what would he do? He would immediately accept the offer, possibly even betraying NW in the first place because of Ygritte. Jon passed these three tests as he mastered his desires and emotions. However, he struggled about Arya, he surrendered to his feelings about Arya, he failed Arya test. Because despite all that control, every person has points where they are weak. Arya is Jon's weak spot. It gets "bad" because Jon stumbles on this, but how does Dany get "good" even though she stumbles many times? I like Dany, one of my favorites but I like more to be realistic. So, you shouldn't be as surrendering to your loving feelings for Dany and to your antipathetic feelings for the Starks. Thank you. I'm not sure why this topic turned to Dany vs Jon comparison. The subject of this topic was that neither side of the war can be portrayed as bad and good, since there is no pure good or pure evil. It was on Martin's rejection of the traditional war of good and evil. If you are doing this by going into a defense psychology because I give an example of Dany's action in the article, actually the topic has a content in your favor. This article also serves as an objection against those who declare her bad by protest the negative consequences of Dany's action as an example. In addition to what I wrote to the other friend ... Each character has a theme, a role. I can see that Martin wrote a chain of events for them according to these roles. For Dany, it's probably AA. Everyone reads that Dany is taking action to conquer Westeros and have the words of fire and blood reign. Dany wants to rule, the conquest of the three cities and all they lived are written in accordance with this arc. There's more to it than that, it's all actually a trailer. Dany has clearly shown us 2 things so far; 1. Dany is very good at conquering and managing an army. In this respect, Martin likened Dany to Nymeria. The second thing is that Dany is not so good when it comes to ruling. He has too many chains of errors. If Dany learns from them, then mistakes never repeat, and we'll see good things when she comes to Westeros, but while she's there there are too many signs that Dany's future will not be good at all. Above all, those prophecies of the Undying Once ... The trailer is over here ... The people of Meereen see Dany as an invader, that green grace has made it clear. Dany stans is stuck of this idea; the resistance of the Meereen people because of their desire to restore the old slavery order... Let's be logical, when a stranger invades your country, you don't think good things for her. Especially if that person destroyed the economy of the country, if her freedmen raped you and plundered your property ... Especially if she caused you to live a slave life by selling yourself as a slave. She is an invader (for Meereen people) and she have devastated everyone from top to bottom. She promised better but created worse. Moreover, she hates those people, she don't respect their culture, the people around her have to force her to impose certain cultural things. Banning a dress? Why? Because slave masters are wearing it? Bad icon for Dany, but it's their traditional dress ... It's unacceptable for her to think of such a thing, even on such a simple matter. Of course, wrong practices must be stopped, but they have to happen over time and with smart tactics. Let me give an example; When the Ottomans conquered the lands in eastern Europe, they saw in some regions, as written in the books, that lord was the tradition of the right of the first night. Such a thing was an unacceptable tradition for Muslims. First of all, it was objectionable in two ways; Extramarital sex is prohibited in Islam, and it was also a bullying to the public. The problem is that the Ottoman Empire had just conquered those lands and had to act wisely to establish a permanent order and gain acceptance. The solution produced by the pasha (lord) who ruled there was as follows; this tradition will not be completely removed, but will be reorganized. Lords could no longer have sex with any bride, but would charge "taxes" from them. This is a very clever move. Both the tyranny to people had ended, as well as protecting the lord's interest, so that the Ottoman Empire avoided looking like invaders attacking their culture. They applied this style of approach everywhere and as a result they were able to rule for 600 years. So the key word is; adaptation. Until now, unfortunately, Dany has not learned this. Therefore, she was not accepted. Nor will Dany be in any better shape when it comes to Westeros. She has adopted the latest words of fire and blood, she is no longer the mother who imprisons her babies, but a dragon that can destroy anyone who stands before her. I saw a good topic on Reddit yesterday; Could there be a war of religions in Westeros because of different religions ... so because of Aegon and Dany's religion ... Dany undoubtedly believes in Seven. Despite this, we know that Moqorro went to her. He will convince Dany of the AA issue, even if she is not a became a follower of R'hllor, she is supported by the followers of R'hllor. Dany grew up with the Essos culture, even her accent is Tyrosh. Next to him is an army of foreigners. Aegon belongs to the Seven religion. It grew up with the southern culture of Westeros. His army is those of Westeros origin. Jon also belongs to the old religion. He grew up with the northern culture of Westeros. Three dragons belonging to three different religions, three different cultures. This will be a problem. At least between Aegon and Dany ... Jorah had clearly said that Dany would look like an invader. Currently, Dany appears to be an invader in Meereen. Consequently, Dany's Essos failure will continue in Westeros to a greater extent. Hope you didn't think everything would be fine? This is Martin. So Dany's Essos arc is a trailer showing us the Westeros arc for us. Jon... We saw a feature of Jon in the first pov of the first book. Manipurist and mediator, persuasive skills ... Jon used these abilities from time to time and got what he wanted in a way. Undoubtedly, the things we are talking about are the little things in the first; Like convincing Ned about the wolves, convincing the boys about Sam ...But then Jon starts to persuades Stannis and even manipled him once at least; He convinces the lords about free folk (mountain lords ... and he convinces most of his men) ... Despite his zero source of income, Jon was able to solve a major NW problem by persuading Iron Bank to lend them Here's the trailer of Jon's arc; In book 3, we learn that there is Free Folk blood among the Stark ancestors, right or wrong. So Jon is part of Free Folk. This was often used against Jon and other people said "this boy is a wilding". Now Jon has a bond that belongs to both sides; Jon persuades and unites parties that have been enemies for thousands of years. He took steps in this direction. Jon was prejudiced against Free Folk at first, just as Dany was prejudiced against the Meereen people. He called them wilding. He fought them. He killed them. As he lived in them, he learned about their culture and gradually got rid of his prejudice. He calls them free folk now. Jon embraced them. He learned to respect their culture. He loved them and chose to protect them. Think like that; From Jon's point of view, they are people who killed their friends, maybe they killed his uncle. Jon did not forget his losses. But he saw that the right thing was peace, not war, because a great war is coming. Of course, Jon made some mistakes at this stage and was not flawlessly successful, but despite that he has had a great deal of success, and the Free Folk, which never obeys, is now obeying and serving Jon. Who has achieved this in history? FF sees Jon as a Stark and a crow, moreover Jon also betrayed them. Despite all this, in general, FF began to love and respect Jon and so they obeyed him, he persuaded them. A good sign that Jon is the "balance" factor I mentioned in this topic. Now imagine Jon doing the same between ice and fire. Because in Jon's arc the plot of persuasion and mediation has stalled. The issue of merging NW and FF, the enemy of thousands of years, was a trailer, we will watch the real movie as the war of ice and fire begins. There's a reason Jon's parents are fire and ice. Jon is both ice and fire. Either because Jon will sit on the Iron Throne, or because he will be the real savior in the battle of ice and fire. Considering the Bran issue, probably the second reason ... Otherwise, the biggest twist in the story would have no reason, which is a huge mistake that only a novice writer can make. GRRM is not a novice writer. Thank you.
  18. You're welcome. Jaime's transformation has always been one of my favorite arcs.
  19. Hello again! Today I want to talk to you about the "theme" of the book series. It's my old thread. There is no doubt that in traditional narratives, the “story” is generally divided into two as the good side and the bad side, and at the end of the war between the two, the good side wins. The work of Tolkien, which we can regard as the father of Epic Fantasy, reflects exactly this. Those who follow him generally prefer this kind of expression. The epics that are described in folk legends also proceed basically through the war of good and evil, and literature has already been influenced by these legends, drawing such a skeleton and bringing it on. In fact, this war between good and evil (especially in folk legends) represents the good-bad side in man. People can do good things but also bad things. According to the perception of old people - also common today - people are either white or black. It is either completely good or completely bad. (This view is not exactly wrong, but also it is not exactly correct, but I hope we will come to this part in ASOIAF.) So we see good and bad human war in stories, or what constitutes the "bad" side may be "creatures" who have taken on all the bad qualities of people. In Tolkien, these "orcs" and "goblin" species were living things. The Concept of Good and Bad in ASOIAF GRRM's book, Song of Ice and Fire, is not so different in the "good-bad" battle, but things are a little different here. The authors of other stories basically regarded man as "good or bad", but according to GRRM's perception, people are neither totally good nor bad; we are the creatures that carry both of things. "... better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." - Aemon Targaryen As we read the history of ASOIAF and the present time, we witness that people do both good and bad things regardless of men and women. Of course, some characters can do darker and much worse things, while others can do much brighter and often good things. In other words, the extreme points of the "gray" characters are also present in the series, but this does not prevent GRRM from reflecting its overview. From the first book there was a general hatred towards Jaime Lannister, we read from the Stark's point of view, not from his point of view. But when GRRM switched to Jaime POVs, then he went down into the character and was not as evil as we thought it was; we have seen regrets, he was doing good things but doing bad things too. Of course, we developed sympathy and even some readers became fans. Even though Cersei Lannister is basically "bad" in character, we understood why she did what she did when we switched to her POVs, and we are confronted with the fact that if we were in her position we could do some things - probably. In the first POV, Dany Targaryen appeared us as a sympathetic, cute girl. She was loved by many readers, but the fact of her destruction and massacre in Essos showed us that a character is capable of doing bad things, albeit for good. When we look at the Battle of Stark-Lannister on both sides and through the eyes of the people, we saw that heroes-murderers-rapists existed and that both sides hurt the people. But who can say that the Starks and Lannisters are completely bad or good? They are both good and bad. Both sides have their own right reasons to fight. What is the Song of Ice and Fire? We know that GRRM was influenced by the ice and fire poetry of US poet Robert Frost. What is that poem? (I got help from the booksofthelord diary in analyzing poetry because poetry is not my field.) While fire is passion, ice is expressed as hate, and he tried to explain that the world could / would be destroyed by these two intense emotions. Indeed, it is not too wrong; The course of the world is not in a good shape as people's passion for power or hatred of something / people constantly causes wars and greed. We are proceeding to destroy not only humanity but also nature, and as the main reason for this; we can show hatred and passion / lust / desire. Everything else arises from these two emotions. If we would adapt this to asoiaf, there is a household that represents the fire; Targaryen. Even if we include the dragon lords of Valyria period; Since then, fire representatives have set the earth / societies on fire because of the desire to rule something. We know that Valyria's dragon lords push the Emperor Ghiscar Empire into "slavery order". For this reason, slavery started in cities like Meeren, the representative of his grandchildren and cultures, but this time they are facing destruction because of the same person / s. We know that Dany is a very passionate character as a fire. On the other hand, the people / s representing the ice side are also called the Others. (Surely there are many, but let's look at the obvious ones.). Although it is difficult to make a definitive decision because we know almost nothing about their side, it would not be wrong to think that the ice side acted with the feeling of “hate” by looking at the poem. We do not know the reason for this, of course, but many theories can be produced for this. We know that the others are progressing beyond the wall, by killing those who come before them, and adding them to their army. It is obvious that they have no affection for this warm-blooded species. In summary, ice and fire proceed by destroying, and the purpose of both seems to destroy each other. The words "song", which is the name of the series, and the words "dance" that repeat frequently in the series, are the terms that express war and death as a metaphor. (Things like Water Dance etc.) In fact, the word "song" could possibly mean something else. (Like "life" or "circe") Choose your side? Who's good, who's bad? Whose side do we need to be on? We passed the war between families and people, okay. We all have one side. Well, let's come to the Battle of R’hllor and the Great Other, that is, the war of ice and fire. Who is good, who is bad? In fact, although I think the above articles are sufficient in response to this, it will be more concrete information to reveal GRRM's view of stories. To explain these statements a bit more, GRRM is now overwhelmed by the stories about the good-villain war and believes that changes should be made. We no longer need bad black ugly men to confront good guys. We need the story of people who can do great and bad things. We expect evil in a traditional story from an ugly and ominous dwarf, but in asoiaf, a shapeless character like Tyrion can do both good and bad; he turns into a character that has gained the love and admiration of the reader. Or a character that looks very beautiful like Joffrey, he turning into a character that does disgusting work and we expect evil from him now… There is no doubt that we are faced with much more realistic characters. Because we encounter all this in our own life. Again, there is a criticism of a "dark lord" and a "bad man / side". Orcs are bad black men, but are their babies too? Would you kill them too? Is that how it is in real life or are there bad people on both sides of the war? So no matter both sides of the war are not entirely good and not entirely bad; the devil is not at all. (Ok, some people they are.) Based on this view, it is pointless to expect pure bad and pure good. So we cannot say that neither R’hllor nor the Great Other is totally good or completely bad. Naturally, those who want to choose “sides” will have to make this decision according to their own values, expectations and desires. There will be people and households on the ice side like people on the fire side. The leaders /champions of ice or firewill not be a savior / hero for ordinary peoples / neutrals. An AA will come out, yes but AA is not will defeat the master of evil, and will not shine brightly on earth. In fact, if we establish logic, whichever one of the two wars wins, the situation cannot be very heartwarming; endless summer and endless winter are not good concepts. We need the balance factor; to end the war of both sides and make peace. We need someone who does not act with passion and hate, who can suppress these two bad emotions forever (at least for many years). Peace and tranquility in Asoiaf can only be possible at that time(It's Jon Snow to me). Thnak you for read.
  20. There are several explanations for Jaime's hand, not necessarily a single correct statement. Above all, GRRM's desire for divine justice, his irony, was in effect. Martin thinks the characters make a choice and naturally must face the consequences of their choice, good or bad. This is a correct thought, we all have to face the consequences of our choices. We cannot escape this forever. So anyone who chooses good or bad in this story will have to bear the consequences. For example; Tywin's hatred of Tyrion and the Tysha affair… At the end of the day, Tywin had to face the consequences of his poor choices and died at the hand of his own son. Jaime's forbidden relationship with Cersei and what he did to Bran ... Jaime says actually; This hand was the hand that killed his own king, this hand was the hand that touched Cersei, and this hand was the hand that pushed Bran to kill him. This hand was the hand of sin and now that hand has been cut off. I think GRRM cut the hands for sins-crimes in this story; Don't forget Davos' fingers, they too were cut for his crimes. So that was the 1st reason; the punishment of his crimes. It was this sword hand that made Jaime Jaime. Running and climbing were everything to Bran, his legs were his best. Bran wanted to be a knight, and then a knight took everything from Bran; dreams and legs. Fighting and knight were the best things Jaime had, and now he's lost the best he ever had; his sword. Is a knight who cannot use a sword still a knight? 2nd reason ... I think it was to destroy Jaime's arrogance. Jaime was very arrogant, a bit of a shield he had set up against his own troubles and remorse, in fact, he was passive-aggressive. After losing his hand, Jaime freed himself from his arrogance to face his own insides, as arrogance prevents man from confronting the truth, especially his own. Thus, Jaime's positive transformation started.
  21. It's an interesting theory, I haven't gotten very warm in general, but I think it's beautiful in terms of thought and it has a chain of events that will have a pretty good plot in a story. Maybe you're completely right about your opinion. Thank you for explaining to me. There are still a lot of blank spots about the Braavos side's place in the story, so I can't give clear ideas. But I don't think IB is having a problem with its money supply in general. As far as I know, the main investors of the bank are also the owners of the bank. Even FM can be one of them. They earn money for killing people but what do they with this money? A source for IB? Possible. Basically the working principle of banks is as you say. After all, they are actually usurers. They make money by selling money. So far everything seems to be going this way ... When Cersei refused to pay the debts; As Jon and Pycell said, they use traditional methods to get their money back. Probably, when the "other throne candidate" does not hold the plan, they will move to the FM stage, and they will inevitably sit on that throne another king who will pay this money. Tommen probably will die because of revenge by Tyene Sand, and Mycella will diye because of this dept issiue. They have done this for hundreds of years, and people are so afraid of these methods that there have been some people trying to pay their debts by selling their family. As Tyhco said, the debt belongs to the throne, and the debt must be paid by the person sitting on that throne. Tycho used expressions that clearly blamed Tommen for this. IB is not concerned with who is the regent or counsellors, it is only concerned with who is sitting on the throne. Until now we have not seen regent or counselors killed in history because of debt, only kings. So why would IB take the extra risk by supporting Stannis so that they could directly kill Cersei and the regent can change? Because in their logic it doesn't work that way. And no, I didn't meant to Arya will kill Tommen or his sister. As Martin said before, Arya is still an apprentice, we assume she will be FM ... it takes years to become FM, Arya has been with them for half a year at most. So, you don't send apprentices to distant places on such dangerous missions, you send a real FM. The person who took its FM vows and is now a "no one" with everything ... One of the reasons IB decided to support Stannis, as I said, is most likely related to the chaos that will result from Arya killing Raff. IB is a dangerous enemy. There is an organization like FM that they can use at all times. It is also possible that in Braavos, each of them is acting in a close alliance, so they are not independent of each other. We saw FM's desire for knowledge, we saw it from Arya's training. So FM doesn't just kill people for money, they also spy. They collect and use information in favor of Braavos probably. Illyrio cannot be the only enemy of the IB all this time. Even other banks should be enemies for them, but they could do nothing or other enemies. There is nothing that distinguishes Illyrio from the others.
  22. Every person sometimes experiences some memory loss or misrepresentation, something that happens to everyone. It happened to me, I'm sure it happened to you. Little things ... when very sad things happen, they can happen. Or there is no specific reason, as the past stay behind, the two similar memories intertwine. The real problem is to continue to produce false memories and begin to cling firmly to their own lies. There is such a thing in Sansa. She told a lie about Mycah, and then that lie became "truth" for her. Then she continued with Sandor after the KL events ... It is obvious that it will go somewhere, GRRM announced that he did this on purpose but of course he did not want to say much. I think he likes to play with the psychology of his characters. He force them hard. @Springwatch like said Nathan... Sansa's carrying of information has nothing to do with Cersei's attempt to kill Robert. Cersei was trying to kill Robert before, Ned triggered it. There is no need to make GRRM's explanations "pointless", the man knows much better the story he wrote. If he was a statement that contradicts the information he wrote in the books, I would agree with you, but it does not. As it says in the quote ... No single person is to blame for Ned's downfall. Sansa played a role, certainly, but it would be unfair to put all the blame on her. But it would also be unfair to exonerate her.
  23. I don't know which character Widow loves, so I asked. But this is living in Nymeria and etc... I've often read the claims from Sansa stans, all Arya fans know that. Apart from that, of course, as you said, there are also those who show a negative and ridiculous approach to the Starks among Dany stans, but the statements of both sides are different, so I asked if Widos could stan Sansa.
  24. I think the way some people approach this book is as follows; "I don't want that to happen, so I will ignore all signs of this and argue it will never happen."(Hi btw, I'm griljedi from reddit )
  25. When he said it? I miss this, can you send me a source? I was going to discuss this with you, but when I read this over and over, I gave up. Wow! Okay! I'm the jealous one, so badly jealous of Sansa, yes ... Wow! Impossible to discuss with a Sansa stan! Bye! _________ There are also problems you mentioned. I also agree that Ned and Sansa have similar points. She is fathers's daugther. Ned did not know very well who to trust. Sansa shows that if she trusts someone like LF, she still hasn't learned who to trust at the end of the day. Thank you. There are still some unclear points in my head about Sansa's arc, I need to think more about it, but Sansa had similar to her aunt Lysa in some ways, and on the other hand, she had some points similar to Cersei. I wonder if Sansa will ever evolve into Cersei 2 at some point. Not exactly the same, of course, but in some ways ... Things like the Sansa's wrong memory are important. Martin hinted that it was about her psychology. Many people attribute the experiences of her father after his death, but the erroneous memory did not start with Sandor, it started with Mycah ... The story that started with a lie continues with a lie, and I think this "lie" issue affects not only her life but also her personality. So when I look at it this way, I always think that Sansa's story ends in a negative way. Still, not sure of course. I am of the opinion that LF and Cersei will have an influence on the shaping of Sansa. The biggest problem for Sansa is that she is too much under the influence of LF and LF is not a character you want to be influenced by. Sansa will surely leave her identity behind Aleyna and return to being Sansa after a point ... But there is a thought that she may not forget Aleyna completely because of this memory problem. This is one of the side effects of being under the influence of LF ... We are now correct or not, I guess we will see in the future. This last question and answer had been asked another time, and I remember he showed a positive reaction this time too, but now I can't find it. In fact, the only thing Sansa made openly to regret was a matter of trusting the Lannisters. I did not see any obvious signs of regret in other matters, and even though Cersei mentioned twice that Sansa had told her some of her father's plans, Sansa only mentioned this once, on the day of the events. Of course I may have overlooked it or I have forgotten completely. Did she have a scene where Sansa clearly regretted this? Except that she voiced the mistake of trusting the Lannisters. Sansa didn't know all of Ned's plans, but ahe knew enough to keep Cersei moving quickly and accurately. GRRM had said that.
  • Create New...