Jump to content

Many-Faced Votary

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Many-Faced Votary

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Under Your Bed <3

Recent Profile Visitors

281 profile views
  1. Many-Faced Votary

    Was rebellion inevitable against the Targaryen Dynasty ?

    Why are you obsessed with attempting to discredit the Targaryens in opposition to all textual evidence?
  2. Many-Faced Votary

    ASOIAF quotes used in real life?

    Tyrion Lannister | Jon I, A Game of Thrones
  3. Many-Faced Votary

    What was the biggest mistake/butterfly effect in ASOIAF history?

    Catelyn existing, according to half the members here.
  4. Many-Faced Votary

    What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

    A proper analysis of the two characters would perforce be in-depth and therefore time-consuming, so this post is just a very brief summary. I think it is accurate to say that, broadly, Robb and Jon are both mirrors and foils. They complement each other: in their similar upbringing, family ties, sense of duty and honor, physical attributes, and leadership. Yet these similarities serve to highlight their differences, and vice versa. At the risk of oversimplifying it, there is a dichotomy in their practical actions in spite of the similitude of their thoughts and motivations. As an external example, both are raised as Lord Eddard's sons, and he attempts to treat them both as well as society allows; but one being the firstborn son of a high lord and the other purportedly his bastard, there cannot be an equivalent childhood. Lady Catelyn cannot bring herself to mother or even tolerate Jon, which forces him to grow more quickly than Robb but with less idealism. Jon is raised to believe he is Robb's brother, but also that he stands to inherit nothing while Robb gains everything. It is important to note that our first glimpse of the two is through Bran's eyes, by which we are immediately introduced to this concept: Bran I, A Game of Thrones Contrasting their leadership provides the clearest explication, as this is the attribute that best suggests they act as foils. Both Robb and Jon are reasonably well-respected and appear fairly competent, but they are both given to emotional errors and tend to frame their thinking from their own perspectives. This is where their similarities lie, and the differences arise from them. Jon seems to be strategically impeccable: allying with the Free Folk and accepting Stannis's aid and therefore claim both appear necessary for the greater conflict with the Others, and pursuing leads for fighting them is critical. Yet he is tactically abhorrent: he refuses to share his plans meaningfully; he does not talk to his men or assuage their fears; and he is too prone to breaking tradition without justification (in the eyes of his brothers). Robb is the opposite. His tactics are extremely sound: he won every battle, and -- although I do not think he would have ultimately proved victorious against Tywin, as many people seem to -- he could have made life very difficult for the Lannister regime and significantly altered the current geopolitics of Westeros. Yet he completely lacked strategic foresight in politics, often disregarding Cat's counsel for more impetuous behavior. Robb won all his battles but lost the war; it seemed that he was unable to apprehend the big picture. Inversely, Jon seems to be losing most of his battles, but perhaps he will ultimately win the war, such as it is; nevertheless, he was mutinied against because he was overly obsessed with the big picture. For what it's worth, I tend to absorb details when reading for a more thorough enjoyment of the narrative, and have picked up on relatively subtle bisexual vibes from Jon's chapters. The easiest example is simply how often and consistently he considers Satin's appearance (and profession prior to his having joined the Night's Watch) even when it seems inappropriate, especially since it is often juxtaposed with his more practical thoughts about other people and with other characters' introspection in preceding or succeeding chapters. Perhaps I'm reading too much into things, and any potential hints are entirely unintentional on Mr. Martin's part; but he does choose his words and scenes carefully, so I am inclined to believe it is simply extra information for attentive readers. Granted, I'm certain Jon himself isn't aware that he is bisexual, if indeed this is the case -- particularly given that sexual orientation as we understand it today was not recognized as such until rather recently in our world, and definitely does not seem to be in his. Consequently, it has not affected the story thus far and probably will not do so at all, but a realistic and sensitive depiction of a diversity of characters is absolutely characteristic of Mr. Martin. In any case, although I do like Ygritte well enough, it is incontrovertible that Jon was essentially sexually abused ("raped" is too harsh a word considering the circumstances and point-of-view bias), as he was not able to properly provide consent and was -- in his mind -- indirectly bound by duty not to refuse. Any hypothetical relationship with a male wilding would probably have been initiated in a similarly distasteful capacity, regardless of whether or not he would be inclined to bed men.
  5. Many-Faced Votary

    House of the Dragon Series Order Announced

    "I followed the path of Aegon's war machine along the Trident, imagining his armies taking castle after castle; ancient blood on ancient iron. Strangely, before subduing the Vale, he struck north towards Winterfell. Perhaps because of the challenge it represented: the ancient world's greatest puzzle was there, a knot that couldn't be untied. Aegon cut it in two with Blackfyre. Lateral thinking, you see. Centuries ahead of his time."
  6. Many-Faced Votary

    Daenerys has always been a killer

    They did one better, subverting our expectations by driving the show even further underground to the extent that it stopped working at the most basic narrative level and made any sensible viewer want to subvert their own eyes continuing to receive countless well-deserved accolades for their nuanced, intelligently-crafted, and sensitively-portrayed Emmy-winning drama.
  7. Many-Faced Votary

    House of the Dragon Series Order Announced

    I take it we can count your heart amongst Aegon's many conquests?
  8. Many-Faced Votary

    New Forum Census

    Greetings from Washington State, United States of America!
  9. Sansa is an excellent example of the underlying sexism everywhere in Game of Thrones. I will write only briefly and will disregard many other sexist trends that aren't as clear with Sansa specifically, so it should be telling just how problematic the show is in this respect. It was clear from the beginning that the show completely misunderstood her character and did her no justice *, framing her traditional femininity as bad in contrast to Arya's tomboyish nature, and removing or modifying scenes that demonstrated her social intelligence and blameless indoctrination into the pervasive concept of what a "good girl" should be. She also served as essentially a background character for the most part -- except in GRRM's episodes, tellingly -- until they decided to begin her journey of empowerment™ in Season 5. They characterized her -- if the word can even be applied here -- extremely inconsistently, to the extent that she is more accurately a complex of intermittent sub-characters that randomly take turns manifesting; yet one thing tied the complex together, and it was misogyny: "femininity and traditionally feminine gender roles are bad" and "most women girls are weak" and "the passivity into which women are forced, or would be if it weren't for the patriarchy that magically disappears in D&D's Westeros when convenient, is something that needs to be 'fixed'" and "women become empowered™ if they are victimized by gendered crimes" and "women are catty and cannot form healthy relationships with each other" and "unfailing stoicism, psychopathy, and an active desire for brutal revenge are attributes of an empowered™ woman." * This is also true of other characters, especially other female characters who are strong in a more traditionally feminine way such as Catelyn, but at least they more closely resembled their book counterparts initially. That this is all true despite the fact that the source material from which the show was adapted is a rather nuanced and manifestly feminist work best tells the story.
  10. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    We don't truly know how much of Lady Catelyn is left in Lady Stoneheart or whether she can transcend her fixation, so there is little support for such a hypothesis. The biggest flaws with that theory are logistical. There is also the concern that such a deed might paint her former actions as completely in the wrong, as opposed to a reaction borne of certain aspects and complexities of the patriarchal feudal society, which specifically illustrates how highborn women and bastards are adversely affected. Nevertheless, it would be poetic if she were to ultimately sacrifice herself for the boy she believes to be her late husband's last son and her daughters' last brother, and this would be particularly profound if Arya were able to witness the pitfalls of revenge after coming across what she has become before that point. As for Jon, there is no evidence that the reports of Arya's supposed death would be sufficient to "flip his mind to the dark side." Not only are people much more complex than that even in death, but there was also an absurd coalescence of circumstances surrounding Cat's death that resulted in LSH rising as the ruthless, vengeful entity we have seen.
  11. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    My apologies! I have edited my post accordingly. Thank you for the information.
  12. The former would at least be understandable, if rather disappointing; the latter seems unforgivable.
  13. Many-Faced Votary

    Is Jon Already a King in the books? Aka What makes a King?

    The Wall being manned by the Faceless Men would make for an interesting tale!
  14. Many-Faced Votary

    An Evil Name

    It is certainly a possibility, but I would respectfully disagree that it is one worth considering. Firstly, all evidence points to ice wights essentially being akin to the popular modern depiction of zombies: mindless creatures of the grave. Regardless of whether this is completely true, they do seem to have lost their sense of self and are objectively ensorceled by the Others. Transforming one of the main characters into such an entity would hardly make for a satisfying story; this is especially important because his overarching purpose appears far from complete. Furthermore, although a certain group of people might believe that awakening as a fire wight is akin to waking from a nap, this is not the case: fire wights (Lord Beric and Lady Stoneheart) have drastically changed physically and physiologically as well as mentally and emotionally. This is the most sensible approach with Jon, as it deals with consequences of resurrection while retaining a sufficient amount of Jon's humanity such that his story is still worth telling. Lastly, the "Song of Ice and Fire" has a great number of meanings, several of which relate specifically to Jon Snow. It would be quite fulfilling if the "fire" of his undead self kindled at the "ice" of the Wall in addition to the other interpretations, particularly if he is meant to be Azor Ahai reborn. As for the "how," presuming the above is true, we do not yet know. The most popular theories assume Melisandre will be the one to bring him back in some way, but there are also propositions such as LSH passing the flame onto Jon.
  15. If Mr. Martin can release The Winds of Winter within the next two or so years, he should be able to capitalize upon renewed interest in the series to his benefit, even if there will be people who have lost faith either in his ability or desire to complete it or in his intended ending. Having said that, I daresay the first part of the former group you cite (those who do not appreciate where the story is going) likely would not have appreciated the book series for what it is regardless. This is simply because such people might not realize the extent to which A Song of Ice and Fire differs from Game of Thrones: it is much better-written, naturally, but there are many inherent distinctions that will alter and enhance the story in important ways. The books possess a far greater scope, including characters and motivations that do not exist or are improperly used in the show, which can and will greatly change character arcs and plot points; retain extreme literary merit, including but not limited to thematic cohesion and symbolic significance; involve complex and realistic characters who act and react according to their surroundings and how they themselves have developed; will have an ultimate message of hope that lies in stark contrast to the unerring acedia and nihilism the show demonstrates; and are actually developed organically and connected satisfactorily. Perhaps certain broad strokes will ultimately remain very similar, but the journey matters at least as much as the destination, and there is far more to look forward to besides. It is past time to stop conflating the books with the show, particularly as far as the characters are concerned.