Jump to content

Daeron the Daring

Members
  • Content Count

    683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Daeron the Daring

  • Rank
    Noble
  • Birthday 05/09/2002

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,453 profile views
  1. That's what I like in it. He doesn't portray anyone a better person than what they've been. Only worse, if possible. Spoiler: Despite learning how many horrible things he did, I did not stop liking the character, nor when he sided with the people I did not like. I also didn't need Druon's opinion to like the character of Louis X, despite him mocking the king whenever he just could. The ssme goes for Philip V to me. It's not his opinion that made me like Louis X (altough he was speaking of him generously after his death, I already liked him), nor did mocking Philip V after his death changed my positive opinion of him. Again spoilers: I don't know. The narrator pretty much tells us (along with Queen Isabelle) that she really loved him until he made her hate him. This is shown at the very beginning of The Iron King (when Robert meets her), just as it is shown when Isabelle doesn't want to arrange his death at first. At this point the narrator as well expresses how Isabelle might have felt, and why she doesn't feel the same anymore, and is hardly agreeing on murdering her husband. To be honest, I've seen worse portrayals in this novel series than Edward II's, who I don't think deserved it. I see no sign of homophobia here, altough I'm currently reading the sixth book, when he's been dead for a time now. I rather think (altough I have no reason to believe it) that he wants me to regret liking Queen Isabelle and her faction. Edit.: Guess I was right.
  2. I'm not sure yet if that's intentional or not from him. I'd like to think it is, and he intentinally portrays everyone a little darker so that his story will be more confusing to our own moral compass. I'd like to think of it that way, altough I might be wrong. What makes me read the books is to see how the tables turn, and how that brings out what's inside people.
  3. As @SeanF said, Druon really likes depicting things in noone's favor. He pretty much wants you to be unable to decide who you favor as the story goes. That, however doesn't necesarilly has to influence you. Druon likes to show you everyone surrounded by the same level of infection, but expresses that this is only his opinion as well. Druon wants you to regret siding whit anyone in this book, just as he makes you regret not siding with someone in the past, except for a very few. That applies on Edward II and Isabella of France as well. You'll se, but try creating your own opinion of everyone. What really got me at first is how he made me change my opinion (altough I learned how to evade these tricks by now, reading the sixth book, and I am a little proud of that as well), how easily he went trough major historical events, and left behind his greatest characters. And of course, how my medieval french historical knowledge (which I consider being above average) didn't ruin a single moment. Not the ones I knew will come, nor the ones I didn't know about. In my opinion he's doing a better job at storytelling than George, but at the same time George is better at leaving behind his own opinion, having no narrator.
  4. So It's only been a few hours since I finished the fourth book from Maurice Druon's The Accursed Kings, The Royal Succession, and I gotta admit, I haven't felt this amount of a shock due to a book since I finished the entire series of The Three Muskeeters, with the book Bragellone Vicomté (or Ten Years Later...). The obvious reason I ended up reading it is what George told about this series, that "This is the original GoT". And how true it is. After 4 books I read about things I could not imagine being possible in any case. I couldn't imagine so much cruelty and disaster happening in real life in such a shorth time period. It did, tho, the author is so loyal to what really might have happened that at one point I tought I'm reading a bad joke, and I had to look up what really happened. Historical sources back up my guy Maurice with almost everything. Turns out it he's no Jokser. What I really like about it is that I basically knew about a lot of deaths that's gonna happen due to my general knowledge of history, but the book manages to amaze me anyway. What's even more hilarious? The book literally tells you at some point: "yea, so, basically he and he and she and that fourth guy as well will be dead in a month or ten years, but let's stick to our story for now", and then it makes me lose my mind when that shit happens anyway. I feel like it's nowhere over, but I already read 4 of the 7 books. And what George has to do with all this? Basically, a lot. He's got so many inspiration from this book. (no mockery of his work here. The only similar thing is the type of chsracters and story it presents. They sell themselves a pretty different way) Sometimes I felt like I'm reading not only about one of his known character, but also one of his known story as well that I've read once. Still, I can't figure things out. But I've got the impression it might help me understand his books better and figure out his ending, that's why I tought I'm gonna recommend it in the General Subforum (I hope this is where this topic belongs). The reason I'm not gonna make comparisons is that I haven't finished yet, but this story has a good-guy Petyr Baelish, I can tell you that much.
  5. First of all, I never understood why Robb was bothered by the fact that Stannis is the older and he shouldn't be giving support to Renly in that case, as he's a usurper. Unless he inside his mind was willing to rejoin the Seven Kingdoms, this really shouldn't have been a problem to him. Neither did Ned support the rightful heir or king in the Rebellion, he rebelled against the tyrannical acts of Aerys II. I think he would've been totally fine with backing up Renly if he wasn't trying to stick to his father's moral codex, which I don't think would not allow him this, he just tought this way. I think if the two would've met and stuff, that would've been an interesting conversation as they had similar enough intentions and goals to ally (removing Joffrrey and the Lannisters from the Throne), but at the same time it would've been filled with tension, as neither Robb nor Renly would've been able to threaten the other. Renly was the head of a too big force for Robb to face it, but at the same time Renly couldn't do much around Moat Cailin in case of gaining the crown. However, my opinion is, even if hardly, but Robb would've kneeled to Renly if he wins (which would've happened for sure, if Stannis doesn't father another "child", whatever Robb does (unless he allies with the Lannisters to leave no force in Westeros stronger than his)). It would've been a hard move to him, but at the same time he couldn't let down the Riverlands, which was already torn apart, but would've been once again the target of Renly's invasion. And we know he learned in his short reign that the riverlords became his vassals as well. Something like that. Basically what I think is that they would've been able to cooperate , with both keeping their honor and important stuff to themselves. And don't forget the White Walkers either. They would've come anyway, be Robb or anybody else the King of Winter. The North, alone "beating" the Others? I doubt it. Not even with the forces of the Riverlands.
  6. That's what I tought as well. They have no reason to tell the story unfaithfully. They either know it this way (meaning Howland didn't tell them the truth), or it really happened this way. And Howland has no reason to not tell his children the story how it happened, does he? Consider the story very important, as Jojen does, who is surprised Bran never heard it. Unless! Unless Meera intentionally told Bran a false version of the KOTLT, believing Bran will correct him or something. I can imagine the tale being incomplete (Bran didn't hear everything), but why false if not for that reason? And again, what difference would that make?
  7. Not to say the dragons might not have seen the eruption a threat (being creatures of fire and stuff) and didn't even try to escape at first. Who knows, exactly? Who was there to submit the heat killed the dragons? What if other aspects of thr eruptions did? Various gases, rocks flying and shit. I dunno, honestly, but the thing is: Not only the Targaryen dragons survived the Doom. The few dragonriders who were around the Free Cities and didn't join Aurion were all killed along with their dragons, if it was possible. The people were tryna tame and kill them at the same time, and the TWOIAF book claims these dragons ran off never to be seen. At the time of the Conquest only it is confirmed that there are no living dragons left except for the Targaryen ones.
  8. Smaller vassals? Sure. These people are direct vassals of Lord Paramounts, the King or the Crown Prince. That would make them counts or dukes at least. As for cadet branches: We got a pretty detailed description of the Harlaws because Asha might end up inheriting her uncle's titles and lands. At the same point, the Redwyne internal buildup played no significance in the story yet, and we've got enough explanation about the Velaryons to understand who is who. There might easily be off- and cadet branches of both houses under them. We don't know yet. This applies on the Harlaws and the Darklyns (previous lords of a port city), why shouldn't it apply to them as well?. We know of 3 of their own cadet branches so far who were their vassals (or at least lived in the city/had minor titles or local prestigous jobs), and are still to House Rykker.
  9. This will only include situations/interactions that can't happen (basically at least one of the two is dead): -Renly Baratheon and Robb Stark -Young Griff and Viserys Targaryen -Maester Aemon with any living Targaryen prestented in the books(not counting Jon here) -Robert Baratheon and Jon Snow -Brynden Rivers and Robert Baratheon -Tyrion Lannister and Ned Stark -Catelyn Tully and Ashara Dayne -Ser Arthur Dayne and Ser Gerold Dayne (the age gap was too big for the two to ever have a real conversation even if they met) -Daenerys Targaryen and Tywin Lannister That's it, I guess.
  10. I think the "he gave her his seed" line literally means the Night's King fathered at least one child on his Corpse Queen (not debating here who she was). As for the Boltons being descendants of this line: Aren't we supposed to believe the Others aren't naturally and generally born pure evil? (Yknow, the whole "War won't save the World" debate, the fact that humans were able to REPRODUCE with these "creatures", etc...) Wasn't Domeric Bolton a nice lad? Is it confirmed that every Bolton ever living was evil or at least villainious like Roose? This just doesn't feel right for various reasons. 1. The Starks have Bolton descendancy, even if it is not trough a direct Bolton-Stark marriage. For the sake of proving this: It is mathematically impossible for a Westerosi to not be a descendant of a person living 1000 years ago, whose line didn't die out entirely (meaning that person has no descendants, be it trough any kind of line). 2. What's it now? Is there some kind of ritual that makes the Lord of the Dreadfort a specific type of person? Why? How? How noone ever noticed such a thing? 3. Yea, I know these scumbag Boltons are famous for being unnaturally evil, but come on, noone should believe all of them was like that. The same goes for everyone. Bran acknowledges how some of his ancestors were monsters, others were great persons, but still all of them were Starks.. (I think the NK was a good guy and a Stark as well, but even if not, it doesn't have to change anything.)
  11. First of all, I cosidered Howland being the KOTLT a ppssibility before this post as well, somewhat at the same page as Lyanna (50%-50%). I still cosider both of them a great possibility, but this is serious evidence, and if not, too much coincidence for my liking. The thing is: The plot (I mean RLJ) doesn't require Lyanna to be this mistery knight, and it would've raised suspicion if Lyanna was missing every appearance of the KOTLT, wouldn't it? Maybe not because they did not consider a woman a possibility for this secret identity, but the daughter of the Lord of the Winterfell dissapearing everytime this mistery knight appears, that's still suspicious, for any other reason as well. And while the jousting helm supports Howland, the knight's voice supports Lyanna still. But then presenting the story to Bran the way Meera did also doesn't make much sense if Lyanna was the TKOTLT. Yes, I still can't decide.
  12. Lol, it's not about that. You've got your morals from the earlier generations, who got theirs from even earlier ones. And that goes on, unless the list stops, when people (probably a long time ago (In a galaxy far-far away)) did not have these morals. It's what kept and made people have the modern morals you live by. You can be atheist, you still won't like to be cheated on, or being robbed, etc... The human respect towards your parents comes from the earlier generations and their religious education. It's what they've been told. Whether it is the humans who formed the religion or the religion that formed the humans in different situations, one thing is clear. It made people behave according to the customs the given religion applied on them. For a simple example: In the past (I mean those religious times), having sex outside the wedlock was a sinful act and punishable as well. Yes, some people still did it, but it kept most people away from such a thing. This is why you don't accept to be cheated on. People didn't like it, and they made this part of the religion. Because noone liked to be cheated on, to be murdered, to be robbed, to be tricked, etc... (In normal cases).. They simply said instead: "God says cheating on your spouse is sinful, don't do that!" And so most people didn't do it. Then these people teached their children as well, and so on, unless we reached modern ages, when cheating became a shunned, but not a sinful act in the eye of a simple, non-religious person. I'm not arguing if the world would be better with more religiusness in it (I don't feel like I can answer that to you, everyone should decide for themselves, tho I personally don't feel the need of it), but how you really don't give the credits to religions deserve for shaping the morality of the human race clearly tells how little you know about it, and I really mean no offense to you here. It's just that religions were a tool to keep this world together many-many times. It's not the morals what make something criminal. It's the law, be it religious or not. But humanity most certainly created their religions based on their morality. And they based their law on their religion. Unga Bunga woman did not want his man to be killed by the neighbours, so she said "Killing bad" and she told the same to her children. But one of her child eassmarter and said "If you murder another one, you go bad place", and so Hell was created. And the agressive neighbour did not eant to go to hell, so he said "I kill no man, I not go to bad place". And this was good as far as people believed in it, but then it became the part of how you feel, so you need no religion to feel sinful for murdering someone.
  13. This is rather an attack towards christianity and one of it's flaws than towards religion in general. Even as a non-religious person, I can tell you religions at least were necesarry and helpful. It's what made people decide what's good and what's bad (Without religion, you might not see murder a criminal act. Noone would). It's what shapes the moral codex of the entire world, and I'm talking about almost every religion. Shit happened and happens still due to religions, but it's not the only thing one should look at. (Believe me, I have the worst examples in my mind right now, and I still feel the same.)
  14. At this point this is either entirely true, or George miscalculated as well, thinking this took place after Aemon's death. I see that as a possibility, as Alysanne's actions really do not make any sense (this pretty much was a punishment to Viserra, lol). Now I don't think what should I consider canon (as I can see with my closed eyes how George might have made this mistake), but I initially had a tought that Viserra wasn't led by power hunger when I read she got drunk in her desperate situation as well. If I'd attend an interview with George when the crowd can ask (I say this because there were such events where George attended), I'd definitely ask this to just make it clear.
×
×
  • Create New...