Jump to content

CamiloRP

Members
  • Content Count

    1,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CamiloRP

  • Rank
    That guy, you know? From that thing? The one with all the stuff

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

959 profile views
  1. The first time I'll read it start to finish, and it'll probably take me a few days, butmediately after I finish it I will start over, paying much more attention, and depending how the story goes, this could mean altering the chapter order.
  2. Yeah, we ignored Anguy and called it 'early book syndrome' because otherwise it was imposible to determine anything, we mostly used the prices of things as parameters. Now this is completely fair and I absolutely forgot about that.
  3. Yeah, but we are talking debt, no? I mean, I can see Robert spending more money that he made, specially considering what @Buried Treasure said above, I can even see him making a debt in the crown's coffers, but six million GD in debt seems like a lot. A few months back we tried to figure out how much was a GD in dollars, and I think we landed in something between 500-1000 dollars for one GD, so that would be between 3 and six billion dollars in debt. But regardless, we know how much food can cost, and we know (kinda) how much a tourney can cost, I don't think you get to outspend your national gross for forty years, empty your coffers and get a debt as huge as that in only fifteen years of tournies and feasts.
  4. I don't think much, we have to keep in mind that the crown likely had some savings and that it produces money every year, by way of taxes, so Robert would need to, in only fourteen years, outspend the GDP in such a way to empty the coffees and get in a six million gp debt just by feasting and tournies, nah, I think that vast majority of it was due to LF and other actors, tho the blame still goes partially to Robert's negligent rule.
  5. BU that's what you place the value on, others may place it in culture, arts or science, and what life? because a single human contains a lot of lifeforms within them, lifeforms that would die with their host.
  6. nah, absolutely not sure. but I do think it's more likely than them being evil strawmen. I mean, the universe doesn't care about us, or any life, so for it, nothing's better or worse. And it depends in what you place the highest value. Also, common housecats are extremely horrible for the environment, just a random fact.
  7. I was more broadly referring to the NW as a whole rather than the character's who use the phrase of their own, because bringing up Sam's internalized misogyny in a society as fucked up as Westeros would be like criticizing Hannibal Lecter for cooking with too little salt. It must be a Mandela effect in my part, aided by Martin's other work. Oh, the death of the author is wonderful for media analysis, and most critics today adhere to it in one way or another, but the figure of the author can also be extremely useful in other less thematically aimed analysis, like say, I can be 100% sure that JK Rowling's new book will not have a sympathetic trans woman as a protagonist , and I don't need to know anything about the book to know that, I just need to know the author. And even then, I think we're meant to find out about the three in an upcoming Dunk and Egg story.. Then you must be destroyed!
  8. You are right, and I think I'm not succeeding in making myself clear. The text should absolutely stand on it's own, but I'm talking about the text that hasn't been written yet (TWOW and ADOS) while I see now you are talking about the other five books. I'm saying that, while we may see now 'a man of the night's watch' as a good thing, I expect it to, in the future, slowly loose that quality, if the series was finished, then yes, authorial intent wouldn't matter, and Martin's other works would matter even less, and if that 'deterioration' of the act of being 'a man of the NW' were to never happen, then, regardless of Randyll Tarly and Slum's dad and whatever else, I would be as wrong as you can be regarding subjective analysis. Put another way, you are saying "the phrase 'a man of the Night's Watch' is positive" and I'm not saying 'no', I'm saying 'it may be the case now, but I think that might be subverted in the future.' Again, it's not what I'm saying, the word 'man' is not the connection I see, but rather the similarities in language. I see 'becoming a man' and 'becoming a man of the Night's Watch' as inherently connected phrases, as 'becoming a knight' and more, but that may be just me. So it's not like saying 'love is bad' based on Petyr's 'love' for Cat, it's like seeing a character talk about love in a way similar to LF's and being suspicious of that character, which I would absolutely do.
  9. Oh yeah, I don't take it as a given either, it's just what I think it leads to, what I get from this series, I'm completely open to being wrong. ha! yes, I thought about bringing it up in that post, I majored in media studies, so I know it well, and actually use it often as a means to analyze different aspects of media, but I also believe one cannot entirely divorce the work from the author, specially when you know a great deal about said authors life or past work, and I completely ignored Barthes here because I was explicitly analyzing authorial intent, as I am trying to 'predict' what will happen in the story, that is, what the author is most likely to write about rather than just analyzing what has already been written. Yes, the thing is Martin spent most of his career writing about pacifism and anti-war, not how fighting WWII was right, so, while he may agree that fighting an all-evil force hellbent on destroying humanity is the correct thing to do (and I'm hoping we all do, with the exception of @The_Lone_Wolf). I think he is less likely to put that as the climax of his magnum opus, and rather keep the themes he's been developing throughout his carreer.
  10. Well fuck me, this is the third time I write this, I hate my computer. I agree with this, but George's other works are an important part of how I read and analyze ASOIAF, at least from the view point of authorial intent, and if I feel some of his works are relevant to the discussion, I'm gonna bring them up. Again, I also agree with this, we all change constantly, but I think the values being talked about here are too close to his core, and therefore, harder to change, and I don't think he has changed them, based on interviews and such. Having said this, I don't know Martin, and I don't pretend to, for all I know all of his public persona is a complete lie, but we work with what we got. I don't know if what I'm about to say has anything to do with what you are saying here, and I have said it before (and it comes up again your comment), but I'm not talking about my ideology here, I'm talking of what I perceive to be George's ideology, which I don't agree much with as, for starters, I'm not a pacifist. I'm not entirely sure to what the 'this' in the first phrase refers to, but what I mean when I talk about sexism is the idea that any characteristic is inherently male, be it violence, honor, love, hate, compassion, or whatever. No, no one has, I was purely talking about the story or the characters, and I'd like to apologize to @Julia H. if read as if I was 'accusing' you of sexism, I wasn't. If we were talking about real people in the real world it would be guilt by association, but I'm trying to analyze the authorial intent, and I belive @Julia H. was doing the same thing, after all the 'man of the NW' bit spans several different characters, and if I see a couple of characters depicted as complete monsters talking in a clear and defined way, I have a hard time seeing a similar way of speaking as a signifier for good. I'm gonna try to clear this up with an example: Let's say we are reading a book by an author whom we know hates people who apologize, even in the book we have a couple of characters who constantly apologize while committing heinous deeds, and the same pattern repeats throughout the author's work. In the middle of the book a new character shows up, they seem like a good person, but after a while, we realize they say 'sorry' a few times. Now, in the real world, this means nothing, but we know the author's opinion on this and we have a few examples in their work, even tho we most likely think apologizing is a good thing to do, we would surely mistrust that character, because this world was created by the author and influenced by their worldview and ideology. No, he doesn't, but the NW isn't fighting nazis either.
  11. Yes, I understand, but the conception of this post was going beyond how things are presented in the text and looking at them through the context of the life of the author and his other work, as well as his political ideology and moral values, in order to try to uncover any future twist or subversions, for example, the Others are presented as a pure force of evil in the story, and no mention of them frames them as anything different, yet, while analyzing certain things (the etymology of their name, other GRRM works, and George's ideology and morals) we can try and guess some things about their true nature and what George would want to use them to comment on. I'm proposing in here the same thing to be done with 'a man of the Night's Watch'. for George to deconstruct the idea of it being something inherently good, he first needs to present the idea, same thing with the Others, so he has to have the phrase be used in a positive way before in turns into something more fowl, which I would guess would be more true to him, as I posed before. Then again, I don't think the phrase is always used in a good way, as for example, it being a reason to murder an unarmed person (Ygritte). But that's how it works in the real world, no? When a soldier does a cool thing, he's a "true man of the army", but when he does something 'uncool' the phrase thrown around is 'this is not how men of the army act' putting the blame on the individual instead of the institution, therefore ridding it of any responsability. And I never meant anything of the sort, but 'a man of the Night's Watch' and 'becoming a man' are tied to the same toxic ideals of masculinity.
  12. I get how it can be confusing, but that was not my point 'becoming a man' is in general seen as something bad in GRRM stories, as are violence-focused organizations, as is outsourcing morality. In fact, the belief that one becomes a man through enduring violence and suffering is held by GRRM's most despicable and cartoonishly evil villains, like Randyll Tarly or Slum's dad. And becoming "a man of the Night's Watch", is becoming a man through violence and suffering, it also means outsourcing your morality to an external code and joining a violent organization, so I doubt it's a good thing, if anything I think he's playing with our expectations. And look at the quotes you provided, Waymar becomes a man of the Night's Watch when he chooses to fight, to engage in violence, and it's used by Qhorin to justify Jon Executing Ygritte and himself. Of course they aren't, people aren't monolithic, what I'm saying is that I doubt that being 'a man of blank' means something good when coming from GRRM, a man who, throughout his career depicted people who speak similar phrases as villains, specially when being a man of the Night's Watch means being a soldier and an assassin 999 out of a thousand times, and George is against both. Like the phrases being 'a man of the army' or 'a man of the Klu Klux Klan' or 'a man of the reich' where probably used, and in all these cases, in the end, it all means violence. Absolutely, I'm not saying being a man of the NIght's Watch is a bad thing, but I seriously doubt, given GRRM's past work, life history and personal politics, that he would associate the phrase with an automatic good value.
  13. I'm not saying he's as bas a them, he definitely isn't, but he's far from being a good dad. For me the worst one is Randyll, tho Tywin is a close second.
  14. It doesn't take much to be better than Tywin and Roose, or even worse, Balon and Randyll, but still Robert was by no measure a good father, he beat his kids and was completely neglectful.
  15. The patriarcal and sexist thing is thinking someone will become a man via violence, Randyll Tarly hoped Sam would become a man of the Night's Watch in this way. It's framing violence, stoicism, a lack of empathy and emotion and such as being 'manly' while showing emotion and displaying empathy is being a 'not man' if you pardon the Dying Of The Light pun. GRRM protagonists often battle people who think them 'notmen' because they are empathic and display emotions, again, Armageddon Rag being a prime example of it. And, given that George was always a nerdy, feminist hippie, who consciously objected to the Vietnam war, we can assume many people in his life told him, more than once to 'be a man', maybe even 'be a man of the army' or some BS like that. The other part of he phrase ("of the Night's Watch") is also something George doesn't seem to view as inherently valuable, after all, Chett is a man of the Night's Watch, and so are a bunch of other assholes, and, at lest my read of the story, is how outsourcing morality is not necessarily a good thing, we see this with Jaime, obviously, but we also see this in ADWD with Jon, and all his struggles regarding when to keep his vows and when not to. We can discuss if he broke his vows by letting the Freefolk though, or by sending Mance to rescue Arya, I don't think he did, but that's not important, because if saving people is wrong just because you made an oath, then what's wrong is the oath, and I think the story explores that a lot. So yeah, I don't think being a 'man of the Night's Watch' is necessarily a good thing, there can surely be good 'men of the Night's Watch' and there are, but not all of them are, and a character becoming a 'man of the Night's Watch' doesn't mean that character gets better in anyway, like joining the army doesn't make you better, and besides personal politics, I think it goes against what the author thinks.
×
×
  • Create New...