CamiloRP

No... but thinking "I could not execute him" means he could've not executed him... He does tho, in the very end, when it's too late, which ofcourse it is, but it shows he never thought it was a real posivility. As far as I know Thorne didn't commit any crime, and it doesn't matter what Marsh does later, what we are arguing about is if it was obvious Janos thougth his actions were punishable by death, which him, Marsh and Thorne clearly thought they didn't, and Jon thought they weren't necessarily punishable by death.

Yeah, I heard it. To be honest, I like bits of it (tho I hate the idea of Westeros being earth), but even tho you could consider it probable, it would still be an incredibly boring revelation and would add nothing to the plot or the themes of the story.

I don't know of anything that dissolves just in wine, in fact, saliva is corrosive, so if something is disolved in wine, it would be disolved in saliva, if not in your stomach, I see no reason to believe otherwise. Besides, the "lemon cream handler" can be LF's agent, so the conspiracy would still be simpler: LF and his agent, rather than LF and the Tyrells.

I'm not comenting on if tis warranted or not tho. I just think the execution of the slavers is way more warranted, while the text seems to treat it as if Janos' execution is the more just one.

I don't think he endorses slavery or anything, but I think no slave would act as George descrived in that part of the book, to me it speaks to George not fully realizing how abhorrent slavery is. I mean, he's awhite guy from a first world nation, the subject just doesn't affect him the same way it does others. And this blindspot regarding slavery to me explains why his "anti-warness" prevails even in situations in which he would be in favor of violence, like in mereen.

LF has tons of agents, why couldn't one of them do it?

The series is quite literally post apocaliptic, but it being sci-fi... no, that'd be boring as hell.

But that only works if you assume he teamed up with the Tyrells, so I ask again: what does he bring to the table? what do the Tyrells bring to the table? why involve all those people? why would the Tyrells trust a known liar that is talking up joffrey and works for him? and why would LF trust the Tyrells?

Did he? he only asked Sansa if someone touched her hair, and Sansa revealed Olenna did. Maybe someone else did too? If this is the case, she takes the poison from Sansa way before the poisoning. It's the same thing as carrying it herself. She doesn't need to tell anyone, just carry it in her pocket like she prosumably does after taking it from Sansa. Besides, if she just carried it herself, she didn't need to trust in Donto's ability to convince Sansa to carry the net. WHat if she handn't? I don't think the Tyrells were involved, as I said before, it makes no sense, what do they bring to the table? and what does LF bring to the table for them? How would they briach the subject while LF is trying to convince them to marry Margeary to Joff? Tyrion has clanmen and Bronn around (and the Big Dick Pod), besides, a direct attack on Tyrion would be a dumb idea, a really dumb idea. Also, someone tried to kill him during the blackwater, who? it doesn't seem like cersei was the culprit. Not if Tyrion is fighting with Joffrey over, lets say, a bunch of jousting dwarves. He's got more motives to kill Tyrion. He needs a widowed Sansa, he needs to get rid of tyrion because of the dagger incident, he likely tried before in the blackwater, and murdering Tyrion also helps as a distraction to rescue Sansa. It can presumably be dissolved in any liquid, like lemon cream, or even saliva. It's a dumb idea to use a posion that simulates choaking in a subtance with which you can't choak. So, in addition to having to trust in a drunk fool, a little girl and a known liar (who was talking up the suposed victim), only to carry the poison and comit the crime yourself. In addition to having to be slick and fast so no one sees you putting the poison in the chalice, despite being an old woman, with presumably not very fast hands, she would also need to, covertly, let know Margeary and any other Tyrell not to drink from the chalise but only in the moment in which she put the poison? What if Joff had offered a sip to Margeary and she refused, then Joff drank and died? wouldn't she be considered prime suspect? Also, she pressumably puts the poison in the wine in a moment when everyone is watching Tyrion, Joff and the chalice, incredibly bold for an old woman with pressumably slow hands. What if anyone saw her? why involve a bunch of people and still do the did herself in an extremly risky fashion?

This is my main problem with it tho, George seems to think it makes them morally superior, but I can't think of no person that after being enslaved, would pay back their former masters for property they took whne freeing themselves, if anything the ships taken were the first payment Valirya made for their work. Paying them back is recognizing the validity of their enslavement.

Jon thinks baout sending him to the ice cells, or tying him to his horse. It was not something that necessarilly demanded for death. Also, Janos thinks Jon is bluffing when he first says he'll hang him, and immmidiatly retracts when he realizes he's not, so he didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death. Also, Thorne and Marsh didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death.

I don't think Janos' was a "crime punishable by death", at least not obviously. Besides, that's preciselly the point I'm making

I disagree, the story asks us: "You are certain it was the wine that was poisoned?" And I don't think we got a definitive answer, as Tyrion tells us, lying is to LF what shitting on the forest is to a bear. Same thing with Aegon, the story poses a lot of questions about his identity, but I firmly believe we'll never get an answer about it, that doesn't mean he's Rhaegar's son. I care little about the reaction time, and I found the theory while searching if anyone else had thought about it, because I thought about it by myself: I came up with the theory because it makes no sense for LF to want to kill Joffrey and even less for him to team up with Olenna: what does Olenna bring to the table? What does Petyr bring to the table form Olenna's POV? How did they broach the subject? Also LF deinitely wants a dead Tyrion, as he wants to marry Sansa. And why didn't Olenna carry the poison in her person, instead of having to stealthily take it from Sansa without anyone notice? doesn't she have pockets? Then there's the possibility of someone other than Joff not drinking the wine, maybe even Margeary, or the chalice being knocked down, like it happened. The detail of the reaction time is a minor inconsistency, but the plan explained by Littlefinger, a known liar, makes little sense. And if a known liar tells you something that makes no sense, it's likely a lie.

First of all, the entire series is judging those events by modern day standars: using George's anti-war beliefs to judge a time in history when war was seen as heroic; using George's feminists views to judge a time in history when women were second class citizens; using George's views on class to judge a time in history when "nobles" were believed to be superior; etc. Second of all, I'm not even using modern day moral standards, I'm using Dany's/Westeros standards. And lastly, I'm not even using any morals really, I'm just noting a difference in the way George writes about Dany executing slavers vs Jon executing an insubordinate.

But the people who did this weren't slaves. In Haiti, the first country to abolish slavery, every single slaver died.

I'm a dumbass, I read your original comment wrong, I thought you where buying LF's story, hahahha. I do believe the poison was in the pie and Tyrion was the target, however, I don't think that would ever be revealed, and the other explanation is wonky, sure, but not as wonky as all the "shiera seastar is gonna save the world" theories out there. Once in this forum I argued for days with a dude who claimed Jaqen H'gar was Aegon...

I reject it too, and I don't think he applies it in every other instance, I think sometimes he just slips.

I wouldn't compare this with the war against the Boltons tho. Stannis just wants to be king and Jon wants to avenge Robb and save Arya. They don't know about what a terrible lord Roose is.

I had forgotten about that! that's a great point.

Yes, but when Jon executes Slynt, the only one who criticizes that decisition is Thorne, an asshole we are clearly supposed to dislike, and Bowen Marsh panics; while Stannis nods in approval. On the other hand, Dany killing the slavers is supported by Daario and the Shavepate.

Never read this, it's amazing. Yes, and somethimes for George aswell. The conclusion I come up with is the following: George is obviously anti-war, he's also anti-slvery, but he doesn't feel as strongly about that, sometimes he doesn't realize how awful that is. I'm not saying he's pro slavery in any way, just that being anti-war is a big part of him, and being anti-slavery may not be something he thinks too much about. Not thinking too much about slavery leads him to write weird, unbelieveable bits in which the former slaves pay back their former masters for property they stole, instead of demanding their former masters to pay them for all the work they did. And being more anti-war than anti-slavery leads him to oppose a violent solution to slavery, even tho it would be considered justice by his world's morality and by a lot of people in this world too, and it would be one of the most just acts in the series.

But my point isn't "what should Dany do now", it's "does George think it's right to execute the slavers?", If he did, he could have Dany dwell on her not executing them when she took the city, or other more simpathetic characters tell her something similar. The massive states that rely on slavery are already complaining, except for Astapor, ofcourse, because she killed them all. Ofcourse, I get why he killed him, it's just a foil: the text seems to think it's wrong to execute slavers but not to execute insubordinates.

it's cool

I read Feldman's point and liked it, I just seen your for the first time and I like it way more. It makes a ton of sense. Bravo.

Nah, if she kills all the Slavers no one will complain, besides, she could trial them before and she wouldn't be going back on any deals (if she did it right after she conuered the city). Jon himself even thinks he could've sent him to the ice cells, or tied him to his horse. But even then, not obeying your comander is not a worse crime than slavey.