Jump to content

Mourning Star

Members
  • Content Count

    405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mourning Star

  1. I actually think these characteristics fit with the Targaryen family. In particular the strong jaw, thickly build, and seemingly broken nose. We see these traits in the descriptions of the brothers Maekar and Baelor: Thickly built and powerful, the prince—he was surely a prince— wore a leather brigandine covered with silver studs beneath a heavy black cloak trimmed with ermine. Pox scars marked his cheeks, only partly concealed by his silvery beard His short-cropped hair was dark and peppered with grey, his strong jaw clean-shaven. His nose looked as though it had been broken more than once.
  2. It is without a doubt possible, he certainly uses plenty of greek, Latin, and welsh roots for naming, and honestly it’s mind blowing how meaningful the names he chooses are. Lots of them are plays on how they sound, like Aerys (eris - strife) or Aemon (Amon, the hidden one) and there are biblical references like Jaime (derived from Jacob, who came into the world holding his twin’s heel, just like Jaime), or straight translations like Orell (Orel - eagle in Russian). Frankly the list goes on and on. However, especially when trying to interpret the names in parts, obviously it’s possible I’m making too much of a stretch. However, I think there are other examples to support this kind of theory. Take Moqorro for example (mock - oro, or false gold) or Luwin (lupine - wolf, and wyn - friend; wolf friend) or Jaqen H’ghar (Jaken - wise, Hagar - stranger). Some of the meanings we see in the name choices were certainly intended and others are likely us just finding unintended connections, but it’s fun to consider. Sorry if there was confusion, I thought it was clear I meant Targaryens, which means it was at least 16 years before the events of Game. I do not understand what the archmaesters had to do with it, that is what I’m saying. There is certainly no indication they ordered Aemon to the Wall, or even have ever ordered someone to the Wall. Aemon was offered the crown and turned it down because of his blood. Going south for a task with the intent of returning is not the same as a permanent post in the south, and as we see in the series ancient archmaesters don’t retire. It is just very hard to see how the Citadel was involved with what appears to be Aemon’s choice to go to the wall, and his choosing to stay there, a choosing who’s difficulty is highlighted by him on the page in his conversations with Jon. I don’t think you can ignore the preceding sentence. His blood was why. He could not be trusted. No more than I can. It’s possible, I guess, that Marwyn didn’t mean his blood was why… but that is really not how it reads and if so it’s a very peculiar way to say that, especially for someone who’s name sounds Valyrian and who’s family/parentage are not clear to us.
  3. This doesn't seem inconsistent at all, Tywin had side-whiskers, so hair.
  4. There doesn't HAVE to be... but since we are here, and this post got me thinking about Marwyn... First, GRRM takes great care with his names, so what's in this one? Mar-Wyn Mar- means "the sea" in Latin -Wyn is a suffix meaning "friend" in welsh, or possibly "wine", or from gwyn which means "white" or "blessed". So Marwyn then could mean something like, friend of the sea. And the first time he is mentioned: "Marwyn, he named himself," the woman replied in the Common Tongue. "From the sea. Beyond the sea. The Seven Lands, he said. Sunset Lands. Where men are iron and dragons rule. He taught me this speech." "A maester in Asshai," Ser Jorah mused. "Tell me, Godswife, what did this Marwyn wear about his neck?" "A chain so tight it was like to choke him, Iron Lord, with links of many metals." The other detail we can glean here is that Marwyn met Miri Maz Dur before Robert's Rebellion, since dragons still ruled the Sunset Kingdoms, and this makes sense since Marwyn's chain was so tight, he must have been relatively young. "Do you believe in ghosts, Maester?" he asked Qyburn. The man's face grew strange. "Once, at the Citadel, I came into an empty room and saw an empty chair. Yet I knew a woman had been there, only a moment before. The cushion was dented where she'd sat, the cloth was still warm, and her scent lingered in the air. If we leave our smells behind us when we leave a room, surely something of our souls must remain when we leave this life?" Qyburn spread his hands. "The archmaesters did not like my thinking, though. Well, Marwyn did, but he was the only one." Then we get Qyburn mentioning Marwyn above, and these are the only two mentions of Marwyn until Feast for Crows, when he appears on page. While the line, "the menagerie hates the mastiff", is absolutely fantastic. I keep getting stuck on this one passage: "If I tell you, they may need to kill you too." Marywn smiled a ghastly smile, the juice of the sourleaf running red between his teeth. "Who do you think killed all the dragons the last time around? Gallant dragonslayers armed with swords?" He spat. "The world the Citadel is building has no place in it for sorcery or prophecy or glass candles, much less for dragons. Ask yourself why Aemon Targaryen was allowed to waste his life upon the Wall, when by rights he should have been raised to archmaester. His blood was why. He could not be trusted. No more than I can." Because while this is a great potential insight into the designs of the archmaesters, except we heard a different explanation from Mormont as to why Aemon came to the Wall. Jon was not entirely innocent of the history of the realm; his own maester had seen to that. "That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon." "Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. The gods meant for him to serve, not to rule, he told them. He had sworn a vow and would not break it, though the High Septon himself offered to absolve him. Well, no sane man wanted any blood of Aerion's on the throne, and Daeron's girl was a lackwit besides being female, so they had no choice but to turn to Aemon's younger brother—Aegon, the Fifth of His Name. Aegon the Unlikely, they called him, born the fourth son of a fourth son. Aemon knew, and rightly, that if he remained at court those who disliked his brother's rule would seek to use him, so he came to the Wall. And here he has remained, while his brother and his brother's son and his son each reigned and died in turn, until Jaime Lannister put an end to the line of the Dragonkings." Aemon's blood was literally why he choose to go to the Wall, so it doesn't seem to make much sense blaming the archmaesters. So what is with what Marwyn said to Sam? Can the citadel make an Archmaester of a brother of the Night's Watch? Does this mean they can leave the wall? Is Marwyn just making wild accusations? Who is Marwyn that his blood makes him untrustworthy? So many questions...
  5. This is an extremely childish opinion. It is tantamount to saying that just because a modern judicial system exhibits extreme miscarriages of justice this means people are entitled to take matters into their own hands. Some absolute baby anarchist nonsense. Other people being bad doesn't make it ok for you to be bad... kindergarten 101. And then on top of it you dive right back in? You are a proponent of taking innocent travelers as hostages for wars that haven't begun? You think Cat was "forced" to free Jaime? Obviously this is not worth a real discussion. I guess we just have wildly different worldviews. Have a nice weekend.
  6. And Jon is Ned's son? Jof is Robert's? The appendix is very clearly not a reliable source of information, especially when it comes to the plot. What it does do is reflect the "common perception", and in this case the characters are clearly under the impression that Bloodraven is the three eyed crow, I'm suggesting that there is ample evidence that they are wrong. Just like with Jon and Jof. Of course it's not crazy, even once you accept that Bloodraven is not the three eyed crow it is still very clearly intentional misdirection. But then, that's kind of a big part of story telling. I would say that this is one of a handful of fantastic twists which will surprise most readers. And the best twists are the ones you only see the evidence of after the reveal but which were there to be found all along. At the same time, in an unfinished story like this, one can't possibly expect proof before the reveal either. Doubt is an admirable quality, just ask Davos! Although at some point it, when faced with evidence, it becomes a flaw (if that's the case here is obviously debatable!). We all get to make up our minds for ourselves, and either way or undecided, hopefully we will all eventually get another book so we can find out I'm right!
  7. The same reason Aemon wanted to go to Dany: Worth noting that it sure sounds like Marwyn has Targaryen blood too...
  8. I have! More than once in fact! And I actually think there are several ways to reach this conclusion. I could go through all the parallels between Bran's journey north and Dany in the House of the Undying, or look at what we know about Bloodraven's past, his crimes against gods and men, behavior in Dunk and Egg, and possible motivations, or explore how a raven is not a crow. But, I think the my favorite quotes to show this relate to Bran's falling dream. In the prologue we see The Others for the first time, and Waymar Royce, say what you will about him, stands his ground against them, in that moment being a man of the watch. He shows bravery in the face of fear, uttering the fantastic, "dance with me then." Then in the first chapter, a Bran chapter, we get the lesson explicitly spelled out for us, a man can only be brave when he is afraid, from noble Ned. A beautiful example of how to show then tell in a work of literature. Later when Bran falls, he sees something very interesting, which I think often goes overlooked, bookended by the lesson on bravery and the Stark words, winter is coming: It is many books later that we finally reach what Bran is seeing above, although he hasn't yet realized it. We have the bravery lead in, even summer was afraid (winter is coming). The are surrounded by snow and cold and "they are here" refers to the dead wights... so snow, and cold and death. And lo! The weirwood grove on top of Bloodraven's hollow hill are frozen, root to "crown". You will notice lots of "king" imagery surrounds Bloodraven, but I digress... Those are the icy spires from Bran's falling dream above. The fact that GRRM used, "waiting to embrace him" to refer to them is really fantastic. The word "embrace" is only used one other time in Bran's chapters so far, when they first see Bloodraven: The throne that embraces him is made from the roots of the weirwoods above, the frozen spires of ice. Also, in the falling dream, "He saw the bones of a thousand other dreamers impaled upon their points." And lo! These are the bones of a thousand dreamers impaled on the points of the roots of the icy spire weirwoods above. So I think it's pretty clear the parallels between what Bran see's in his dream and Bloodraven's hollow hill are more than coincidence, this is the place Bran saw. So what about that original lesson from Ned? Hold up! That is the opposite of the oft repeated lesson! Not only should it be concerning that Bloodraven is trying to teach Bran something completely contrary to the original lesson in the series, it is also reflected in what Bran was told from Nan. Fear is for the Darkness. And who else didn't fear? And was made strong by the darkness? Obviously I could go on and on using other quotes and connections, like did you know Bloodraven was lord commander of the night's watch for thirteen years before he abandoned his post? But, I think this is enough for me to abandon this post confident in my original statement.
  9. You got me, the issue here is that I didn't know what a trial by combat was, and didn't realize that it was a valid way to get to the truth. Thanks for explaining it so nicely! Have a great day!
  10. All the above, but also, maybe number one for me is that when Ned arrived in King’s Landing after the Battle of the Trident, with Robert injured and Aerys dead, he didn’t claim the throne himself. "You should have taken the realm for yourself. It was there for the taking. Jaime told me how you found him on the Iron Throne the day King's Landing fell, and made him yield it up. That was your moment. All you needed to do was climb those steps, and sit. Such a sad mistake." "I have made more mistakes than you can possibly imagine," Ned said, "but that was not one of them."
  11. I don’t know how you got that from what I wrote but I think you are wildly misinterpreting me. The “abstract” notion of justice is laid out by the text itself. It’s not just a core theme of the series, it’s literally the topic of the very first chapter.
  12. I don’t agree with this at all. The plan is pretty simple and makes total sense to me. But, it’s not worth arguing about hypotheticals, or we end up in endless unsatisfying rabbit holes. Suffice it to say, abducting Tyrion was a wrong, both in practice and morally. This is like saying the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand didn’t spark WWI... Nobody is saying there weren’t other things going on or deep seeded reasons for conflict. The abduction of Tyrion is what sparked the war, and it was clearly wrong of Cat to do.
  13. cat made a mistake Are you suggesting you think Tyrion’s “trial” was justice? Wtf? Lol at no point have I used or suggested using modern standards, this is a straw man used by those who can’t express their own coherent thoughts. I used the standards of the series itself, to the point of literally quoting it. So when analyzing literature a common tool is to look for meaningful comparisons and contrasts. Rob going to war over an imprisoned Ned is worth comparing to Tywin going to war over an imprisoned Tyrion. But if that’s to much to think about at once we can just stick to the obvious things Cat got wrong. Not just that… Wrong. Jaime attacks Ned, and this precipitates the assassination of Robert on his hunt. Also, sending Beric and company into the Riverlands, which if Jaime hadn’t hurt Ned would have been a trap for Ned. The abduction of Tyrion is the first open act of violence which sparks the war, there isn’t really any debate to be had about that. You are talking about motives not acts of war. Did you even read this series? Did you read what you wrote? People are not to blame for the actions of their family members. Cycles of violence are bad. One wrong does not excuse another. Jaime can be wrong for throwing Bran out a window and Cat can be wrong for abducting Tyrion at the same time. Both are acts of violence against innocents. Never used modern standards, this is silly…
  14. why do you think that? Cat isnt some oppressed peasant, she is on top of the social pyramid and seems to be a proponent of duty and honor. I’m using her standards, and the standards in the story, certainly not modern ones. no she didn’t. That’s kind of the point. She chooses to rush the judgement, and that’s on her. Obviously she shouldn’t have been there at all, but those mistakes had already been made. I’m holding her to the standards of the series. It’s hysterical to me that anyone could read this story and come away thinking she was never wrong.
  15. Ya you aren’t wrong about the battle bravery… first through the gap at Pyke and all that. coward does seem unfair. I guess lost might be better, or aimless. Lacking personal conviction and courage much in the same way as Robert. Looking for an easy out, drinking too much, etc. maybe emotional coward, as opposed to a physical one… Idk
  16. I would argue that none of the magic powers we have seen are proof of a god, or that the red faith is legitimate... any more than the sun rising in the morning is proof of a sun god. And this I think is closer to the truth. These people with power are still just people with human motives and flaws. Side note, I do think it's funny that you see Thoros as heroic, I always picture him a kind of a drunk coward. As for Moquorro, potentially our dark flame... you ask if he is a friend or foe. I have to ask, friend or foe to whom?
  17. I just do not see any evidence for this... although I suppose it's not impossible.
  18. Not a big fan of innocent until proven guilty, huh? Being a suspect should not be the end of the discussion for anything resembling justice. The fact that I have to say that is so disappointing. Cat abducting Tyrion started a war. The Topic is literally, "Catelyn was right about everything", in this case she was wrong. Both in literally her accusation and morally in her actions. You tell me, have the goalposts shifted?
  19. I shall live and die at my post. Bloodraven is alive. Bloodraven is not at his post. Bloodraven broke his vow. Even by his own admission he is no longer a man of the Night's Watch: "A … crow?" The pale lord's voice was dry. His lips moved slowly, as if they had forgotten how to form words. "Once, aye. Black of garb and black of blood." The clothes he wore were rotten and faded, spotted with moss and eaten through with worms, but once they had been black. "I have been many things, Bran. Now I am as you see me, and now you will understand why I could not come to you … except in dreams. I have watched you for a long time, watched you with a thousand eyes and one. I saw your birth, and that of your lord father before you. I saw your first step, heard your first word, was part of your first dream. I was watching when you fell. And now you are come to me at last, Brandon Stark, though the hour is late." "Once" implies no longer. "I have been", again implies no longer. Bloodraven is alive and not at his post and no longer considers himself a man of the watch. Bloodraven broke his vow. The monsters cannot pass so long as the Wall stands and the men of the Night's Watch stay true, that's what Old Nan used to say. Why? To be honest, Bloodraven being the weirwood isn't even metaphorical, it's literal, and not some sybolic representation but an actual manifestation in the plot. Bloodraven being the Brooding Weirwood from Bran's dream works for two main reasons besides the obvious fact that a crow is not a raven and you don't bother including a made up phrase like, "the crow called the raven black" in every book for no reason. First, the wierwood and the crow in Bran's dreams are distinct: He was scared, even then, but he had sworn to trust them, and a Stark of Winterfell keeps his sworn word. "There's different kinds," he said slowly. "There's the wolf dreams, those aren't so bad as the others. I run and hunt and kill squirrels. And there's dreams where the crow comes and tells me to fly. Sometimes the tree is in those dreams too, calling my name. That frightens me. But the worst dreams are when I fall." He looked down into the yard, feeling miserable. "I never used to fall before. When I climbed. I went everyplace, up on the roofs and along the walls, I used to feed the crows in the Burned Tower. Mother was afraid that I would fall but I knew I never would. Only I did, and now when I sleep I fall all the time." The fact that the crow sometimes appears with the tree and sometimes they appear separately indicates that they are distinct. The tree and the crow are separate entities visiting Bran's dreams. Second, the brooding weirwood notably struggles to speak, or does not speak at all, in dreams: At the heart of the godswood, the great white weirwood brooded over its reflection in the black pool, its leaves rustling in a chill wind. When it felt Bran watching, it lifted its eyes from the still waters and stared back at him knowingly. And this is also what Bran himself experiences when he is with Bloodraven and looking out of the Winterfell Weirwood. He wanted to reach out and touch him, but all that he could do was watch and listen. I am in the tree. I am inside the heart tree, looking out of its red eyes, but the weirwood cannot talk, so I can't. So it makes sense then, that when we go back and look at the quote above where Bloodraven says he's not a member of the Night's Watch any more, and talks about coming to Bran in Dreams he never mentions speaking: "A … crow?" The pale lord's voice was dry. His lips moved slowly, as if they had forgotten how to form words. "Once, aye. Black of garb and black of blood." The clothes he wore were rotten and faded, spotted with moss and eaten through with worms, but once they had been black. "I have been many things, Bran. Now I am as you see me, and now you will understand why I could not come to you … except in dreams. I have watched you for a long time, watched you with a thousand eyes and one. I saw your birth, and that of your lord father before you. I saw your first step, heard your first word, was part of your first dream. I was watching when you fell. And now you are come to me at last, Brandon Stark, though the hour is late." Bloodraven never claims to have spoken to Bran in his dreams, which obviously makes sense if he was the tree not the crow. Don't get me wrong, there is tons of symbolism which I think points to Bloodraven not being the three eyed crow, but there is also practical textual evidence, like the above, which also fits with what Mel sees (although I doubt there is any Great Other, any more than there is really a Red R'hloo). The dark recedes again … for a little while. But beyond the Wall, the enemy grows stronger, and should he win the dawn will never come again. She wondered if it had been his face that she had seen, staring out at her from the flames. No. Surely not. His visage would be more frightening than that, cold and black and too terrible for any man to gaze upon and live. The wooden man she had glimpsed, though, and the boy with the wolf's face … they were his servants, surely … his champions, as Stannis was hers.
  20. How do you obtain justice in any world? No system is perfect. Our systems today are far from paragons of justice. That doesn't mean it's ok to go out and abduct people you think have wronged you. Many standards have changed over time, and it's good to identify them, but it seems more like you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and ignoring some core pillars of what differentiates justice from just vengeance, a core theme of the series. Not just because people are often wrong, like Cat is, but because it results in more trouble, like Cat's abduction of Tyrion is the fist open act of violence which sets of the war. One clear difference between justice and vengeance is that it is carried out by a third party. "Do we have your leave to take our vengeance against Ser Gregor, then?" Marq Piper asked the throne. "Vengeance?" Ned said. "I thought we were speaking of justice. Burning Clegane's fields and slaughtering his people will not restore the king's peace, only your injured pride." Even Ned recognizes that what Cat has done is both a crime and wrong. That is why he lies to protect her and says it was on his orders. The act of abducting Tyrion would be wrong even if Cat was right about him having tried to kill Bran, but she wasn't right, she was clearly wrong, so while we might sympathize with her it is absolutely preposterous to defend her actions as just.
  21. Yes, clearly if she suspected a criminal who is the son of a great lord the proper thing to do is tell the king. Justice. This is how Robert's Rebelion began, I do not think the parallel is a coincidence. Tywin clearly didn't have a problem throwing Tyrion under the bus when it suited him. Ya, sure... but it's clear that there was a right way to handle the situation and Cat didn't do that. Yes! This is literally highlighted over and over as the difference between justice and vengeance. Same reason today you aren't aloud to go out and arrest someone you accuse of doing you wrong. And if you do you have to take them to authorities not your sister. Blaming someone for the sins of their family is another major theme of the series, and also clearly wrong. It is wrong to run around abducting people you decide might be guilty. Robb goes to war over his father, same shit tbh.
  22. No, Occam's Razor literally does not apply to fiction, let alone fantasy. In addition, it only refers to competing hypothesis about the same prediction, So doubly is irrelevant to this discussion. It is no surprise that someone who doesn't understand their own arguments is so rude about being wrong. What did the three eyed crow ever promise to teach bran? please supply a quote. He is responsible for the return of the Others. Yes, clearly he is bad, but not because he is talking corpse. Bloodraven ruled Westeros as king in all but name during a reign of terror, he violated every law of gods and men, he abandoned his post, and tries to tell Bran to disregard the very first lesson of the entire series: Ned's famous, you can only be brave when you are afraid. Instead, Bloodraven tells Bran not to fear the dark, and The Night's King was a man who knew no fear, that was the fault in him, and the night was his too rule. Plot is fantastic and keeps one turning pages, but it isn't a reason to tell a story. You do have to think a little harder to understand themes, and this series is packed with them.
  23. I'm not sure to be honest. Actions can be good or bad, people are... complicated. Killing an innocent is bad, we seem to be able to agree on that. It's bad no matter who does it. But, is the person doing it less bad if they have a mental illness? I'm not so sure. They might receive more sympathy, or be less deserving of punishment from an authority, especially if the mental illness was sudden or brought on by trauma, like we see with Cat. But is the Mad King less bad because he was mad? Is Euron less evil because he is insane? I'm not sure I'm convinced. There might even be a case to be made that the worst people all have mental illnesses, which is part of what makes them that way. Pretty bold claim... then again, people have been making bold claims about what justice is and debating them for an awfully long time! I think this story intentionally tries to explore this question. For what it's worth, at no point did I say anything about punishment, this isn't a trial, but people should accept the blame for their own actions, and I condemn the killing of innocents no mater by who or what the "mitigating circumstances" were said to be.
  24. I don’t know how many times I have to say I have sympathy, but yes obviously… I still have sympathy for Cat. Does having a breakdown make actions good somehow? Obviously not… would you say the Mad King trying to destroy King’s Landing out of spite when his son was killed in what he saw as a betrayal was somehow good or ok because he had a breakdown? I hope not… One can sympathize with someone’s plight without excusing their behavior. Don’t you have any sympathy for the mentally handicapped innocent who was murdered?
  25. I agree, mostly… I think that the Night’s King caused the Long Night in the first place, and he was the brother of a Stark. I also suspect the Starks and Daynes share a common ancestry. Bloodraven is also a Blackwood, and the Blackwoods were supposedly Kings before the Starks forced them south … and Dany has Dayne blood as well as Targ. I have theories, but there isn’t a lot to work with… I think Craster has Targ blood as the son of Aemon, and it’s possible his sons are taken not for peace, but because there is power in kings blood. How exactly they get used, not sure… perhaps something like “only death can pay for life” or waking monsters from stone. I’m not convinced the Others can’t be dealt with, and suspect that the story’s of knights riding around long before the Andals and old heroes being called white swords (Kingsguard) may refer to Others in Westeros before the Wall was built. In particular Symeon Star Eyes with his two bladed weapon (a sword without a hilt, sorcery) and Serwyn of the mirror sheild (reflective like the armor of the Others) who slew a dragon (long before the Vlayrians came to Westeros). Symeon seeing the hell hounds fighting at the Nightfort may well refer to direwolves/starks fighting, as in the Night’s King being cast down by his brother. Speculation, obviously, but fun!
×
×
  • Create New...