Jump to content

Mourning Star

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mourning Star

  1. 5 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

    "Marwyn has a thick neck and a strong jaw. He is short and squat with enormous hands, a thick chest and a hard ale-belly. " https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Marwyn

    Marwyn looks more like Ibbenese than Valyrian. So one reason why other maesters do not trust to Marwyn could be that he has some "alien" blood in his veins.

    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. 21 hours ago, Aebram said:

    I haven't read all the SSMs. I know that GRRM coniders character names to be important, but are they so important that he would take a word from Latin, and a suffix from Welsh with four pssible meanings, to make a name?  How many languages is he known to borrow from?

    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.


    At the time of AGOT, the dragons had been extinct in Westeros for more than a century.  I doubt that either Mirri or Marwyn is old enough to remember living dragons.  When Mirri referred to the land "where dragons rule," she must have been referring to Targeryens, not actual dragons.

    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.


    Aemon chose to become a maester instead of a king.  But the decision to send him to the Wall was probably made by the Archmaesters, not by him personally. 

    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. 


    The oath of the Night's Watch doesn't require the brothers to spend the rest of their lives at the Wall.  Men like Yoren traveled throughout Westeros seeking men and supplies. Benjen Stark was allowed to visit Winterfell when King Robert was there. We don't know of any reason why a black brother can't go to the Citadel and earn a chain, if his lord commander orders him to do so.

    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 think some readers have misniterpreted that line, "he could not be trusted ... no more than I can." Marwyn was not giving a hint about his own blood/family.  He was just saying that he's another person that the archmaesters didn't trust, because of his expertise and interest in the higher mysteries.

    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. 5 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

    There doesn't always have to be some grand complicated conspiracy behind every character's actions.

    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...

  4. 41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

    This is a completely childish discussion. This is a feudal world where people are entitled to preemptive attacks and feuds if that's the only way they can protect their family and their interests. Especially if they have to deal with a lazy and corrupt king like Robert who is prone to side with his shitty in-laws even when they are clearly guilty of heinous crimes.

    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.

    41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

    Finally, even within the civil war setting - having Tyrion as a hostage was a great advantage. The problem is that Cat cannot prevent Lysa from freeing Tyrion. If she had delivered a captured Tyrion to Robb they would eventually have had both Jaime and Tyrion as hostages, meaning the Starks could have very well forced Tywin to the negotiating table.

    And, of course, the moron of the Starks is Robb. He makes mistake after mistake in the political arena, mostly against the better advice of his mother. It is Robb's mistakes which lead to the Red Wedding, not Cat's. If Robb hadn't made himself king or trusted Theon or betrayed the Freys then Roose Bolton would have never turned against him in the way he did.

    Cat would have never been forced to free Jaime if Robb hadn't lost Winterfell and the North.

    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.

  5. 1 hour ago, Wizz-The-Smith said:

    Bloodraven is named as the Three Eyed Crow in the Index of ADWD, in the north of the Wall section. 

    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.


    I realise this doesn't mean it's set in stone, after all the Index also tells us Alleras is in Oldtown when we know it's Sarella. 

    However, it's a solid reason (on top of any textual interpretation) why many readers may think Bloodraven is the Three Eyed Crow. It is not crazy and the Index supplies a potentially reliable source of evidence. This seems reasonable and based in actual text straight from the author rather than theoretical back and forth or is he isn't he. 

    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.


    I personally think it's far from an open and shut case. The 'BR is not the 3ec' argument has some logic to it, in particular the confused way Brynden responded when asked if he was said three eyed corvid. I am open to the possibility as I cannot 100% prove otherwise. 

    For now, I am of the opinion that Bloodraven is the Three Eyed Crow but will happily concede that there was some evidence if he is not. 

    I'm off to remove those splinters from sitting on that fence.  :P

    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! 

  6. The same reason Aemon wanted to go to Dany:


    "No one ever looked for a girl," he said. "It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it." Just talking of her seemed to make him stronger. "I must go to her. I must. Would that I was even ten years younger."

    A Feast for Crows - Samwell IV

    Worth noting that it sure sounds like Marwyn has Targaryen blood too...


    "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."

    A Feast for Crows - Samwell V


  7. On 7/7/2021 at 11:27 PM, Ser Leftwich said:

    Please supply a quote. :dunno:

    ETA: Have you read the books?

    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:


    Now you know, the crow whispered as it sat on his shoulder. Now you know why you must live.
    Because winter is coming.
    Bran looked at the crow on his shoulder, and the crow looked back. It had three eyes, and the third eye was full of a terrible knowledge. Bran looked down. There was nothing below him now but snow and cold and death, a frozen wasteland where jagged blue-white spires of ice waited to embrace him. They flew up at him like spears. He saw the bones of a thousand other dreamers impaled upon their points. He was desperately afraid.
    "Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?" he heard his own voice saying, small and far away.
    And his father's voice replied to him. "That is the only time a man can be brave."

    A Game of Thrones - Bran III

    It is many books later that we finally reach what Bran is seeing above, although he hasn't yet realized it.


    Something about the way the raven screamed sent a shiver running up Bran's spine. I am almost a man grown, he had to remind himself. I have to be brave now.
    But the air was sharp and cold and full of fear. Even Summer was afraid. The fur on his neck was bristling. Shadows stretched against the hillside, black and hungry. All the trees were bowed and twisted by the weight of ice they carried. Some hardly looked like trees at all. Buried from root to crown in frozen snow, they huddled on the hill like giants, monstrous and misshapen creatures hunched against the icy wind. "They are here."

    A Dance with Dragons - Bran II

    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:


    Before them a pale lord in ebon finery sat dreaming in a tangled nest of roots, a woven weirwood throne that embraced his withered limbs as a mother does a child.

    A Dance with Dragons - Bran II

    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!


    "Bones," said Bran. "It's bones." The floor of the passage was littered with the bones of birds and beasts. But there were other bones as well, big ones that must have come from giants and small ones that could have been from children. On either side of them, in niches carved from the stone, skulls looked down on them. Bran saw a bear skull and a wolf skull, half a dozen human skulls and near as many giants. All the rest were small, queerly formed. Children of the forest. The roots had grown in and around and through them, every one. A few had ravens perched atop them, watching them pass with bright black eyes.

    A Dance with Dragons - Bran II

    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?


    There he sat, listening to the hoarse whispers of his teacher. "Never fear the darkness, Bran." The lord's words were accompanied by a faint rustling of wood and leaf, a slight twisting of his head. "The strongest trees are rooted in the dark places of the earth. Darkness will be your cloak, your shield, your mother's milk. Darkness will make you strong."

    A Dance with Dragons - Bran III

    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.


    "Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear? Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods."
    "You mean the Others," Bran said querulously.

    A Game of Thrones - Bran IV

    Fear is for the Darkness.

    And who else didn't fear? And was made strong by the darkness?


    As the sun began to set the shadows of the towers lengthened and the wind blew harder, sending gusts of dry dead leaves rattling through the yards. The gathering gloom put Bran in mind of another of Old Nan's stories, the tale of Night's King. He had been the thirteenth man to lead the Night's Watch, she said; a warrior who knew no fear. "And that was the fault in him," she would add, "for all men must know fear." A woman was his downfall; a woman glimpsed from atop the Wall, with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars. Fearing nothing, he chased her and caught her and loved her, though her skin was cold as ice, and when he gave his seed to her he gave his soul as well.
    He brought her back to the Nightfort and proclaimed her a queen and himself her king, and with strange sorceries he bound his Sworn Brothers to his will. For thirteen years they had ruled, Night's King and his corpse queen, till finally the Stark of Winterfell and Joramun of the wildlings had joined to free the Watch from bondage. After his fall, when it was found he had been sacrificing to the Others, all records of Night's King had been destroyed, his very name forbidden.

    A Storm of Swords - Bran IV

    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.

  8. 14 hours ago, Mystical said:

    What are you babbling about? 'Trial by combat' is a 'let God sort out someone's guilt' trial in the southern part of Westeros. If someone wins it that means the Gods judge them innocent. Or do you not know what 'trial by combat' is or means?

    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!

  9. 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."

  10. 24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

    You really aren’t.  

    You’re arguing that Catelyn should handwave the attempted murder of her son, by the man that the Finance Minister and Spymaster of the realm have told her attempted  to murder her son, in pursuit of some abstract notion of “justice.”

    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.

  11. 16 minutes ago, frenin said:

    It wouldn't. For starters because that plan never made any sense and Tywin would not risk openly commiting treason like that.

    The most important factor however is that had it not been because Ned got hurt, he would have been on his way to White Harbour when the news reached court.

    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.

    2 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

    Ned didn't go because LF gave him a lead on the twincest/Jon-Arryn-murder. That's the important issue.

    Varys said the queen had to act because the king was getting unruly. And it's true - Robert replaced his dead Hand with another one even more fixated on justice. Joffrey's succession was not safe - that's why there was a war. Anything else is a side effect, not a cause.

    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.

  12. 16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    What are you even trying to say? Especially since Tyrion was not only making fine points about his innocence but his trial by combat proved that beyond doubt (in the south of the continent anyway). And Cat let him go.

    cat made a mistake 

    Are you suggesting you think Tyrion’s “trial” was justice? Wtf?

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    The fact that people have to point out to you that Westeros doesn't operate like our times with judge and jury and laws is frankly beyond disappointing.

    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.

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    You said Robb, Not Cat. Pick one. Or discuss them separately, even though Robb has nothing to do with what we were discussing. This is getting confusing. Do you even know what point you are trying to make?

    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.

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    And no, Cat abducting Tyrion started the razing of the Riverlands by Tywin.

    Not just that…

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    Nothing more.

    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.

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    The war was started because of the twin fuckers having illegitimate kids and LF wanting his petty revenge on the Houses that 'stole' his girl.

    You are talking about motives not acts of war.

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    And I ask you which came first: a Lannister trying to murder a Stark or a Stark apprehending a Lannister?

    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.

    16 hours ago, Mystical said:

    And by your modern sensibilities regarding Westeros, Tyrion knew who tried to kill Bran and refused to tell anyone. So Tyrion is actually guilty of concealing the identity of an attempted child murderer.

    Never used modern standards, this is silly…

  13. 19 hours ago, SeanF said:

    You seem to have this odd belief that Westeros is a modern democratic society with a functioning criminal justice system;  that all that Catelyn has to do is report the attempted murder of Bran to the local police force, and they'll take it from there.

    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.

    19 hours ago, SeanF said:

    I'm afraid it's not like that.  She has to take a decision in a matter of seconds;  arrest Tyrion, or let him go, and then have him tell his family that he met Ned Stark's wife on her way back from the capital, and what would she be doing there?  Jaime and Cersei would grasp that she was investigating their attempt to murder Bran, after he witnessed their incest.

    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.

    19 hours ago, SeanF said:

    I get that you detest Catelyn as a character, but all you're doing in this thread is holding her to standards that are ridiculous in the world that she inhabits.

    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.

  14. 17 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

    That seems unjust. Thoros always seemed reckless to me; he charges headlong into combat with a flaming sword, whether it's a giant brawl or it's the siege of Pyke. Drunk, yes, but he's certainly no coward. He and Beric kept the Brotherhood Without Banners together, and while Thoros was certainly a fat wastrel in the start of the story, he's more than redeemed himself when he's busy protecting the smallfolk in a middle of a destructive and pointless war.

    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

  15. On 7/6/2021 at 9:31 AM, Canon Claude said:

    There seems to be proof that it’s legit, given the magic powers that it’s priests and priestesses wield.

    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.

    On 7/6/2021 at 9:31 AM, Canon Claude said:

    But speaking of said people, they also seem to be too diverse to make a full opinion on the faith in general, whether they’re good guys or bad. Melisandre has done some highly questionable things, while Thoros of Myr is much more benevolent and heroic. 

    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?

  16. 1 hour ago, LynnS said:

    Let's focus a bit more tightly here.  If Bloodraven is the lightning-blasted chestnu;t can we find something else that might be similar.  What about Hodor?  Martin said that Hodor is only afraid of two things.  One of them is lightning and thunder and we also know that Bran is responsible for Hodor's condition.  Was Hodor lightning blasted by a supernatural force? Is this why he's afraid of the storm.

    I'm not arguing about BR being the 3EC.  I'm asking how BR ended up on a weirwood throne.  Whatever his history; he qualifies as a greenseer.  I don't think he abandoned his post, I think he was taken.  


    I just do not see any evidence for this... although I suppose it's not impossible.

  17. 2 hours ago, Mystical said:

    What does that have to do with anything? Tyrion was a suspect. The end.

    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.


    Again, what does that have to do with anything?

    Cat abducting Tyrion started a war.


    Have the goalposts of the topic shifted?

    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?

  18. 1 hour ago, LynnS said:

    He disappeared on a ranging.  That doesn't mean he abandoned his post.   I assume he was contacted by someone or something and lured out from the Wall.  Was he also contacted by the three eyed crow?

    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. 


    If you want to get into symbolism here; then I suggest that BR is represented by the chestnut tree:

    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.

  19. 46 minutes ago, SeanF said:

    How do you obtain justice in a world where there is no police force, no independent judges, and no law courts?  Justice is whatever the local lord says it is.  King Robert is three hundred miles away from The Crossroads Inn.  And, we know what Robert's attitude towards justice is, anyway.  He gloated over the deaths of Elia and her children, and handwaved the murder of Mycah.

    You rely on self-help, as Catelyn does.

    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.

  20. 58 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

    What is she supposed to do? Not arrest a suspected criminal? Tell the king?

    Yes, clearly if she suspected a criminal who is the son of a great lord the proper thing to do is tell the king.


    What is telling the king going to do? If, and I mean, only if Robert can be pressed to do anything contrary to Cersei (i.e. the Lady situation), it can reasonably be assumed that the king taking the son of another house captive by force could start a war too.


    This is how Robert's Rebelion began, I do not think the parallel is a coincidence.


    If Robert has Tyrion arrested and tried, do you think Tywin is not going to cause problems.

    Tywin clearly didn't have a problem throwing Tyrion under the bus when it suited him.


    The bigger problem is that there is no concrete system of justice and law in Westeros that holds the great houses and other powerful lords accountable.

    Ya, sure... but it's clear that there was a right way to handle the situation and Cat didn't do that.

    13 hours ago, Mystical said:

    Even if you think said son tried to kill your son? That sounds unbelievable to me.

    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.


    It's not like she was wrong that it was the Lannisters. She just had the wrong brother. And it's not like major doubt on Tyrion's guilt was cast before she arrested him.

    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.


    At least Cat only took Tyrion. Unlike the Lannisters and their drama queen overreactions where they punish an entire kingdom of smallfolk for way less offenses.

    Robb goes to war over his father, same shit tbh.

  21. 16 hours ago, Orion2 said:

    Secondly @Mourning Star the same applies.

    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.

    16 hours ago, Orion2 said:

    Here is a man who is a greenseer, whom jojen believes to be the three eyed crow, whom is teaching bran the things the three eyed crow promised to teach bran.

    What did the three eyed crow ever promise to teach bran? please supply a quote.

    16 hours ago, Orion2 said:

    He is a character who has been previously introduced, and fleshed out. He is supported by the children of the forest, and warded from the others. the explanation for all this?

    He is responsible for the return of the Others.

    16 hours ago, Orion2 said:

    clearly that he is bad and wants to posses bran. why, idk, im one of those people who got into this series for the realpolitik and doesnt understand that realpolitik is at best a device to illustrate the real themes. 

    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.

  22. 17 hours ago, Springwatch said:

    Ok, agree the action is equally bad whoever does it, but is the person equally bad if they were going through mental illness or not?

    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.

    17 hours ago, Springwatch said:

    If there are truly mitigating circumstances, then the blame, the punishment, the condemnation gets reduced accordingly. That's how justice works.

    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.

  23. 1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

    What about mental breakdown? Do you have any sympathy for that?

    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?

  24. 1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

    The Daynes have "Valyrian" features and they are not simply from before the conquest, I think their family in Westeros may predate the Valyrian empire even? Still, based on the name of their ancestral sword, they are more likely to have a history of fighting the Long Night than setting the Others on the world.

    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.


    But basically there may have been Valyrians (or their counterparts) with both fire and ice, and currently they are all Targaryens, Daenerys with the dragons and Bloodraven, the white dragon (ice dragon?) with the Others.

    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.


    Sure, but there is the prerequisite that mercy and peace are meaningful terms for both parties. Are the Others just Winter a bit out of control but otherwise the kind of guys who can be persuaded to coexist with life-forms they supposedly hate, to give up the practice of taking away human babies in exchange for peace, and to leave the dead alone; or do they personify a force (human-operated or otherwise) which has the single purpose or the unfortunate side-effect of eventually destroying all life as we know it?

    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 agree about the balance, the question is what needs to be done to reestablish balance.  

    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...