Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,404 profile views

Targaryeninkingslanding's Achievements

Landed Knight

Landed Knight (6/8)

  1. I always saw these types of lines as a quite literal attempt at othering, like how nan describes wildings as beasts more than men. Mel does have a predilection to call all other gods demons, and if the temple of r'hllor is based on Zoroastrianism its not exactly strange for her to espouse such given the dogma of the religion. rather than demons I think their supposed to be some aes sídhe / fairy species similar to the children and their brothers the giants. death is often referred to as a mercy as well, so it seems Sams prayer is being answered in a way. demon though is an interesting term and brings up an essential question, are the others evil? they seem to have laws and intelligence at least given their relation with craster. so far they have mostly just chased the wildlings and watch out of the north of the wall, which may be justified. the attack on Mormont inside the wall however...
  2. I agree with you in regards to the outstanding-ness and tragedy of Cat. But I think there is room to appreciate the symbolism and potential of un-cat. she lost everything. that she came back from the dead isn't what made her deranged, it was her losses, her grief, and we see that immediately prior to her murder. that is what made her a monster, not her revival. her actions are not ruled by love for her family anymore, but by death. her dying wasn't necessary for his character transformation, but serves more an outward aesthetic by the author to signify that the world of the living does not concern her anymore. what matter to her is the lingering will, the vengeance and hatred of the dead and it is death she covets now, not life. What she will go on to do with bri and jamie will be very interesting I have no doubt (she has an interesting relationship with both), but what I am more in hope for is her finding some solace in the truth of Jons birth or some form of reconciliation, her other missing children being found to her (like the sansa/shadrich theory), or the continued life of her grandchildren (if Jane has a baby somehow amongst others). all could be very beautiful and painful scenes. I would want to read that at least.
  3. Not just weaken, but possibly destroy it. Jon made the wildlings submit to him to cross his wall, he is effectively their king, and a few crows tried to/ did murder him right after the wildings promised to fight by his side. castle black is gonna be a massacre. Shireen very well may die, especially if val has any say. most of the good crows were sent away by Jon already at least, so hopefully ed, grenn and pip survive. maybe satin and Arron and emrick survive by defending Jons body. I don't know. some above will probably have to die or it wont mean enough.
  4. Stannis hasn't used his wildling allies in this war, but did stop an invasion by them. he has also already made common cause with the clans, northmen who accept him. he liberated Deepwood Mott from the iron men. he also does not intend to govern the north directly when he comes into power but install a new warden (presumably, given his offer to Jon), and earning that position is valuable, enough so that the boltons (who are notorious for skinning people and whose heir is notoriously cruel) themselves played traitor to get. deposing them sounds favorable to me. what can Stannis offer the northmen besides? honor, honor and vengeance, for their brothers, kin and kith murdered by Freys and boltons at the red wedding, and for the Starks, well loved and respected. cruelly betrayed in the eyed of the north, in violation of the oldest of the laws of men. I love Davos. Not to say that the north wouldn't betray Stannis if they believed they could restore the kingdom in the north with Jon or rickon say. just that there is reasonable justification to take Stannis over boltons. and it's not like the first night rule is that carefully enforced if what Roose claims about it is true.
  5. that she's taken the shield of dunk suggest to me she needs to find her egg, and if pod is that egg, what does that entail for him? from an egg hatches a dragon. from a pod pops a... plant? flower? rose? And if their relationship persists I'll want bri to become the 4th hound all the more so, solely because pod once had a dog named hero. definitely some interesting parallels between Jonquil Darke and Brienne. Both could be considered symbolic of Joan of arc, the maid of Orleans. Jonquil dark is almost certainly named in homage to Jeanne d'Arc and became protector of the good queen after she was attacked in Jonquil's pool in Maidenpool. Bri has the epitaph, the maid of Tarth. this could just be homage though and not symbolic of their eventual roles. that bri, a true knight, might also be a "true christian knight" archetype as in a knight who upholds all knightly virtues seems not farfetched and it is the type of knight sansa wishes for. the extent of her upholding that role seems difficult to discern at this time. hopefully she is not burned at the stake, but perhaps she is doomed to die from her current trial by the brotherhood or later on. if the sansa gets kidnapped by Shadrich theory comes to fruition, that may at least be avoided, and I do want her and Jamie or Sandor to fight the headless Gregor together. she seems a strong contender for Sansa's champion despite, as a stand in for Gawain, the maiden's knight, just as Sandor does as the green knight, if the green cloak theory can be believed. I wonder is sansa is always to be a maid? pegging sansa as Guinevere, faegon makes a fair enough Arthur, blackfyre as the king's sword excalibur, and I suppose Jon might as well be the king of Cornwall (corn king on the wall). in such a parallel situation she may be killed by faegon, but Guinevere means white fairy or white ghost, so maybe im looking at the roles wrong.
  6. 10 - wouldn't a better name for joff be "the new usurper?" "They have a issue with her sleeping with another man but no issue with the usurper cheating on the wonderful woman. Mercifully the foster father dies. " kings keeping mistresses is by no means rare, and Cersei probably welcomed him to it as long as it kept him away. the difference here is that none of Robert's bastard children stood to inherit the birthright of Robert's heir. When Cersei cheated, she did steal that birthright by passing off the incestious bastard usurper as the king's own. one is treason, the other is more just a distasteful act. and unlike Robert, Cersei did order the murder of Robert's own children so she can't claim any moral high ground on that standard. and historically speaking rape was considered a crime because it was "destruction of property" to a woman's owner, usually her husband or father. in English common law, marital rape was considered an impossibility well into and through the 17th century. the king owns the realm which is why things like the right of the first night persisted so long. the words 'forced himself on her' are very intentional in that regard, so that we the reader may understand it as rape as we see it today and understand the psychological implications, but also identifying it as something Cersei would not consider rape in that she would call it that, nor would Robert ever consider it as rape, legally or socially. this is not in defense of what we would now call rape or in Robert committing it, more just a semantic that helps better contextualize the relationship. And by this definition, one could argue that what Cersei did to Merryweather was more rape by westerosi law than what Robert did to her.
  7. Half of me just wants Sandor to be done with fighting. But the words true knight got me thinking about sir Gawain and the green knight and the parallels between Sandor and Brienne of Tarth. the green knight (king author and king cornwall) and Gawain are considered to be two of the greatest champions of Camelot. Just as well I think Bri might be being set up to be another hound (4th), and we know sansa needs a dog. either way bri seems to be the true knight sansa is looking for, while Sandor will be her green knight. does that make sansa Arthur, or is she Guinevere? who is the king of Cornwall, and what will be his seven headed monster? well the symbolism is all muddled, so maybe ignore this.
  8. I think one could argue Cersei's life is that of a tragedy. the mistake she made is pride but also hubris in the classical sense. she thought she could subvert prophecy and thus brought about her own doom. She's like king Laius of oedipus rex, she was a terrible person, had about everything she wanted, and in her vanity and hubris brought about her own destruction. classically speaking a tragedy is just a serious story where things start out well for a person and end badly usually due to their own weakness. Cersei was a queen to a king when the story started and became an imprisoned dowager with a dead son in a fractured realm.
  9. oh I know. as "far is she is concerned" I said. she thinks she kissed him, doesn't she? that belief will have implications eventually presumably. if I thought I kissed Sandor once, might make it easier to kiss him a second time (but really the first time). For Sansa to kiss him, unafraid, would be amazing for Sandor. he did abandon his post so a kiss of forgiveness, as referenced to by Cersei for kettleblack, is at least established and may be used to forgive his crime. I can't think of many more positive ways the un-kiss can be used in the aforementioned scenario.
  10. better yet if she also gives him a kiss of forgiveness. I mean, as far as she is concerned they kissed once already...
  11. why so many for the reach though? because of all the trade?
  12. I think Rickon too. his is a shaggy dog story. even if Lem is Richard Lonmouth I still think he's gonna die. I do want him and stone heart to meet Jon beforehand though. no way that's not interesting. esieacily if Jon learns about R+L=J
  13. So I think someone need to explain you what a bad faith argument is. it's an argument where someone displays an argumentative strategy with no intention of actually considering the evidence against or for being presented. Bad faith actors usually resort to things like name calling, ad hominem - where someone attacks the characteristics or authority of an actor without addressing the substance of the argument, goalpost changing, or simple contradiction. you just wrote a response without actually addressing or explaining problems with my point, you simply resorted to contradiction and calling it nonsense - (an attack on the characteristics or authority of an actor) or spamming 'you're making things up'. you're even ignoring your own demand of textual evidence. My arguments have focused on identifying problems that exist logically within your own claims ie if there is a god what can we reasonably expect these powers to entail? if jojen is not wrong what can we reasonably expect? I can call attention to particular claims like jojen is wrong and point out things like assumptions and conceits that such a claim entails ie did he confuse a crow and a raven? can a failure of identification though hearing be equated to identification through sight or second sight? does nans proximity effect the ability of the crow to be appear? not for jojen at least. they are called counter arguments. textual evidence supports arguments, but is not the argument itself. the fact that this forum focuses on asoiaf comes with the expectation that the participant has a passing familiarity with the source material, otherwise every post would require textual evidence. Addressing textual evidence, go back a single page and you'll see me use two quotes, highlighted in white. Textual evidence supports arguments, but is not the argument itself. similarly many things are easy to find and identify on the wiki, just as posts already made on a topic page do not need to be restated, but only referenced. Now, textual evidence can be useful, but some things are self evident to any reader. that Jon snow joined the nights watch is self evident and does not require a quote. that nan has not taught bran to fly but bloodraven has is self evident to any reader. that all of jojen's greendreams have come true is self evident to any reader. that bloodraven is the crow is the stated assumption. you are trying to prove otherwise and so have a burden of proof. identifying assumptions in effect is enough to defeat the claim to nan being more likely as the crow, especially when the claim relies on these assumptions like if jojen is wrong or where his power comes from and what is its nature? the nature of these questions are essential to defending your theory, and so by defeating this premise, the theory loses its soundness. Based on your attitude from this last post especially, I can tell you no intention discussing this civilly. It seems this is as far as this conversation goes. honestly it's a disappointing end.
  14. 1 Barristan will die of old age before dany returns invalidating the contract to take Pentos for tatters. 2 Barristan because he's the one true OG 3 Walder frey, and it better not be from old age
  15. just pink cheeked and pretty. his sword play is actually quite... fierce
  • Create New...