Jump to content

Targaryeninkingslanding

Members
  • Content Count

    308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Targaryeninkingslanding

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,248 profile views
  1. you made a claim that Martin was selling out by allowing adaptations and tv series based on his personal avarice. this is dismissive and suggestive that money is all he considered, or that such works could not be as fulfilling. I made a rebuttal to that aspect of the claim by pointing out that things outside an authors direct control can still be beneficial to a canon universe, and necessary for larger exploration and content to be created. I even used another George to make the comparison that much easier to see. Martin shouldn't be shamed for making money on his created universe instead of doing it all himself. Fire and blood is fantastic, and I wouldn't call the help he received in making it "Selling out."
  2. That's a pessimistic way of putting it. The idea that Martin has to dedicate his life to just Asoiaf is laughable. And the sheer breath of lore possible for the whole of asioaf is immense. He should be allowed to work on other things without feeling bad, and that he can't make everything a fan could possibly desire should be understandable. Think of all the breath of Star Wars fiction that exists from books to movies to weirdly animated shows. much of it is greatly enjoyable even if many of the original creators and actors are not participants. I mean the mandalorian was just amazing. And if George Lucas couldn't work on other things, we would never get Indiana Jones. That George RR is allowing others to work and adapt hid series should be considered a gift. Its not his fault those idiots of the abomination fucked up. and house of the dragon will have Matt Smith as Daemon Targaryen. as boring as his names sounds, if you know him, you know he's great.
  3. I think there are a few ways to answer this question. first I want to clarify what a Villain is. is it someone whose evil actions motivate the plot? is it someone who is just evil in character and motivation (a monolith if you will)? is it just an antagonist working against the focal protagonist? in the first case, the villain of asoiaf is littlefinger for killing Jon Arryn and setting the events in motion. from that perspective, Cersei is more character just trying to survive and save her children from a threat to hers and there future. she does unsavory things, don't doubt that, but the motivation behind her actions are often justified in her mind at least as an effort to protect her children and herself, and such motivation is not inherently evil. sure she cheats on Robert, but Robert cheats on her. sure she arranged his death, but it was Roberts own drunkenness who killed him. is Robert a good king? no he's a terrible king and a wife beater, but ned is his good friend and so he must be a good person? no. Do the Tyrells deserve her wrath and mistrust? well even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the Tyrells murdered her son at his wedding. similar arguments could be made for Jamie. he killed his king, but his king was mad. he tried to kill a boy, but to save his own skin and probably the lives of his own children in function if not direct intention. many would call him a monster, but to Bri, he's a hero who saved her from being raped and jumped in front of a bear unarmed to protect her. don't get me wrong, you can still consider them villains, they do morally questionable things, but so does/can everyone to someone. it all ends up a matter of perspective and I think that's intentional on George's part. If they were ever the villains, I think they stopped being that when they became POV characters.
  4. No, I understand that there exists systems of thought outside of divine prescription. Nihilism if just one such school of thought, as is Utilitarianism, as is Confucianism. that any one is universally true is just a conceit however. Many such systems exist and they do so outside of deity, and while some may be influenced by the varying world religions, not all these religions can be correct, for many are contradictory, so we can assume most if not all are derived of human philosophy for lack of a better word to describe these archaic proto-values. And the further back in history we go the more gods and contradictory systems and stories exist. as groups are wiped out or absorbed it is the conquer who choses what is right because they won. moral relativity is often the backbone in accepting this before deciding on ones own moral predilections. for me obviously, optimistic nihilism. Obviously though if this world or the world of asoiaf is subject to some sort of omni-god, including some afterlife, then a single true morality could exist in that way. if there are gods or god like forces however, competing for control of the cosmos, which very well could be the case is asoiaf, than we have plenty of examples of moral structures derived from such stories as well. Uranos ruled the cosmos until Kronos castrated him. Kronos ruled until Zeus cast him down. a red god and an cold god may be fighting for the same and they may not be. if one wins they may decide was is moral in "Their" world. if not then all that exists purely is the morals of the character's George has given us, and to the winner, the king, to deiced what is justice. are the values you listed always reinforce? ned was kind and good and loyal, and he still lost. will all the evil be punished? im not so sure George is that interested in something so... clean, but I would enjoy it nonetheless. I wont argue that there could be some central morality, because if anyone is the god of asoiaf it's George. any morality professed will be his beliefs that as you say are not derived from religion expressly, which are true to him and maybe not everyone. it is his attempt to encourage and share what he feels is right, if such is his intent, and all the power to him. that we have so many character pov's with conflict morals who all think they are right to me is a sign that maybe a single morality is not what we should be looking for. that we may choose what we value and what we fight for feels powerful enough to me. Honor (keeping your word) and love are often the very things at odds. Jamie tried to kill bran for love. Ned saved Jon for love. Aemon stayed on the wall for honor. Rickard was burned alive for honor. Ned admitted treason for his family. cersie committed treason for her family. what is important is that a person must make that choice for themself. What is actually worth dying for?
  5. I recall that when Alyssane tired to fly her dragon past the wall it refused. and we know that cold hands couldn't pass the wall, going south at least. maybe things of fire can't go north, and things of ice can't go south of the wall. its like a magic border wall. if Jon came back part fire wight and also ice wight from jumping back into his body from ghost, he'd probably make a good mediator between the two sides being all of ice and fire. if the "wight" for each is the same thing, this shadow/lifeforce, it seems possible. the wall is of ice so it makes sense for the others to have the power to break it though. that would some irony, if it was their wall the whole time
  6. That's a fair opinion. to me it seems you view moral relativity under the umbrella of nihilism or some similar philosophical school. This does not mean those who preach moral relativity are against moral values, and the sub-school of optimistic nihilism encourages and empowers people to actively shape the work around them for the subjective better. in that way choices do matter in a way that can actively make the world a better place. people disagree on most things and most/all people will find at least one thing they disagree on. outside the will of a creator deity, which may or may not exist and is not the focal of this argument, I see little reason to accept there exists any unified morality. in fact the view of moral relativity is very prevalent in Atheists, agnostic, and historians who make a study of the vastly varying cultures throughout the world. that George would believe similar does not see to me so far fetched. the morals of Westeros are derived from the church of the seven and the old gods. the morals of the red god by R'hllor. The morals of the Dothraki by the Dothraki gods. it does not matter of they exist or not, this is the legitimacy from which the morality is derived, just as the ten commandments derive their authority from the abrahamic YHWH. people fight for what they believe and all believe they are in the right. every character in asoiaf thinks they are the good guy, and most people on this forum even will disagree which characters are good and which bad. if their are real gods or just vastly powerful super beings, or just magic misinterpreted as deity, that such would be fought for supremacy of the cosmos is one of the oldest stories of gods that exist. history, like laws, are written by the victor. what are morals in a omniscient god's world but gods laws? that's why I hope neither side wins. Better that man has a choice.
  7. you know what makes scene makes me want to cry in a "that's so sweet" sort of way? when they find the dire wolf pups and Jon goes all "lord Stark" so he can save the pups. it is heartbreaking.
  8. you know what my question is: is he the last hero as in the final hero? or the last hero as is the last person to take up the mantel of hero in the past/ most recent hero. because there is a startling difference in the implication for each.
  9. This would be absolutely lovely literary symmetry. perhaps, but Jon's heritage must/should be revealed at some point and this is as good a time as any and a better way than most. there is a difference between a demon stark resurrected, and a noble Targaryen resurrected. perception of the resurrection is as important as the resurrection itself. the former would make alliser weary of Jon, while the latter may make him revere him. for a former targ loyalist, there will be a difference. you may not be hung up on it, but evidence to my argument is there and is reasonable. Jons eyes very well might be dark purple, he will probably be burned and lose all his hair, and if his targ genes are activated, that it might come back white is not far fetched. his face may be stark but his body doesn't seem to be. it does not have to happen the way I said it would, im not George, im just stating that as things exist, this is a way events could unfold reasonably from a literary fantasy standpoint and there is a sound reason to believe that this is the case if Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. and if he does come back it is also important that the coloration be identified as like Rhaegar and not say, like Ashara. there is a difference here and Thorne is the man to point it out unless reed gets his ass to the wall. And as Jon stands, he is set up to be the legal heir to the kingdom of the north which are rightfully brans or rickons. he is also a claimant for prince of dragonstone and the heir to the iron throne (if faegon is true). he is basically already king beyond the wall or the king of the wall. he has enemies in the Lannisters boltons and Freys, and he will be part of the intrigue of the seven kingdoms in one way or another, and his lessons are the ones he learned at the wall. those enemies arnt going away, nor are the potential enemies of faegon and dany. if conflict is to be avoided though, Jon being a Targaryen would go a long way in creating the possibility of peace though marriage. and if Jon is to be king of the seven kingdoms in any way, he needs white hair, something every targ king has had.
  10. plenty of things are worth looking at and this theory is not one of them. if we need a bael the bard stand in for Lyanna Rhaegar is a better fit. if he abandoned his post in this early years far before he deserted, he would have had to travel leages to get to winterfell, and for what? a young girl he has not association with that has no reason to sleep with him. if he wanted a lay he would go to moles town or lay with a wildling. and there is no indication by mance that such a situation occurred, or that he ever met Lyanna, not even in passing. such an assumption if furthered by the fact that Benjen has no idea what Mance looks like because they have never met. Ben would still be a boy ay Lyanna's heel during the time your suggesting. maybe if it was mance who sung of bael the bard to Jon we could pick up on some foreshadowing, but it was ygrette to tells Jon that song to the purposes of saying were not so different you and I. And there is no real utility to such a parentage. it doesn't offer Jon anything in terms of legitimacy or growth, the title king beyond the wall is not hereditary, and Jon already pretty much has that despite. and where the hell is mance getting hair dye in the middle of the wilds? is he rubbing mud into his hair? and mance does not fit the aa prophecy. no bleeding star, no reborn, no awoken dragons. Im willing to accept alt Jon parentage theories, just not this one.
  11. this is a fair argument but I have some problems with it and it has to do with the nature of the mystery surrounding Jon. most simply put, George is intentionally coy regarding Jon's heritage. if he did have purple eyes, and for the purposes of fairness, im not trying to stay that he definitely does, but if he did, and George was trying to hide Jon's heritage, he would not state that Jon's eyes were purple in any way so early in the book, but he would foster uncertainty by saying it looked so much like one thing that it looked like another thing. he would present the information in a common conception way, how most people see Jon or how Jon considers himself. anyone who saw those eyes would assume they are grey like ned's because they think he is Ned's son, Jon included. any thoughts otherwise would ironically be dismissed as trick of the light. now in addition to this there are just so many examples of black and purple juxtaposed in Asoiaf, in eyes and not concerning eyes. (put purple and black in a search of ice and fire and you'll see) now regarding eyes lets look at dark star: "His eyes seemed black as he sat outlined against the dying sun, sharpening his steel, but she had looked at them from a closer vantage and she knew that they were purple. Dark purple. Dark and angry." and that's with silver hair and a dornish sun. Young griff "Young Griff had blue eyes, but where the father's eyes were pale, the son's were dark. By lamplight they turned black, and in the light of dusk they seemed purple. His eyelashes were as long as any woman's." and we know his eyes are lighter than Rheagar's were. So clearly in dark lighting, targ eyes can easily be misidentified as black, Jons eyes seem almost black, and basically he looks outwardly stark so people assume they are dark grey, not so dark purple. Not concerning eyes, we have an association of black and purple concerning Berric, who is linked to fire magic. that could be coincidental, but could also very well be a hint at the nature of Jons revival and the color impactions.. but perhaps that much is reaching. I have no problem with this likening to the steel. it makes enough sense and could be seen as evidence for, in my opinion at least. and mayhaps there are no targ features to be founded. but if there are, a hair and eye change would make them more apparnt to those familiar with such features, Thorne being the best candidate on the wall to identify such. Northmen are also known for being more burly and strong, like Robb, so in term of physicality and body structure, Jon may resemble Rheagar at the same age. I actually love this train of thought, ive read a few version that toy with the idea of Jon as a corn king. there are more than a few ways this could be incorporated, even a mocking crown given by throne to the would be king beyond the walls, but just as well you bring up that Jesus was resurrected by god. its stands to reason then that if Jon is the corn king he will be resurrected as the champion of a god (especially one meant to defeat winter). Azor ahai will be born again under conditions simulare to what Jon is in. though I guess what's more important here in this part of the argument is Jon's role, not what color hair he has.
  12. "She is," said Thoros of Myr. "The Freys slashed her throat from ear to ear. When we found her by the river she was three days dead. Harwin begged me to give her the kiss of life, but it had been too long. I would not do it, so Lord Beric put his lips to hers instead, and the flame of life passed from him to her. And . . . she rose. May the Lord of Light protect us. She rose." Feast Bri 8 isn't this basically proof it was them. they could have known the time frame just by how long since the weeding had passed. they would have been hunting Arya and the hound after he absconded with her, so it fits the time frame for one of them to be close by the river. the only thing up in the air was how long after Harwin found her that Berric kissed her.
  13. doesn't the dream end with the brotherhood finding the body and the wolves/Arya then running off?
×
×
  • Create New...