Jump to content

Targaryeninkingslanding

Members
  • Content Count

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Targaryeninkingslanding

  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
  16. supply lines and landing point will also go a long way into shaping how large an invasion force she can reasonably muster. 100000 would be hard pressed to support during a Westerosi winter. if it was more than 60000 I would be really surprised. im with @Universal Sword Donor that we probably have a golden company sized force, but you know, with dragons and some reinforcements down the line. she will need soldiers left behind to hold the east after all.
  17. I didn't think so, but could be a way to at least delay her execution maybe... its not unprecedented
  18. huh, kind of makes me wonder if like crimes, vows stop at the wall. maybe Jon is only bound to his oath north of the wall. it would create an interesting irony from when the Septon admonished Jon as an old god practitioner in front of Janos after being accuse of treachery. and it makes for a nice loophole for why Jon alone may act going south. well probably not, but tin foil makes nice hats.
  19. also touching on the rhea claim, I wrote this for a different topic but "Brandon Stark, son of William, was born between 197-223 AC while Williams next son Edwyle was born between 197-226. We also know Brandon son of Artos died by 209 ac. We know Nan was wet-nurse for a Brandon, and that the Shewolves of winterfell should take place around 212-226 AC, which is our timeframe for dunk being up there. Rhea was the youngest of her house and born between 201-209 AC. so she would be between 3-11 at the time at her youngest, to 17-25 at her possible oldest in the possible timelines. this means the timeline is feasible, but only if everything happens to the Starks closer to 223 AC. having said that, in the mystery knight Dunk states his intention to go north, and given travel times, as longs they are not waylaid, should put them in the north between 213-214. at 12 to 14 I don't see Rhea being up north, or in a romantic relationship with a 21-22 year old dunk, though such an age distribution between partners is admittedly not so rare in the world of ASOIAF." much less do I expect her to be wetnursing, she would have needed to have a baby to do that, so most like she was in winterfell and had a baby before dunk arrived up there. not to mention Aemon would probably have something to say to Jon about his beloved sister, even in passing, being in winterfell at one point. if dunk knew aegon probably knew, so Aemon probably knew. and Aemon mentions both sisters when referring to them singing to their children, so he must have met her kids. and I can't imagine Maekar sending his daughter up there for any reason.
  20. you're conflating the person and the religion. we should not assume bloodraven is evil based on what other actors may do under the pretense of their name. he is dangerous, but that does not diminish his claim to be the three eyed crow. even if he is evil it does not mean he's not the crow looking for a successor/ new body. gods do not have to be kind. just as well, were those killings evil to the ones committing them? is something pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious? I would argue the former. your topic post relies on three essential factors, Perception when in the dreams, proximity, and the reliability of jojen's vision. the problem of perception of the crow is easy enough to explain away. why does the crow have a high voice? well what voice do you expect a crow to have. why did bloodraven not appearing as a flying tree during that vision? there are no flying trees. he may not be able to tell a dire wolf from a wolf from their howl, but visually he would be able to tell, just as one will notice the visual difference between a crow and raven. the problem of proximity is is dismissible because we know bloodraven just as well was able to observe bran or was "by his side" all his life. Jojen on the other hand first met the crow while near death as a child, nan being nowhere near. and why wouldn't bloodraven not know what the three eyed crow is if he's been watching bran, who has not shut up about it during his journey. he never denies knowledge of the crow, but instead builds on that to reveal more about himself. what we have primarily been discussing is the nature of jojen's greendreams, you on the side that because they can be misinterpreted they may be wrong, me on the side of it doesn't matter if they are misinterpreted, because they will lead them were they need to go/ are unavoidable. I don't need to put in textual evidence because the burden of proof is not mine. all I need to do is point out the logical fallacies and problems inherent in one essential premise of your theory based on what any reader can know reasonably. that bloodraven is the three eyed crow is the stated assumption in the books. you must prove otherwise. and just as well the inclusion of text does not make one correct. much of what you are commenting on regarding the text is speculation and reaching interpretation, not fact. obviously it doesn't, which was my point. moral conflict between two or more super powerful groups contesting for world control which entails moral domination. what are state laws if not enforced morality? asoiaf is not the rational moral guide the divine comedy, which you brought up in the first place. it is a world of contesting powers and morals. active, passive, through champions, organically, how a god may participle or not is varied. "Well, the readers are certainly free to wonder about the validity of these religions, the truth of these religions, and the teachings of these religions. I'm a little leery of the word "true" — whether any of these religions are more true than others. I mean, look at the analogue of our real world. We have many religions too. Are some of them more true than others? I don't think any gods are likely to be showing up in Westeros, any more than they already do. We're not going to have one appearing, deus ex machina, to affect the outcomes of things, no matter how hard anyone prays. So the relation between the religions and the various magics that some people have here is something that the reader can try to puzzle out." George rr Martin not only is this not saying their is no gods, its affirming that if there are, they will continue to participate in the world as they have so far, which may be visions- magic, but is not an avowal that they do nothing ever. gods may very well be kings of domains or to those they worship, and the nature of the god is how it manifests. the "truth" of it may very well be a cession that the morals of one group do not supersede another in being true. the elephant parable just as well explains the possibility of exclusivity, as does the many faced god and the god of the seven, several aspects in one being. in asoiaf history , the conflicts of two gods is a commonplace one. im frustrated because you think because visions may be misinterpreted, that means that the single vision that stands in the most direct way of your theory must be wrong, despite every other vision coming true. the distinction between the crow and raven is less significant than the result. I provided evidence of inspiration and implications of seer dreams and how they are most often depicted in classical literature, and you flat deny it because it is inconvenient to your theory. if there are gods it is more likely bloodraven is the three eyed crow. if there are no gods it is more likely bloodraven is the three eyed crow. if there are no gods and jojen misinterpreted it is still more likely bloodraven is the crow. if there are no gods, jojen was wrong, and certain lines are interpreted in a very particular way that is by no means binding, in that you have to explain a particular interpretation, one may argue that nan might be the crow instead but still might not be. you're the one only willing to accept a single angle. old nan told stories but not about skin changing. it was jojen who taught him to use his gift in the first place. all old nan has taught is history, useful for exposition and lore, but that does not make her the three eyed crow. if she was the crow she would have taught him to fly in that time. three eyes could also be a reference to green seer's exclusively and not regular skin changers, nether of which nan has shown a propensity towards. We know bran saw the tower of joy, bloodraven explained it in context and his own experiences seeing the past. you can witness it but not change it, remember. If he is a greenseer, then yes he should be able to see the future, hence the term seer. if you can see the past present and future, then yes you are omniscient. jojen is the weaker version of the power, he just has dreams. bloodraven is a true greenseer, and he is connected to he heart Tree, so his powers should be the apex of the ability. everything the children saw before and during their time in the trees should be available to him as well, explain his "godly" domain. not only is this incorrect to say, for I have used textual evidence in several posts above, all my arguments have been both valid and sound, based around simple logic, history, and mythology. again nice try to invalidate, but you have failed to put in any counter evidence disabusing most of my claims besides the conceit statement that their are no gods or that jojen is wrong (again the primary focus of our discussion).
  21. seems likely enough based on proximity if Aurane is in the step stones. just as well he may decide to just be a pirate prince like Sal and be his own man. for the purpose of story telling though, I wouldn't be surprised if he joined one side or another. dany may be getting vic's fleet, so young griff getting his own fleet might even things out for the coming dance.
  22. im not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment here. youre not really contesting the power but making a blanket statement about intention for any super being. do you feel that Jesus and Buddha should be scary as well then? its nice your able to decide that after being unable to prove it. look I can do that too. bloodraven is the three eyed crow is established. they even call him that and he does the job the crow promised it would do. from the discussion we've had I don't think you have provided suitable evidence to support your claim and the general consensus is that you haven't. you've yet to suitably dismiss my claims and based on the preponderance of evidence, bloodraven is still the better candidate on all accounts. its seems more your trying to invalidate something without making the arguments. based on your posts i'm not sure you get it yet. you brought up Dante as part of your argument and my wording was just in reference to that fact. I then illuminated on what the divine comedy is in relation to theistics where their is a confirmed deity and a set of divine moral laws, explored through Dante exposing hell and eventually heaven. A god can be many things and be imagined in many ways. just as George does not believe in magic and has such in asoiaf so can he with gods. the type of god is less consequential than you think though. I did not say Asoiaf espouses moral relativism. George could have a moral point or not. I'm saying that for the characters in the world of asoiaf, morals are relative to the cultures and religions they grew up with. those are the things at conflict, the relative morals of different peoples and or gods if gods exist. the old god has a different moral position than the red god, or at the very least their followers do. always have an exit strategy.... seriously though I don't know what you think that argument is saying, but its actually supportive of my claims. "they come out to be true" even if the vision is "misinterpreted." classic greek hubris. of course bran must learn from the three eyed crow who has done nothing to teach him his abilities in the months they had together in winterfell prior to the sack and has displayed no real useful abilities otherwise. super logical their M. Omniscience can be described as the ability to see any point in time within a domain. you may be confusing it with omnipotence, or divine interaction. we know bloodraven can see any point in the past (tower of joy vision). we know he was able to observe bran thought his entire life (in one sitting or concurrently). it has been widely speculated that one can look to the future with the power, ie prophecy. so yes, this is functionally omniscience. Mourning star you can make good argument when you try, but your post above is a lot of bad faith arguments trying to invalidate without really presenting a case as to why.
  23. yeah, Garlan is by far the hottest guy is Westeros.
×
×
  • Create New...