Jump to content

EggBlue

Members
  • Posts

    1,855
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by EggBlue

  1. 3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

    But they do. It’s just not hereditary except for the Thenns. If your father was a notorious raider, you can see people joining him. They may even stay under your command after his death if you prove able but this isn’t because they have to and certainly not guaranteed.

    Varamyr had established himself as a lord of sorts, “tax”ing several villages. If he had a powerful warg as a child he may have passed it on and perhaps even extended his land. Keep it up another generation or two and you have the beginnings of a hereditary rule, you may not even need wargs anymore.

    The healer that for all we know came from Asshai also had a rank and though she wasn’t a warrior, she’d have followers of her own had she survived to see Mance’s migration.

    true. however, higher rank is not achieved through marriages among them . Mance did not improve his status through his connection to Dalla. he did so via his acts , charisma and abilities.   

  2. 1 hour ago, Back in Black-Snow said:

    What is the difference between a heart tree and a wierwood tree? Or are they the same thing?

    Heart tree is a specific carved tree in a godswood that's worshiped . it's often weirwood ( which is a type of tree in general) , but there are other types of heart trees where weirwoods don't grow; for example the heart tree in the Red Keep is an Oak.

  3. 1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

    No, don't, I talked about it because it's not a big deal (at all). If it was, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

     

    I completely understand you, really, and I think we still misundersatnd each other. In no way chasing prophecies is a good thing, that is shown by Stannis at the front page, and ultimately, by Rhaegar. If anything, it's a horrible thing. If prophecies can be true (let's just assume they can be true in ASOIAF, so there are things that are meant to happen), then those legit ones become fulfilled anyway, no matter what. But I doubt anyone can not fall for a prophecy. When, let's say, a prophecy is close, and the people invested and related know this to some extent, they always get corrupted by it, no matter who it may be. 

    To get this over with, I am really thinking of the best possible example now, which is Star Wars. You know, the prophecy of the Chosen One, which actually is true. Now, wether Luke or Anakin was the Chosen one, the main issue still stands. Anakin was corrupted, the main reason of his downfall is most probably the first one, his childhood (if you don't count in some ass comic stories which overconfuse everything), which led to him not being able to lock out emotions as a Jedi would. That later on, put him into a relationship with Padme, who eventually became pregnant. Now, for a Jedi, this is all bad from the very beginning. Maybe not for me or you, the viewer, but it was certainly bad from a point of view. In any way, he went on a fucking rampage and sent a whole galaxy into torture and terror. In the end, he or his son is the one who brings the damn balance to the Force.

    And even if you consider what the comics want to say about it (which pretty much explains how Sidius/the Emperor/Palpatine got so powerful that he managed to control the Midichlorians, and made them impregnate Anakin's mother), the example is still standing strong, since Palpatine created him so that he'll be his apprentice and heir. So all things considered, Anakin was created by the most evil guy you can imagine, then corrupted him  thanks to his f'd up childhood background even more. However, Anakin, with his son who can be considered some prophetical dude with evil background on the square, saved the Universe and brought balance to the Force.  So, eventually, the evil creation of the most evil guy saves the universe with his son.

    And it's the same, in the sense that Anakin managed to do what the prophecy required, however, he is the cause to many things I don't have to elaborate on. Or if it's Luke, then the same shit goes on. His birth and role was all a requirement for the prophecy to work out ultimately. But that's how prophecies work, young padawan.

    It ultimately doesn't mean bad actions are justified for the greater good because of prophecy. You may argue beside or against bad deeds for the greater good in real life, but not in fantasy. The difference is the existence of valid prophecies. In this case, this is meant to happen. If Jon Snow is the promised hero, he would've ended up being a thing regardless of Rhaegar's actions. It is Rhaegar who tought he has to take matters into his own hand, because he couldn't believe the prophecy would be fulfilled without him manipulating things (assuming that's the reason why some things happened). This just shows how easily we corrupt, and if prophecies were a real thing, I don't think a single person could evade falling into its trap.

    And yes, if you microanalyze everything about this Chosen One stuff, then it's different form TPTWP, but it doesn't matter.

    sure , I see your point of view. I just can't quite agree with it . so, I guess, agree to disagree?!:dunno:

  4. 22 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

    Okay, looking back, I definitely wasn't clear enough by what I meant, and you may feel the same about yourself as well. But let me elaborate as well. My point with the german guy whose grandparents were nazis wasn't as clear as I intended it. The question is: Shouldn't the guy be allowed to achieve anything good or great because it would draw a bad conclusion, since his grandparents were nazis? Which would, in return, mean that good can originate from something bad? The problem is, that's how real life works. I can personally relate to that as well, my grandfather was a communist political figure in the 70's and 80's, in Romania. You may not know much about communism, or the agricultural system it brought into people's life later on, collectivism, you don't really need to. He had a position that gave him many benefits in the communist era, with of course a lot of responsibilities. When it comes to present popular opinion about him, the majority is pretty chill about it, since he was indulgent, yet I faced judgement for it before I was like 10, even thou my father, on the other hand, had nothing to do with anything of this sort, he's always been kind of the opposite, with being religious and everything. The point I'm making here is that noone should be taken down for the sins of their ancestors. 

    For all we know, the son of Aerion could've been the greatest Targaryen king, but he was taken down because his father's sins. That's not how things should work, and neither ASOIAF, nor real life is an idyll universe where everything is good and cannot be traced to something *bad*. 

    So for all I care, Jon's parents could've been nazis, communists or cannibals, it wouldn't confuse the purpose of the story. We don't even know if George intends to include a great message into his work, especially not one based on a single individual. Maybe the message is that despite the bad background, something good should be appreciated nonetheless.

    If you think a good story must have a great general message or moral/edification, I'd reccomend you to watch The Departed, it's one of the best movies I've seen so far, maybe the best one. DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, a bunch of other great actors. Just watch it.

     

    first of all , I'm really sorry for how people unjustly treated you. that sucks..

    no , sins of ancestors shouldn't be defining people . that's not what I'm saying . I think we should make a distinction between what people can achieve or would do on their own and what's a promised result of prophecies (the later ,obviously,  simply doesn't exist in our world) . Daenerys and Tyrion are already there in the book showing that children shouldn't be responsible for their fathers' deeds and that they can turn up exactly the opposite of them.  

    Jon on the other hand is something different ;since his supposed father was effectively working towards the end result that seems to becoming Jon's destiny . it would have been different if Rhaegar was merely a lovestruck, reckless prince running away from everything (like in the show) . but Martin has gone his ways to inform us that the dead prince knew what was coming , was preparing for it and his story with Lyanna -as implied- was a part of it. I'm not looking for some grand moral message . but from what I've read there are a couple of things Martin seems to be saying ; call it message , rule , whatever... RLJ does cheapen the effect of  one of these things that's already clearly established in his books ; something that he's telling us with  Stannis's story and verbalizes through Marwin : trying to act on prophecies not only bites you in the ass , it also doesn't remotely result in what you intended . because although Rhaegar and his loved ones all died as contrary to what he wanted , he had achieved his main goal nonetheless.   

     

  5. 2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

    My point was that for all I care, Rhaegar and Lyanna could be the worst people of the series, it doesn't take away anything from what Jon achieves and will not in any way mean that bad is good. It only drags the simple conclusion you can observe in real life as wel, usually. Would you tell a great german guy who, let's assume deserves a Nobel prize that he is a nobody and should live and die a nobody only because his granfather was a nazi? Makes absolutely no sense. Or do you think Maegor, son of Aerion (probably the worst Targaryen) was rightfully stripped of kingship basically, just because his father was an evil insane maniac? And despite the fact that he was a great or a horrible person, in no way he deserved the crown because that would draw a bad conclusion? Honestly, this sounds stupid to me. 

     

    On 2/19/2022 at 7:19 PM, EggBlue said:

    I don't know , George might be able to pull it off without writing two selfish or extremely stupid and irresponsible people whose mistakes unknowingly caused a brutal war. I just don't know how he could make it:dunno:

    it doesn't take away Jon's achievements . but the paradox between this and Stannis's plotline with Edrick Storm  is a huge negative point for the story and its author for me personally... still , depends on how it'll be written..

    the Nazi example is actually irrelevant since I've already said here (the bolded), I agree that it doesn't take away Jon Snow's achievements or heroic deeds whatever they'll be. Rhaegar and Lyanna could be beasts in form of humans for all I care. did I say we should punish Jon Snow for his parents' faults?! I'm saying that I find what it implies when the story is finished dissatisfying. let me try to explain it in another way...

    if Jon turns out to be the ultimate hero or something like that , it'll confuse the purpose of the story.. at least in my opinion. because, after it's finished , it gives the impression that whatever happened as consequences of R&L ( whatever their intentions may have been ) , was necessary to the larger picture ;and thus , downplays the consequences of their actions . which makes the dilemma of sacrifice* for greater good unresolved in the story; as contrary to what seems to be already being established in the books ( for example, Stannis who wanted kingship for good intentions and killed his brother and was about to kill his nephew for it seems to be doomed) . with their child as the guy who saves the day , it's like the rebellion and R&L's personal losses were worth it and the end result for those actions were eventually good. 

    * by sacrifice I don't only mean to tie up someone to a stick for burning. I also mean sacrifice of duty/honor/etc. and unintentional sacrifice ,like causing a war as a result pf ignorance and carelessness. 

    I hope I've been able to communicate my thoughts better this time... now, if you still think it's stupid , I don't know what else to tell you!  I know my view won't change just yet, not unless new books shed some more light on this issue.

  6. On 2/16/2022 at 9:52 PM, Daeron the Daring said:

    I personally understand your position in this, altough I disagree with it.

    I don't think good outcomes have to originate from good intentions (assuming it wasn't). There wouldn't be good without bad. We couldn't place anything on a line if we didn't have something to compare it to.

    This is simply the butterfly effect. A shock of a butterfly's wings can and do eventually lead to a tornato at some point, somewhere. We ain't blaming the buttefly for the tornado. Small decisons always lead to big events, that't what I mean. 

    But to elaborate furthermore, the greatest athrocities of human age often started with good intentions. And everything had and has a positive side, believe me. Look at religion, christianity, specifically. Buncha good intentions, yet so many atrocities were commited because of it. For example, the Crusades. Yet, they still had a positive impact on things. One of the two major reasons the Pope started the First Crusade was to stop wars between european monarchs, since christian rulers wern't allowed to fight other christian rulers that went for the crusade. It created the longest periods of general peace in Europe. Nonetheless, it is something the Church should be ashamed of, and actually is.

    The history of Lyanna and Rhaegar doesn't and shouldn't take away a single bit from Jon's personal achievements, if he'll have any. I would honestly write a real-life example here (I did but decided not to include it), but decided not to, it's pretty easy to think of one, tho.

    I don't know , George might be able to pull it off without writing two selfish or extremely stupid and irresponsible people whose mistakes unknowingly caused a brutal war. I just don't know how he could make it:dunno:

    it doesn't take away Jon's achievements . but the paradox between this and Stannis's plotline with Edrick Storm  is a huge negative point for the story and its author for me personally... still , depends on how it'll be written..

  7. I'm 75% sure that R+L=>J (albeit, I'm adding seduction/deception and abduction/rape into the calculation)

    Yet, in my opinion, as impressively popular as it is, it sucks. I know at least the L and J part of the equation is confirmed but I hope R part doesn't turn out to be true if the books ever come out.

    - my biggest problem with this romantic tale isn't that Lyanna explicitly cared about "keeping to one bed" and that logically since she didn't know Rhaegar , she couldn't be sure he'd keep to 1-2 beds at most.

    - I don't complain that it also doesn't fit an able, single minded , dutiful guy and that seduction , abduction and lovestruck each contradict with said qualities respectively.

    - I can relate Rhaegar's utmost ignorance of his own actions leading to war in his last conversation with Jaimie to him suffering from bipolar disorder and depression and call it a day.

    - and I don't really care that most of the evidence in favor of this theory ( including KotLT , ToJ baby , annulment/marriage , etc. ) are not confirmed themselves and every question relating to them is usually answered with accepted hindsight of RLJ

    -  I try not to pay attention to the fact that a lot of the fans are too inhumanly unfair to Elia Martell as a character by making up excuses for LR's bizarre love story by saying she couldn't have more babies , she was barren , she was weak , she was surrounded by maesters all the time ...

    - I can accept the fact that basically this whole theory with KotLT part is a "you're not like other girls, are you? ..." moment and then a makeover to a lady resulting in pretty flowers crown and later "fuck the country and our families ... let's elope!" 

    - I'm not bringing up George's wife's claim about it being too obvious for George since honestly ,for all I care, it might be as simple as a marketing thing aiming at RLJ haters like me for keeping up reading the books! 

    - I can even overlook the fact that Jon has zero dragon imagery in his chapters. his paternity side could be as relevant as Robb's maternal blood ,symbolically . now , doesn't matter that dragon blood is one of the most powerful magical bloods in the series.

    - heck , I honestly couldn't care less about the fact that Jon's arc doesn't seem to be heading towards a secret prince reveal ... we'd still have prophecy for him.

     

    no no no.... my biggest problem with this theory is that if it's true then R & L who abandoned their morality, duty and families and played house for a whole year while the country bled , have created a hero who would save the day... which means a driven-to-Lyanna-by-prophecy Rhaegar had deliberately sacrificed thousands of lives for the greater good. which means at the end of the day , the war and everything that happened during rebellion was necessary for the greater good!  BUT , the books have already given us the scene about what a boy's life means with Stannis and Davos!  that paradox there is my biggest issue with this particular theory... now, if Jon turns out to be not the hero but the main villain and the main problem , it would destroy the character completely ;yet, I could live with that! 

     

    PS. volume 167? page 40? that's impressive..

     

  8. 58 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

    They may indeed. Who knows perhaps the Long Night ended not through battle but diplomacy, but a dark one at that: People living beyond the Wall is rather curious, who’s to say if the LH didn’t strike a Craster like deal and those people were sacrificed?

    I once saw a theory on youtube that said the Others behavior in the prologue was as if they were testing Waymar. then , it went on to say that maybe prince that was promised was a prince promised to the Others or that there is a prince promised to them other than AA (I think it was LML's). I should re-read the chapter... 

  9. 13 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    If Arianne does marry Aegon, I'm curious how she'll handle the High Sparrow/Faith Militant. Arianne tells Arys in AFFC that some people see her as a "willful wanton" (I see no reason why she'd need to lie about that), and she does prefer to dress very provocatively. The High Sparrow is hella misogynistic, and he does give us this gem in ADWD:

    (Seriously, this excerpt doesn't get discussed enough. It says a lot about who the High Sparrow is beneath the piety).

    Top that off with her being Dornish, and I think Arianne may have a harder time navigating King's Landing's political web than she's expecting.

    honestly , this quote and everything else we've seen of him suggests to me that High Sparrow can potentially be one of the darkest characters in the books . and knowing Martin used to be a catholic and probably familiar with the concept of religious leaders misusing people's fear and misery, he must have created High Sparrow to be more of a villain in the story . Yet, when I put High Sparrow among top 5 monstrous characters right beside the likes of Tywin and Euron , people mock me!

  10. 7 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

    Good find but He doesn’t see Rhaegar in a negative light either, in fact perhaps a bit of positive light. These are provanla told out of “obligation” Robert is his friend and very much alive whereas the not talked about individuals are all dead. No reason not to talk about him and in fact if he doesn’t it’d be suspicious. He talks about Howland too.

    I don't know . it might be a matter of perspective more than anything but I think it's insensitive of him to often talk of Jon's father's killer, friend or not , specifically from the time he put his hammer in Jon's father's chest(what other tale would be said of Trident?). he talks about Howland too but clearly he tells stories about Robert and not about Howland or Arthur Dayne or even Lyanna Stark ( Bran's knowledge about her seemed limited to general history and Arya was surprised to know she was like her aunt) 

  11. I just realized if Rhaegar's Jon's dad, then this quote makes Ned a total asshole in Jon's eyes whenever he knows of his parentage... 

    Quote

    . ..The king was a great disappointment to Jon. His father had talked of him often: the peerless Robert Baratheon, demon of the Trident, the fiercest warrior of the realm, a giant among princes.. ( aGot - Jon I )

    we know from Bran's POV that Ned is not much of talker , he doesn't tell old tales about victories against famous knights if he doesn't want to (Arthur Dayne) , he doesn't talk about old parties even they have cool stories, etc. he has no obligation to talk about Robert so often and especially not about how he was demon of the Trident when he killed Jon's dad , how he was the fiercest warrior (so he could kill Jon's dad) and how he was a giant among princes (as compared to Jon's dad for example)! ... 

    I wonder what he wanted to tell Jon when he saw him and talked to him?!

    " so .. yeah .. you are my sister's son with the Targaryen prince.. you know the one I told you how Bobby was a total badass when he slew... they fought for your mom..and I lied about your identity because when Lannisters killed your siblings Robert called them dragonspawns so I feared he might kill you as well.. by the way courtesy Robert's half-Lannister children who technically have taken you and your sibling's place .... don't worry ,though, you are not a child of rape.. that basically does make your father an innocent but whatever, you are in NW so don't even think about revenge or IT or any of that nonsense!..  "

    OUCH! 

  12. 37 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Well, to be fair, the fact that Daena just had a bastard didn’t help. I’m not sure why she didn’t name the father, but I’m wondering if was to spare Naerys the embarrassment.

    I suspect she didn't tell for the sake of Naerys too.. plus if you sleep with the biggest jerk in the family who happens to be married to your cousin -out of desperation from 10 year confinement , 3 unsuccessful escapes , disappointment of a too healthy brother/prisonkeeper , loneliness and lack of any other guy - you won't shout out about your affair afterwards either... 

    anyways , the point is that Viserys was the only one with the power or influence to oppose her ... as I assume, the country was at peace and more united than ever .  the fact that in spite of her confinement , her bastard and her lack of penis, still some thought she would be queen is telling. the world book says she didn't have powerful supporters , something Viserys had . he was too old to be a pawn so all I can think of is that Viserys took the throne because he wanted it. he probably thought it was his turn.

  13. 17 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Yeah, it sucks for Daena, although we are told he tried to have her and her sisters freed from the Maidenvault.

    he did try to free them (and I believe it) but afterwards  there was basically nothing to stop Daena from ascending the throne and legitimizing her own son (hell.. if  Freys and Lannisters were planning on presenting Robb as the beast who slew everyone at the red wedding , then Daena could definitely present herself as the Maiden Mary in history books:D). Targaryens were one single faction, the realm was united due to dornish war and during the 10 years of Baelor's rule there was limited enmity with Dorne...yet for some reason Viserys took the throne knowing that it not only destroys his poor mother's legacy but it also puts AegonIV next in line! 

    17 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    (It shows how there was something deeply wrong with Baelor when you consider that he could have just arranged marriages for his sisters. Instead he locked them in a tower for ten years. I doubt he planned on ever letting them out).

     

    the more I think about Baelor , the more I come to the conclusion that his interest in religious corelated with his shame of being a deep deep pervert! he probably wanted all his sisters but since it contradicted his religious beliefs and it scared him he took an oath of celibacy and then due to jealousy towards others who might have them, he kept his sisters in Maidenvault.... OR he was another sort of psycho! 

    6 minutes ago, Megorova said:

    You people just don't understand what ASOIAF is about.

    look, there definitely is a chance that all your theories turn out to be true .from what I've read, you have gathered a good piece by piece set of evidence for each small theory. however , every small part is supported by yet another theory when you look at the large picture, which makes the whole thing a bit of a stretch... definitely a good read... but you cannot expect us to take them as facts and say "oh you guys don't get it ..only I do.." ! you might be right but yet again you might not. and it's not like a scientific fact that we can prove and set aside.. it's incomplete fiction in the head of one guy and all these are basically imagination of each of us! some theories are more supported than the rest but the bottom line is that these are all just guess games!

  14. 39 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Silly EggBlue, Whoresbane’s first name is Hother, not Edric!

    we shall see! 

    ps. check out Artworks thread. I put something you'd like...well.. you , Corvo and Loras Tyrell:) 

    39 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

     

    I forgot Daemon had a son named after him. In my defense, he wasn’t on the family tree. He probably did like and respect the Dragonknight though. Even Daeron II seemed to have liked Daemon when he was younger.

    In my head canon , Daemon B was actually a good guy forced in an impossible situation . so yeah , I think he probably had more relationship with Aemon -hero of all- than his absent selfish father.

    39 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Aegon let Daenaera name all of the kids herself.

    yeah.. the guy was sensitive 

    39 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Good catch with Baela and Rhaena.

    tnx

    39 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    George may have only had one Cregan for the same reason he only had one Rhaegar and Rhaenyra, to make them unique. (Multiple Daeneryses though, curiously).

    you're probably right

    39 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    The tinfoil is strong in this one. 

    Don’t come for my guy Viserys. He spent his entire life cleaning up his idiot relatives’ messes, from the time he was as a teenager. He was more fit to rule than all of them.

    agreed... almost. it would have been great if he either supported his poor niece's crown or disinherited his son in favor of his grandson...

     

    12 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

    Arya has already met him then. Edric Dayne, next wielder of Dawn. 

    finally , someone with good shipping sense:P they'll even be parallel to Ashara the desirable maid and Shy Ned! 

  15. 8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    I was looking at the family trees in TWOIAF and noticed a few things:

    A number of Starks were named after their grandfathers (probably setting up for one of the current Stark kids to name their son Eddard).

    well.... Sansa will marry a Ned if that means anything! :P 

    8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Brothers Artos and Willam Stark both had sons named Brandon, so that might have been a Big Walder/Little Walder situation there.

    There was only one Cregan Stark.

    I thought Cregan might be popular , he sure seemed like a badass... 

    8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Twins run in all three families (Stark, Lannister, Targaryen).

    Almost no Targaryens were named after their grandparents or close relatives. Exceptions include Aenys’ son, Aegon, Aegons II and III (though we know there’s a story behind that), and Viserys II, who was named after his grandfather. Interestingly, Visery II’s niece, Eleana, named her son Viserys. I hope this means that the two were close, especially since Eleana would have been very young when her father Aegon died.

    No one is named after their father.

    By the looks of it, the women were never named after any close relatives in any of the families.

    I've got the feeling that Elaena was a bit of a kissass... I mean ... why wouldn't she support her own nephew?! as doomed as his cause might have been! 

     

    there were two Targaryen naming that were particularly interesting to me:

    1) Aegon III 's children: first of all his first son is named Daeron . closest paternal relative with the same name was Daeron the daring whom we can be pretty sure was not an inspiration to Aegon! but his father-in-law's name is also Daeron ... it seems to me there is at least one Targaryen king who seemed to care about his wife's opinion when it came to naming their firstborn. also, Baelor might be out of respect to Baela ( the same way she was named after Baelon) and Rhaena is obviously named after Aegon's other sister, Rhaena.

    2) Daemon Blackfyre's twins were Aegon and Aemon . Aegon is a pretty standard Targ name but Aemon here is interesting since we are explicitly told that Daemon's dad did little to honor Aemon's memory but it seems Daemon did. Daemon's third son is also named after his father. 

  16. 4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    This isn’t so much something I just noticed as it is something that I never see brought up. For all the bastards mentioned in this story, all the good kings and leaders are almost always portrayed as faithful and monogamous (or polygamous in Aegon I’s case) husbands, oftentimes swearing off other women even after their wife’s death. Aegon, Jaehaerys, Aemon and Baelon, Viserys II, Daeron II, Baelor and Maekar, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, Doran, Stannis, Robb, Tyrion, even Daemon Blackfyre and Quellon Greyjoy (no mentions of salt wives). He’ll, even Drogo isn’t mentioned having any lovers during his marriage to Daenerys. Maybe it’s just because George is a romantic, but he seems to use adultery as a signal that someone is not fit to rule. The only exceptions I can think of are Corlys and Davos (I’m leaving Ned out altogether). When you think about it this way, the fact that Jaime has been faithful to Cersei for thirty years may have been the first thematic sign that he wasn’t intended to be a true villain.

    (You could, of course, make the argument that some of these men had mistresses we didn’t know about, but usually there’s some kind of passing mention about whether a character gets around or not. We don’t know who any of Aegon II’s lovers were, for example, but we were told that he had them).

    that was really interesting ... George might only be a romantic but I think it makes kinda sense. if you can't manage your lust you probably can't manage a country! 

    regarding Jon Snow , I think whether he breaks his vows again won't exclude him from the pattern you found. he'd only be like Jaimie whose monogamy seemed to be intended as one of the earlier signs depicting him in a more positive light.

  17. 1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    Someone pointed out that the only two characters known as “young” something, the Young Dragon and the Young Wolf, both died young as well (even Young Henly, while technically not young, died in the only chapter he was mentioned in). Further proof that both Young Griff and the Young Falcon are probably both in for a nasty surprise.

    good (and sad) point...

    meanwhile , the characters who are called old seem to come back from dead! we've already talked about Loras calling Cat old and she comes back as LSH. and here's a quote for Beric:

    Quote

    Game of Thrones  - Sansa III

    “Lord Beric is as much a hero as Ser Loras. He’s ever so brave and gallant.” “I suppose,” Sansa said doubtfully. Beric Dondarrion was handsome enough, but he was awfully old, almost twenty-two...

    it's worth mentioning that (believe it or not!) ,  young  curse had applied to young Lord Beric , too!:P

    Quote

    Game of Thrones - Sansa II

    ...but when she saw young Lord Beric Dondarrion, with his hair like red gold and his black shield slashed by lightning, she pronounced herself willing to marry him on the instant.

     

  18. 7 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

    Fighting on the river with all that armor is stupid, instead of waiting on the banks and allow the enemy to come to you very slowly, charging at him in a river crossing is stupid as well and these are just the last 2 stupid things He has done :P

    :lmao:I mean you could at least say Rhaegar was inexperienced or something and what about Lewin Martell? he should've been able to see that... forget about the rebellion battles... George clearly just wanted an epic battle in a river and it seems he gave Bobby and co. a THICK plot armor in every single battle while he kinda forgot to give Rhaegar something other than looks to make it believable so many people had faith in him  ... 

  19. 3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

    Three heads of the dragon is just hogwash in univers and perhaps even a red herring for us the readers.

    Targaryens, being Valyrians out of Essos never had a coat of arms until the conquest. The three heads of their dragon didn't even go back three centuries when Rhaegar thought dragon must have three heads.

     

     

    I agree that it might be a red herring as in there won't be three dragons but three heros perhaps. but don't you think it's really weird that Rhaegar based his three heads necessity on their relatively new symbol? when Aegon  and his sisters put up the three headed dragon as their sigil everybody thought it's because there's three of them.. but maybe three was actually a unique number for the Targaryens.. perhaps something related to the prophecy that Rhaegar had found? I mean.. he can't be that stupid:dunno:

    • why did Torros resurrect Beric? it's not like they knew each other before tourney of the hand and it wasn't the first time Torros witnessed a good man die... so what was special?
    • the same question for Beric and Cat... why did he save her? there were thousands of innocents and many of his friends who died but he didn't resurrect them.. why Cat?
×
×
  • Create New...