The Duck and the Field

The thing about this is that I think that George actually did want the reader to think of this as Edmure being somewhat hotheaded. He just accidentally wrote a situation in which Edmure did the right thing with the information presented to him; that's how I interpret it. To me, it's a rare moment in which I feel there is a disconnect between what the author is attempting to convey and what the story actually presents.

Would be kind of funny if the real genesis behind the rebellion was the feud between Bloodraven and Bittersteel, with Daemon and Daeron being manipulated into fighting each other.

It's a fun idea, but I don't think it really makes sense. Illyrio isn't described as being anything like Bittersteel in terms of appearance or personality, which would be the main way I think GRRM would hint at this.

Someone may have thought of this before, but I just had an idea about something that gets debated a lot on this site. It is mentioned that in addition to their affinity for dragonriding, Targaryens do not get normal infectious diseases. This idea seems to have been directly contradicted at several points in F&B, notably in the death of Daenerys Targaryen (the Elder). She developed the Shivers, a normal infectious disease in Westeros likely caused by a virus or a bacterial infection. So it seems that the idea of Targaryens being particularly disease resistant was just propaganda for the Doctrine of Exceptionalism, right? Well, one thing struck me about this episode. It's the last thing that Jaehaerys suggested to save Daenerys. Perhaps the protection which the Targaryens purportedly had from infectious disease didn't come directly from their bloodline, but was a side-effect of their bond with their dragons. Is it possible that "bonding" with their dragons induces vigor and hardiness in them? Later on in F&B, we hear that Laena Velaryon died trying to get closer to her dragon, supposedly in order to ride one last time, but was it actually in an attempt to strengthen herself and save her own life? What do you think?

Jaehaerys doesn't seem all that bad. Implication in Saera's story is that she was massively spoiled up until the incident, so as long as you behaved well by Westerosi standards, you'd be pretty well off. Tywin would be different beast entirely. Massive pressure to live up to expectations and occasionally absurdly harsh discipline, but most of the time would be pretty absent from your life. After all, Jaime and Cersei were able to get away with a twenty-year long incestuous affair right under his nose, so there might be a strange kind of freedom under him.

I see what you mean, but I think this could be said for most of the "historical parallels" in ASOIAF. Aegon the Elder is obviously supposed to be a parallel to King Stephen of England in terms of his role as a usurper over a female claimant, but he doesn't really resemble Stephen in character very much. I think GRRM takes inspiration from people's political positions and situations as much as he does their personal traits, and he always likes to add his own twists on people, or at least to combine them with some other persons. Even if Viserys I is partially based on Manuel, he's definitely also based on Henry I, among other people probably. I also think that the theory and the video draw more from the show than from F&B.

Recently I saw a YouTube video outlining several parallels between the Targs of HotD and several members of the Komnenos dynasty of the Byzantine Empire. These include: Emperor Manuel (Viserys) was chosen to be emperor over someone who came ahead of them in primogeniture succession. He was obsessed with prophecy, being particularly concerned with a prophecy regarding his successor and the future of his dynasty. His wife gave him a single living daughter before dying, leaving him much aggrieved. Because of this, he decides to enact a controversial succession plan. Andronikos (Daemon) is his unruly relative. He is described as being magnetic yet arrogant in his personality. Because of their shared childhood, Manuel often forgave Andronikos for his many transgressions, including eloping with his niece, going on unapproved military adventures, and feuding with his one-eyed nephew. Despite these many transgressions, which even included outright sedition, Andronikos always did something to redeem himself in his kinsman's eyes and was welcomed back. It seems like the parallels are there. Link to the video.

I think that they are based on Conan the Barbarian in their aesthetic more so than they are the Mongols, which is why they're all these nude maniacs rather than a professional fighting force.

I think a lot of the Cat hate comes from people identifying with Jon Snow, which I do understand. People say it was dumb to capture Tyrion, but I think it was even stupider to bring him to Lysa rather than taking him directly to Winterfell and holding him hostage. I will say: one scene that made me dislike Cat a little bit was when she told Edmure to leave the smallfolk out to dry, but I like its inclusion. It makes her feel like a realistic noblewoman of her time, and I appreciate that. Really, I think that all of her decisions are in line with a few clearly defined character faults, which don't detract from her likability much for me.

I don't know if I find it compelling, but the best argument I can think of is that Daenerys actually being a Targaryen is actually somewhat contrary to the themes of the story, at least as far as some have understood it. If Daenerys is Azor Ahai, or else one of the Three Heads of the Dragon, or some form of world-saving heroine, then all of the generations of Targaryens before her were arguably justified in cementing hegemony over Westeros. All of the incest, the brutality, and the injustice was basically necessary to bring about the birth of a world-saving hero or group of world-saving heroes born from a special inbred bloodline. Some people believe that the story is meant to prompt readers to question that idea, and I believe it is from this that many draw their belief that Daenerys is not a trueborn Targaryen, but is instead a dragonseed or a Dayne or something.

I agree that "Bittersteel" sounds better. I also like the sound of the name "Aegor Rivers" more than "Brynden Rivers".

I'm also wondering what Bran could do to make everyone in the kingdom decide that he, a crippled boy from a house with no hereditary claim to the Seven Kingdoms, is the best choice to be King. It must be pretty amazing if it's going to be believable. In the show, his nomination as King felt so out of left field because I'm not sure why the other characters would care that much about Bran. The only thing I can think of is if he got credit for defeating the Others.

There's significant scholarly doubt as to the existence of the ius primae noctis (The Right to the First Night) irl. For a long time, it was believed to have been real, but scholarly examination seems to have shown that it didn't. George may not have known this, or if he did, he may have included it in the story because he thought it fit with the themes he wanted to get across.

For the Lannisters, I guess it should be taken into account that they were kings for thousands of years before before we met the latest generation. Then again, they were founded by Lann the Clever, an infamous real estate thief.

In the main series, it's put forward that the presence of dragons in the world is somehow bringing magic back into it. There seems to be some connection between dragons and magic at large. And yet prior to the Dance of the Dragons and their subsequent extinction, we have a detailed account of Westerosi history that includes almost no magic, despite new dragons being hatched all the time. What gives? It's written by a maester; is he just editing out all of the parts of history with magic in them? Was Dany's hatching somehow special?