Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About corbon

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,721 profile views
  1. Like I said, its been refuted so many times its ridiculous. But people ignore the refutation in favour of their own narrative.
  2. By people pointing out the difference between apples and oranges. Changing from one bed (woman) to another bed (woman) once (potentially, not even yet), after relevant circumstances changes, is not the same thing as an inability to stop bed-hopping. She isn't talking just about sex. Robert's not even married yet, she has no claim over his bed, nor does any other woman. She's talking about character. Robert is faithless by character, and that won't ever (and didn't ever) change. Rhaegar is, from every source except Robert's blind hatred (and heck, not even Robert claims Rhaegar was sleeping around behind her back), faithful by character. Moving on, once, when an arranged marriage can no longer include (believed to be necessary - there must be a third head) procreation doesn't change the basic character. If she expects Rhaegar to stay in her bed, then she is consistent and not hypocritical. Whether she is right, is another thing entirely. People will disagree on that. A lot of people have already formed their own opinions on very limited information and without close reference to the text. As to the original question, we don't know for sure. But Ned thinks that Lyanna's wild nature led her to an early grave. In other words, in Ned's eyes, she was not purely a helpless victim of Rhaegar, but somehow her own choices and/or actions contributed to her fate. To what extent, we don't know. And he's not 'blaming' her, just noting that it was a contributing factor. Further, we have dying Lyanna, finally 'safe' in Ned's arms, clutching dead roses. And we know the crown Rhaegar gave her at Harrenhal was made of roses. And after more than a year, they would be dead. She died, clutching something significant, old, dead roses, by her own choice (clutching the dead roses, not dying). Not conclusive, but it seems rather coincidental to her crown. Hardly likely she'd have the crown as a close and valued thing on her deathbed if her relationship with its giver was as his victim. I think the evidence points rather strongly towards an elopement of sorts, though the details are utterly unknown. And the whole thing could be reversed by new, stronger evidence.
  3. This has been refuted so many times its ridiculous.
  4. corbon


    Its been read by many (Last Hearth used to have quite a few interesting discussions), most of which were carried out here as well), but its value is minimal at best. The writer got banned from this forum I believe - his arguments here were generally of a similar competence level and he wasn't very accepting of critical analysis. I know, thats sounds harsh. Lets briefly look at just one concept in it, the Storm at Dany's birth as an example. Logical fallacy: Because no one other than Dany (who is the only person present we've met, with the possible exception of Cressen) ever mentions it, it therefore never happened. People (characters) don't mention what isn't relevant to them in the scene they are in - or there would be 5000 bloated books, utterly boring and filled with irrelevances as well as a few random cross references, not the 5 books we have. Note also that Kevan Lannister accepts her as "Danaerys Stormborn" in his own head. So its clear that the storm at her birth was an actual thing - its acknowledged and not disputed by her enemies in Westeros. But inconvenient facts get left out of bad theories. Err... A storm that hit Dragonstone must also hit Kings Landing because they are in the same "bay"? The distance between Dragonstone and KL is about the same as the length of the wall (~300 miles). And KL is protected by Massey's Hook, not to mention the mainland. Dragonstone is at the mouth of the Bay more or less open to the clear ocean. Thats like saying every storm that hits, say London, must also hit Amsterdam with the same force. Or Boston/NY. Or Bahamas/Miami. Sometimes they do, sometimes they miss entirely, sometimes they hit one place hard and another with less effect. Rank stupidity 2: A fleet being built (ie in drydocks and/or fully sheltered harbour with excess capacity) is at the same degree of risk as one anchored off the coast (Dragonstone harbour probably doesn't have the capacity for the entire mainland Royal Fleet, explaining why the ex-Royal fleet was anchored with less protection). I mean, its right there in the writer's own words! Stannis had to rebuild the Royal fleet because the old one was... where? He didn't sail to Dragonstone and take it until 9 months after the sack because? Why didn't he just transport troops straight to Dragonstone after the Sack? Was all shipping destroyed in the Sack? How come that was never mentioned? The Royal Fleet, which sailed away from the Rebels to the last Targaryen holdout Dragonstone, was the entire reason Stannis had spend 8 or 9 months or so to build a new fleet! And he never had to fight it because it was destroyed by the storm before he was ready to take it on, at least as an effective force. Stannis wasn't troubled by the Storm because he sailed there after it. This entire paragraph quoted, like nearly all of the theory, is just... ...there are no words. Apparently a military fleet that is not in the local harbour being effectively destroyed means not only that every single ship in the fleet was sunk but also that every single vessel of the local merchant and fishing fleets, that were in their normal berths in the harbor, were also sunk! And no ship came to visit in the next week or two before Stannis arrived with his newly finished fleet. You can do this to almost everything written in the theory. Its staggeringly awful argument, even though there are a few interesting but inconclusive points behind it. Any license needed to make a point is taken, any restriction that might, under some circumstances, counter other theories is hard-lined as fact with no variance given, any vague idea is twisted hard, always in the same direction. The arguments made are not credible, even if some of the points have some basis in validity. Hence, it might appear that people haven't read it.
  5. This is simply incorrect. We don't know exactly when Jon was born. There is no 'latest date' timeline. The 'best' understanding we have places his birth some time p to a month after the Sack of KL but that can be extended out further by uncertain variables. Jon was born closer to 8 or 9 months or so (than a year or more) before Dany, per GRRM. Dany's birth was 9 moons after her mother's flight from Dragonstone, which was precipitated by the news of the Battle of the Trident. So Dany is born 9 months or more after the Trident, and Jon born approximately 8 or 9 months before her - in short, up to a month or slightly more after the Battle of the Trident. Thats not the 'latest date', Its the best approximation, which can be moved in either direction from various factors - for example, GRRM's response to the statement that Jon was born 'more than a year before Dany' was to say that it was probably closer to 8 or 9 months. Which might mean it was 8 or 9 months, or 7.5 say, or 9.5. Plus, as others have noted, we can't be sure exactly how long after the birth Ned arrived at ToJ. Lyanna had a fever, according to Ned and puerperal fever was historically a major cause of death in childbirth, before bacterial theory was understood. Death could occur days, weeks or months after the birth event. My understanding is that up to 10 days or so was most common, though longer happened too. Not that much. He went in haste to Storms End to relieve the siege there and accepted the surrender of the Reach forces there. There is no indication that he took a major force there ready to battle, so it could have been a smaller all-mounted force taking only a couple of weeks to get there and a day or two to conduct the business. Then we know nothing until he appears at ToJ with a tiny select band of personal retainers. That could be a week or two after relieving the siege, so possibly less than 1 month of the Sack. Well, since our best timeline, with a bit of room either way, puts Jon's birth at up to a month after the Sack, and Ned could have arrived within a month of the Sack, its even possible Ned could have arrived before/during the birth. More likely though, Lyanna suffered for a week or two and died shortly after Ned arrived. Note that thats all within fairly standard timeframes. There is room in either direction. Perhaps just as importantly, this all ignores GRRMS notoriously lax logistical efforts. Throw those in the mix and you've got even more space. ETA: Note @Megarova's calculations allow time for Ned to go to Starfall (I don't believe the evidence supports Starfall vs ToJ, but she disagrees) which is even further away from Storms End than ToJ is (travel time might be similar due to sea vs overland). GRRM specifically warns against calculating such logistics finely (because he doesn't, so can get things a bit wrong sometimes!), but they do give us a reasonable guide.
  6. I disagree as a general concept. I think the Myrcella case shows that 'substitutes' are used from time to time as necessary, if not often, and its not unreasonable for Varys to prepare a substitute option for Aegon (and possibly Rhaenys too, though obviously that one wasn't used). Not necessarily aimed at the precise switch situation which eventuated, but for a general case. Even more so if he had his own plans in mind. Not to mention that I rather expect he took the rebellion more seriously a lot earlier on that the Targaryen's did and may well have been preparing for a wide set of eventualities for many months before the sack. Well... Thats what Varys told Tyrion... But Maegor had all the builders and craftsmen involved in its construction killed. So who really knows the truth there? All I know is that Maegor is the one responsible for the tunnels and passages etc, and its his keep, and he had all the builders etc killed. But one character with a vested interest says there is only one (famous) passage in it - which I take with an enormous grain of salt. And even then, the timeline may allow the use of that passage. Varys could been on the move the moment Aerys' ordered the gates opened for Tywin, in which case the order has to get to the gates, they have to be opened, and Lorch and the Mountain have to fight their was through the rest of the Red Keep before they can get to Maegor's and begin scaling the outside. That has no bearing on explicitly timeline related questions. He must have some timeline 'objection' to be asking about how people's timelines 'can work'.
  7. Sorry about the delay replying. busy leading up to Christmas, NY, family and all that, and the lunatics have pretty much taken over around here so its less and less interesting to even bother to pop in for a visit. I think there is plenty of room for a wide variety of timeline scenarios in which fAegon is in fact Aegon. So I'm actually a bit puzzled by the question really. From my point of view its more a case of what objection could one have, timeline wise? Varys claims to have done a switch. We've seen a substitute used in Myrcella's case. Which shows that its a reasonable preparation to have made and could have been made before events got out of hand, in preparation, or as a last minute secret-passage switch as shit was going down (assuming the substitute had been prepared, but not yet switched of course). I don't see any reason to suppose Varys doesn't have several months at least in which to prepare such a potential substitute, which may or may not even be used, or could have entirely other purposes planned (such as a similar use as Myrcella's substitute). Varys had the capability to get Tyrion out of KL when there was much less chaos and a far more desperate search for a much more identifiable subject. It clearly would be significantly easier to smuggle out a 1 year old child during or immediately after the Sack. Or even several weeks later. Especially when no one is looking for such a child. We've seen, through Arya's unwitting eyes, that Varys has 'command' of the hidden passages and ways inside the Red Keep - such that Illyrio was able to secretly visit him there without anyone's (well, there's Arya!) knowledge. Not to mention the arranged comings and goings of Shae, and even Tyrion's trip to visit (and eventually kill) Tywin). It seems entirely reasonable that he could spirit Aegon away safely and perhaps even hold and care for him there for several weeks or even months if needed. Aegon was a year or so old so may not even require a wetnurse by that time, though he would require a minder - I assume mid-long term pacification drugs would be too risky at that age. From there, to Essos, in any number of ways. Especially when the child is 'known' to be dead. One way that I think ties in very nicely at multiple levels, including the general timeline, is the 'suicide' of Ashara Dayne. Who supposedly dived from the Palestone Tower into the sea and whose body was never found. Who was the friend and companion of Aegon's mother. Whose brother was the closest companion and ally of Aegon's father. Whose own story and timeline doesn't really fit very well with the suggested reasons for her apparent suicide. If a ship was offshore, and Varys had arranged with her to take Aegon to Essos in exile... The timing of that appears to be within a month or two of the Sack, roughly, which could comfortably fit with a general timeline for Aegon's escape and hiding and travel to Essos. I don't mean to turn the question back to you - I mean, I don't mean to be difficult by doing so, but I guess I'll repeat myself. There are entirely reasonable options, multiple options, at almost every step along the way. So in order to answer the question more usefully, I almost have to ask, where's the problems you see, that you have to ask such a question?
  8. lost a big reply and have a crazy schedule, so this is probably gonna die about here, sorry. Coupla-few quick notes. Attacks that are not indicated in any way, don't count. Puddles' death was the last known attack, and was not at Craster's. The final attack at Craster's we didn't see, but the Watch was still there when the woman made them flee saying the Walkers were coming - to the Keep. You need to reread a bit about Craster and his Keep. Its nothing like the 'rich prize' you describe. Most of that is clearly fantasy from the mutineers, or stuff actually supplied by the watch. Craster's keep is no great prize. Also consider the difficult and cost of slogging many kilometres through that terrain and climate. Without horses. And whether Craster, who is a tough, gnarly bastard, would be as easy to take for a couple of young bucks as you assume. And what they'd do afterward. How would Craster's wives/daughters treat them. If its how you describe, you are partially right, it makes no sense that he can survive at all. But it isn't. If you study the known contacts between humans and Others/wights, what you find is this. Other than isolated outdoor parties (including the anomolous event in the prologue - the only actual time we see more than one Other - and no wights), there is a pattern. The tribes and locations closes to the Lands of always Winter are the first to get hit, and have their holdfasts and homes threatened. The 'threat' gradually moves south and East. Crasters Keep is nearly as far from it as you can get before the wall in terms of a major location. Non-wight attacks are isolated, outdoors, or dead/dying individuals. The Others generally attacks to destroy with the wights - the wildlings reference fighting the dead which requires significant numbers. And winning, but slowly losing since the dead rise for the other side. Consequently you get a slow wave spreading out from tLoAW, occasionally stalling around a significant obstacle. Thats why you have Craster not yet attacked, and no known holdfasts or villages attacked south of him, until very late in the piece - despite that fact that the most Northern and Western wildling communities have been fighting a losing battle for a long time, maybe years, such that Mance has called them together to the Frostfangs to prepare to try and escape south. The Black Gate is a total unknown. There is no data that connects it to a 'deal' between humans and Others. So no, not precedent as yet. You've not shown anything in this regard, let alone 'many'. I detailed every time Craster made any reference to such a subject and every time he did not reference any deal or pact, just used general language that showed faith, not hard dealing with beings.
  9. No credit to me for the name, its so old I've not the faintest idea who started it. Agreed. Its an alternative theory, not a proven fact. But it stands up, far better than yours does, with all the known data points. Which doesn't mean you have to accept it over yours. But does mean that claims of yours being as close to a 'fact' as you can get etc are nonsense. Except the attacks stopped before they got to Craster's, as best we can tell. Sam didn't slay Puddles just outside of Craster's. At that stage the NW he was with were lost and just used the coming dawn as a direction to head East and maybe then they'd find Mormont. And Sam goes back into one step at a time mode. Next scene they are safely ensconced in Crasters. We don't know how far away they were from Craster's at the slaying, possibly days and days and 100km or more away. Or possibly just a day or two and only a few km away. The point being we can't safely call Craster's the defining point of attack cease-age. Have we now? By who? Saying what exactly? 1. (side note) Villages (not holdfasts) had been abandoned - most wildlings did head to the Frostfangs to Join Mance. 2. Craster says he is a Godly man and the Gods keep him safe. He does not claim a pact, only faith. 3. Craster indicates he will kill any wights that come around - so he's not 'aligned' with their masters, at least in his eyes. Again, all that Craster indicates is that he is a godly man and thus safe. He makes no indication of a 'pact' or deal any formal agreement, ever. All he ever does is indicate his faith in the (cold) gods. Then there are the wives... No mention of any pact or deal or agreement. Just a man sacrificing children to the 'gods'. And not even any details of that. So the fact is, we never once hear of any 'deal' Craster has. All we hear is that he thinks he's godly and thus safe, and that he sacrifices his boys (and sheep) to the gods. Thats all. And most of it is hearsay, which then gets repeated a lot by those who heard it, which reinforces the idea, but doesn't actually provide additional data points.. Not sure what you are arguing here, its a bit irrelevant. The facts on the ground is that the Others and their wights pulled back from the Watch for a time after the death of Puddles (often nicknamed Ser Puddles BTW). The exact reason why, is irrelevant, mostly because its indeterminable at this stage. The point is that the argument that the watch was not attacked at Craster's because Craster's was protected by a 'deal' doesn't fit the facts. They were 'not attacked' from some time before they got back to Craster's until a point while they were still at Craster's. Being at Craster's is not the point of difference either when the attacks end or when they start again. Sure. Except thats not what happened is it. Before the Watch left, the Other's were coming. But the Watch fled Crasters Keep and got away. They weren't ambushed on the way out. Yes. Or days before Craster's Keep. But they did attack while they were still at Craster's keep. So there was a lull. The attacks stopped, then the attacks started again. They stopped well before Craster's Keep was reached and the started while they were still at Craster's Keep. Ergo Craster's Keep is not a relevant factor in what stopped and started the attacks. The attacks had stopped. He didn't know whether they would resume or the pursuit had been called off. Meanwhile he had wounded men who would definitely die if they continued, and most of his unwounded men were at the point of exhaustion. So he halted at Craster's a place they could have a fire and some food and rest for a while, regathered what strength they could, cared for the worst wounded, and (just) before they were ready to leave, then were attacked again. He does. Craster is a wildling as is anyone north of the wall. The wildlings are not a coherent 'people', though they do include several coherent groups, such as the Thenns, Hornfoots etc. But included in their numbers are smaller individual groups who trust no one, including other wildlings. Craster is one such. He hasn't 'joined' Mance's group yet, hence he's not one of 'them', but he is definitely Free Folk. No one says otherwise. Err, yes they are! Jon's turned that around in ADwD (partly at least), but the Watch and the Free Folk have been enemies for generations. They hate each other, for good reason. Hence the rangings... I think you should reread a bit. Fair cop. The Watch would take boys (when they were a bit older) happily. But Craster doesn't want that. So there it is. You make the point for me. His holdfast is actually quite weak. It could easily be taken. So Craster fears. As he should. He's an arse, friend to no one, despised widely. No one does though, why is that? Well, he's a long way from anyone for a start. Not a lot of profit to take, and a lot of effort needed for the Wildlings. The Others and their Wights have not reached that far south/southeast in numbers yet. They have been seen, but attacks that far south/east seem to have been limited to isolated parties caught in the open. To that point at least. The Watch? His holdfast is useful to them, so long as he stays 'friendly'. They don;t actually want to take it off him - then they'd need to garrison and defend it from other wildlings. Basically Craster is the little awkward neutral in the middle that no one likes but so long as he's mildly useful and not annoying its worth no one's effort to destroy him. Thats later. Oh its far. The FotFM is further from Craster's Keep than Craster's is from the wall, roughly doubly far. About 200km, roughly. I've already shown that Craster's Keep is not the point of difference. One out of how many? Its entirely possible that Puddles was the only Other involved in the pursuit. Even if they were all there (I have a vague recollection that the Wildlings had noticed an easing of pressure on them at the time of the battle), they don't expect any casualties. Losing an Other might be a huge shock. It also might be a huge disruption. Do wights die when the Other that animated them dies? Well, we don't know that. Could be that all of Wights in the local area were de-animated by the death of Puddles, for example. They were continung the attack. Then Sam killed Puddles and they stopped. I doubt they knew how Puddles died. Or anything about Sam. But they undoubtedly had an unexpected setback and undoubtedly paused their attacks for whatever reason. You seem to miss the point that the more palatable option isn't giving the babies to monsters 'who could do anything to them', its sacrificing them to Gods who make them into mighty beings. Fearsome beings still, but powerful. Not all or exactly what they know, but we do know that they know these things. Sure it is. Its still a loss for them, especially Gilly. Its just a more bearable loss than the alternatives. Thats normal psychology. The loss is going to happen, no way around it. So all thats left s a way to make it more palatable rather than less palatable. To help justify one's actions, or inactions. What makes exchanging your baby for "protection" worthwhile? Are you making my argument now? The watch does believe the alternatives, and they still keep their peace with that. Your theory about their being an actual Pact s far far worse from the Watch's pov. Thats a much bigger risk from Craster's pov. Because he has a holdfast. He has a secure fire. He might have more resources that they can't see. He might even have dragonglass. Because they are just small scouting parties when they have come around before, without their undead army. Because inside a kept holdfast they can't freeze the fire out with their killing cold. A kept Holdfast represents unknowns and therefore risks. No sense in attacking it without the right forces. The 'hates all living things' btw, comes from Old Nan's stories. I don't take it as gospel, it just fits their observed behaviour. Seriously? Where did he learn it? Who from? Who keeps that lore? Why is it never mentioned by anyone? Why are there no hints from GRRM? Thats possible, admittedly. I doubt it, but its not utterly implausible, like the idea of Craster speaking Other is. Craster is nothing more than a Wilding bastard who made his own place. There is no plausible route to him 'learning' "Other". Certainly not without some other hints or suggestions of such lore being available somewhere. In other words, lets just make a bunch of shit up completely because we don't know anything? Lets go against what we see with our eyes, what we hear from character's personal experience, what the old stories tell us? Where is the indication that the Other's make deals? - there is none anywhere else. They are a merciless destructive force to everyone (and by the evidence we've seen, any creature) that crosses their path. Where is the indication that Craster made a deal? - there actually isn't any, even from Craster. How does such deal come about? Who approaches who first? Why Craster and no one else? Why do sheep work just as well as sons? Why is there no indication of any other such deals, not even in the stories? There is no indication from any of the wives about personal experience with this. It doesn't fit Craster at all to include them. The only personal experience they have indicated is that at some stage some of them have seen the White Shadows with glowing blue eyes. There is no more detailed or clear description like they've actually met with the creatures, just the sort of far-seen glimpses description. So what we have is Craster goes to the woods with the babes. Not with the wives. He comes back without the babes. He claims they babes are sacrifices to the cold gods. The Other's are seen from afar by wives. His holdfast is not attacked It all fits together in their eyes. But they don't actually know any of this, just what Craster tells them. Belief is not knowledge. But all that actually happened was Craster went into the woods and sacrificed the babes, perhaps actively, more likely passively.. Sometimes the WW were around at the time. Perhaps they even killed some of the babes after he left. None of which shows any indication of any actual meeting, or deal, between Craster and the Others. Ok. Its the usual reason given for why he's the special one that has a 'deal' when the Other's kill anything else living they meet. I was just trying to head that nonsense off, or at least drive it straight to the next level, rather than waste an exchange without evidence or reasoning. He's not just 'maintaining the lie'. He's keeping faith with his beliefs. Which do not include, by his own indication, any actual deal or meeting. A little mutton lost to stay a 'godly' man, obviously protected by the gods? Excellent deal.
  10. What makes you think they were 'safe' at Crasters Keep, because it was Crasters Keep? Recall that after the FotFM, the fleeing Watch remnants were being harassed by Others and wights. Then Sam slew Puddles. The harassment then appears to stop. Literally the next scene (in Sam's POV) they are at Craster's and have been for a number of days. Without losing any more except those already wounded. It appears that the death of Puddles cause the Others and their minions to pull back from the pursuit and regroup. Remember that there appear to be very few actual White Walkers. We've only ever see more than one at a time once that I recall, 6? in the prologue of AGoT. And there don't appear to be widespread reports of them operating in different places at the same time. They seem to be very few in number, slowly accumulating undead minions and slowly moving south and East from the Lands of Always Winter. The loss of Puddles was likely rather significant for them. Actually, before they leave. They were planned to leave the next day. The mutiny happened, then the Other's were coming, before they left. Therefore Craster's Keep wasn't inherently safe. The Other's were coming even though they were there. IMO the reason there was no further attack until the mutiny has more to do with dramatic writing than any other factor. Perhaps Craster really did have a deal and it ended with his death? The mechanics required for such is why I think that option highly unlikely (see below). Perhaps the Other's could somehow sense the confusion and chaos happening during the mutiny and began to move instantly as a good time to attack? Again, the mechanics of that make it unlikely - the Other's don't seem to have such senses. Perhaps it was literally coincidence that the mutiny happened just as the Other's were coming? To unlikely IMO for a genuine coincidence. Perhaps it was a literal (as in dramatic writing) coincidence of the timing. This, I can live with. Much like the 3 opponents of the KotLT coincidentally all being 'champion's' at the same time. That very option was discussed by those involved. Craster: Craster is not a friend of the Watch. He's a Wildling, they are his enemies, he hates them. But he tolerates them because they have the strength to destroy him but do not and they let him live the way he chooses. Likewise, the Watch does not love Craster. The despise him, but they tolerate him because his Holdfast is a useful location when ranging. Craster's real relationship with the Watch is mutually agreed antipathy but working together anyway because its mutually beneficial. the "freind to the Watch' thing is a polite fiction to make things more palatable to other Watchmen. Mormont: Further, giving his sons to the Watch wouldn't prevent them from growing up and becoming rivals - it could even make them far worse rivals. Grown watch-trained sons could either flee the watch and become wildlings (as Mance did) and end up in a similar accommodation with the watch as Craster has, or worse, give the Watch something of a claim to take over his holdfast for themselves, with a son as outpost commander. They have not attacked any holdfast that far south/east yet. Because the wives believe that. Which doesn't make them right. More on that below. The wives think it because there is no psychologically palatable alternative. And it fits the facts they know. They Know: 1. Craster takes their sons out to the wood. And comes back without them. 2. Craster claims the sons are sacrifices to the Cold God, that he is a Godly Man, and that he (they too) is/are protected by them. 3. The White Walkers, or one of them at least, has been seen nearby, by the wives, but have not actually attacked. Psychologically, the idea that the babes are a sacrifice to the Gods, that the Gods take them and make them into something greater, stronger, more powerful, is something most mothers could grudgingly accept. Thats why they call the White Walker's Craster's sons, the babe's brothers. There are two alternatives to this, both horrible and much more difficult for the wives to psychologically accept. i) the babes are simply left to die, murdered in effect, purely so that Craster has no rival grow up ii) the babes are given to monstrous beings who murder them (Old Nan's tales about them giving human babies to their undead slaves to kill ring a bell?) - effectively the wives trade their sons lives for their own. I think Craster originally just took his sons into the wild to die, made up a narrative about sacrifices and protection by the gods in order to make it more palatable to the wives, and it grew and solidified from there. And at some stage the Other's were scouting around too, but didn't attack, probably at the same time as a sacrifice, lending authority to Craster's claims. I think he believes them hi Possible the Other's killed some of the babes. and sheep too. Not as part of any 'deal' or 'pact' but because thats what they do. I go with the hating all living things/hot blood theories myself. Ok, so thats what I think. So here's some questions for the whole "its actually a Pact between Craster and the Others, and they really are his Sons" crowd. How did Craster start this? Why? How did any arrangement begin. Why did the Others agree to this? How does he communicate with the Others? Does he know their language? Do they know his? Is something written down? What do the Others do with the Sheep? Why are sheep satisfactory if its sons they really want? How do the wives know any of this? Are they part of the deal? Are the present during sacrifices, or any other time? Or are they just repeating whatever Craster tells them? Answers that involve Craster being a Stark require some actual evidence that he has Stark blood. There is none I've heard of. AFAIK that is 100% an idea borne of the necessity to explain why Craster's 'pact' works, whereas it should be evidence leading the theory, not teh theory made without evidence to fit a whole in another theory. I don't think the wives have any part in it. Craster is not a sharer. They know what he tells them (about what happens when he takes sons away), no more. They also have seen at least one WW close by, probably more than once, and associate the 'rising cold' with their coming of the WW. Most likely that has happened several times coincident with sacrifices, though whether thats the horse or cart leading is impossible to tell. I also don't think Craster can communicate in any way with the Others. There is no 'Pact'. Just what he perceives, a mix of his own lies and beliefs. The Watch doesn't 'think' he gives his sons to the Others. Thats just what the wives told them. They think he gives his sons 'to the wood'. In other words, they think he's despicable, but not actually colluding with the very enemies of humanity that they were set up to defend against. Same thing. Left them in the woods to die, possible bound or more, as a sacrifice. He's invested in the narrative now. Probably even believes it himself. Thats human nature. There is no actual evidence for it. Just an old woman's belief that is largely second hand-based interpretation with perhaps a few coincidental secondary data points (they've seen white walkers from afar before, but not been attacked) that support her belief. Actually, when you examine things closely, the exact reverse is true. There is no reason to believe it is the case. It does fit a few broader facts that are easily explained in other ways, but what makes it difficult to believe are the complete lack of veracity in the delivery to us, the mechanics of setting it up and a few 'awkward' facts that just don't make sense like the apparently satisfactory substitute of sheep for babies. I think you should look more closely, not just at the evidence, but also the veracity of the verbal evidence especially. How is that known by those who 'know' it. How does it fit the awkward facts (sheep, as one example), not just the easy facts. What are the alternatives, and how do they fit the facts, all of the facts. How do the various possibilities fit with the characters involved and their situations?
  11. I only speak english, so... Both sides have made their argument. Nothing new is being added. Learn to leave it as it is gracefully rather than trolling for more pointless fight.
  12. Do they? Or is that just the general advance of the Others finally reaching that far south? They were chasing the remnants of the NW after all. What suggests they were actually there for the baby? No hard evidence. They were there for anyone and everyone. Leave them in the woods to die, thus ensuring no male grows up to compete with him. Sense? I do not think that word means what you think it means. More importantly, we weren't talking of belief, we were talking of what is actually known.
  13. These are not knowns. They are one unconfirmed data point by a source that is not first hand (the wives) . And that source's source (Craster himself) is not exactly reliable either. Apparently, the "Cold Gods" are happy to take sheep, when sons are not available. Which doesn't say much for the Other's value of babies.... mind you, Old Nan's tales merely say they give babies to the wights - ie, they let their undead slaves kill them. We don't 'know' Craster even has any sort of a deal with the Others, merely that he talks about being a 'godly man' and having 'protection' because of it. Truth is Craster's is about as far from the Lands of Always Winter where the Other's are supposed to originate as you can get short of the wall, and the Other's had not attacked settlements that far away, at the time he made that claim, only isolated groups of wildlings, and maybe rangers, caught outside.
  14. The arguments are out there for all to see and judge for themselves.
  15. How is that the standard this time? Suddenly there is no such thing as a parallel in GRRMs writing? Ned was in a dream, someone in the dream (Lyanna) turned into someone else in real life (Vayon) as he was woken by that someone else (Vayon). Bran was in a dream, someone in the dream (3EC) turned into someone else in real life (BHSW) as he was woken by that someone else (BHSW). How is that not a close parallel? Literally the only words different in those sentences are the identities involved. Vayon had no relevance to Lyanna. Its entirely possible that BHSW has no relevance to 3EC and is literally just a random serving woman at Winterfell who happened to be in the room changing the water or whatever when Bran woke, which would explain why it was a puzzle to figure out who she might 'represent'. Perhaps she 'represents' just her ordinary self, just as Vayon did. Thats it, thats all. You asked for opinions, I gave one that explains the problem you brought up. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not. Its all a very interesting discussion either way.
  • Create New...