Ran

From the other report at the linked Livejournal, it's said that some of the prisoners in the dungeons are women, and that they screamed the most (but everyone screamed). It sure seems to me that a lot of these would be the women of Winterfell.

The first sure does seem to be Whoresbane, to me. The latter isn't Crowfood, though, as others have noted. If it's Arnolf Karstark, it would seem he's quite duplicitous, since I believe in one of the Jon chapters we're told that he's Stannis's man in return for Winterfell. At a guess, it might be Lord Ryswell or one of his quarrelsome cousins, looking at the appendices. The other report doesn't mention Roose is present at the Dreadfort. Can we get any further confirmation on whether he is or is not in fact there? Also, any interesting details about the Dreadfort itself?

Place holder for reports on the "Reek" chapter from the [i]SpectraPulse[/i] magazine.

Is there some pressing reason why Craster and his baby factory have to die now? If there isn't, it's probably still more convenient for them to have him producing and giving over sons. And sheep, I suppose, without a fight. Why do they need them? Who knows. Craster's wife Ferny seemed to believe the sons [i]became[/i] Others, though that could well be wrong.

Killing everyone would mean no more fresh babies, so I'd guess they prefer having fresh babies to having a few more dead people/wights.

I've previously suggested that there are more parallels between Jaime and Jon, starting in ASoS. Consider Jaime's dilemma regarding his oaths and his duties during the Kingslaying, and his apparent resolution that ultimately the oaths are there to serve the realm and that they should always be examined in that light. Compare to Halfhand teaching Jon that his oaths are also there to bind him to the service of the realm, and that if that means violating some of those oaths, so be it.

AvengingAryaFan, From Samwell's chapter where they first meet Coldhands: [quote]His hand was black and cold, with fingers hard as stone.[/quote] As to the eyes, note that when Small Paul is burned, Sam notices: [quote]And his eyes . . . It's gone, the blue glow is gone.[/quote] The blue eyes in particular seem to be a sign of the control the Others have over the wights, or their sorcery driving it.

The kiss of fire is a specifically R'hllorian technique. I don't think the children do the same thing, in any case. I do subscribe to the idea that there's really just "magic", and there's various ways to do the same thing, ultimately derived from the source.

I very much doubt some Red Priest gave Coldhands the kiss of fire. ;) And still, the black hands don't suggest he just died and then was magically revived into something like full health. He's a wight with volition and humanity. As to the warding, it must be the whole Wall that's warded, IMO. Jon can't feel Ghost when he's south of the Wall, until Ghost gets south of the Wall as well.

Roi, [quote]Why didn't the Wights walk closer to the Wall?[/quote] Who knows? Dumping them right outside the Wall may have seemed too suspicious even to the Others, I suppose. Jon never suggests that he loses track of Ghost some distance beyond the Wall, in any case -- the Wall itself is the barrier. Similarly, consider Melisandre and the walls of the Storm's End, seemingly protected in similar fashion. She merely had to pass through the walls to be able to use her magic. She didn't have to pass through and then go some significant distance beyond, at least according to anything she indicated.

Fair enough. Obviously some magic seems to work (that said, as I recall, Stannis and Melisandre are not literally in the wall whenever they do their magical things -- they are on top, or beside, but not _in_ it), but in any case, the magic of the Others -- and related magic, and maybe some other magics we can't define -- don't work through the Wall. It's a barrier where that magic stops dead. I said he was wightified, not that he was a wight. ;) He has the black, cold hands of the wights, after all. My guess is that he [i]was[/i] a wight who the children wrested away from the Others and were able to restore his humanity. Just a guess, though.

Roi, Note that Coldhands -- who seems to be wightish -- was unable to pass the Wall as well. Magic just doesn't work on or through the Wall.

Winter Roses, [quote]Is it because it was daylight and the wights weren't "alive" then?[/quote] Precisely. The plan was clearly to have the unwitting Night's Watch carry the corpses that last crucial distance to the other side of the Wall, so that they could awaken on that side.

[quote]... but Davos had the right responce. "Little birds"[/quote] LOL! Good one. :) Icemark's been mentioned a couple of times before. In ACoK it's one of the castles suggested to be manned again when Qhorin and Mormont are discussing strategy at the Fist of the First Men. Jon was present for that discussion, it may be why he brings it up.... And checking up on that again, I note that Mormont suggests Greyguard first, and Halfhand notes that it's mostly collapsed and that Ice Mark, Deep Lake, or Stonedoor would serve better. I can't help but note that Greyguard is the castle Slynt is offered to command. Obviously, its defensive capabilities don't really matter that much -- they're there simply to dissuade small groups of wildlings, and serve as a waypost for patrols -- but Jon was clearly making sure that Slynt didn't receive anything he could really defend from the south side (i.e., from Jon if he tried to stir a mutiny). They're not terribly defensible as it is, but a collapsed castle must be even worse. I forget, is it made clear that Jon plans to man most of the castles under a similar fashion, and Giant and Slynt were merely the first two he was going to send out this way?

From remarks Odie made elsewhere, George seems to have already changed some sort of detail related to Tywin's death and the events in this chapter. I'm guessing that he dropped Slynt's reference to Tywin, but that's just a guess. :)

Reviewing what's been said so far, the main thing I can tell is that it's not actually clear that Jon isn't aware that Tywin is dead at the same time, or before, Janos Slynt is. Wouldn't it all be rather moot if Jon did know? I think if it was supposed to matter, there would have been some hint that Jon was indeed surprised by the news, thereby proving Slynt had it before Jon. Lugarilla said that Slynt shouts something about Jon not having the guts to make this move if Tywin were still alive. Doesn't this imply that Slynt believes Jon is acting with the knowledge that Tywin is dead? I suppose Jon and Slynt both knowing Tywin is dead at the end of that chapter doesn't rule out that someone told Slynt before Jon learned the news, but there doesn't actually seem to be anything to go on.

[quote]But Slynt? He didn't make an impression of competency on me,[/quote] Yet this very chapter has Jon suggest that he commanded lots of men and must not be stupid. Jon's impression might be woefully wrong, but on the other hand it could be right. He held his post for years, it seems, and we're never told he held it despite a lack of competence. He held it despite his corruption, certainly, but being corrupt doesn't mean you can't also be competent. [quote]His behavior in this chapter shows again and for the last time that he wasn't very clever.[/quote] Arrogance has led to the downfall of lots of people, even generally clever ones. Like Tywin and his "green boy", Slynt is far too stuck on questions of age ("boy") or appearance ("dwarf"). It doesn't mean that in certain circumstances he can't be very dangerous (see Ned Stark). [quote]... nor did we hear of any great service performed by him for any of the allies during the Rebellion.[/quote] He was a mere officer of the City Watch. If he were smart, he just kept his head down and hoped not to attract Aerys's attention, thereby avoiding basting and roasting. Presumably, after the Sack, Jon and Robert reviewed the most able surviving officers of the City Watch and supposed Slynt would do the best job. [quote]And Slynt was low-born...[/quote] Which rather speaks to his competence, surely? As we see with Addam Marbrand and from Tyrion's remarks in ACoK, it was probably rather normal to hand the reins of power to lordlings and knights and the like, and not care too much about whether they were capable or not. A commoner who climbed up to a high position seems almost always to have done so on some sort of merit (see Septon Barth), OTOH. It's entirely possible that, following the Sack, the officer corps was decimated and Slynt was merely competent But I think it's more probable that he was able to lead his men effectively, as he did when he managed to have a hundred or more men involved in taking out Ned Stark and his household without any of them figuring they could make more money by whispering something to the Hand to put him on his guard. It's also possible, of course, that Slynt became Commander only some time well after the Rebellion, and that it was Littlefinger who orchestrated it. But we're told it's Jon Arryn who appointed him, and since no one hints Littlefinger was involved, I'd guess it was genuinely Jon Arryn who did it.

Appointing Slynt isn't something that I think should necessarily detract from Jon Arryn as Hand. Same with appointing Littlefinger. These seem to have been men who were clearly capable of doing the jobs handed to them ,and presumably at the time Janos did not seem to be notably corrupt. When his corruption became clear afterwards, we're told that Jon Arryn gathered the evidence to try and have him removed, and it was Robert who overruled him.

So, any confirmations regarding George stating that this chapter was in SpectraPulse magazine? Because from what George reported, it's totally not the same chapter. I'll also guess the magazine itself was not available at TechniCon.

Second test.

See the FAQ. It explains proper usage. I'd say Tigana as well as the next book.

Whoops. Sorry there. Hard to remember to spoiler protect something that's been out 10 years. It's not a book that depends on being shocked by plot developments, IMO. Read it anyways.

In fact, re-reading it, I see I was wrong about something. The question is not whether Rodrigo dies, but whether it's Alvar, basically. There's approximately three paragraphs before you go from being presented with a dying man (who is not Ammar, who is mentioned as being present) to knowing that it is also not Rodrigo. Then the scene does indeed flashback to show you what happened, and sets up the possibility that it's Alvar. Then it's to the attack itself, and within seven pages you know it's not actually Alvar, either. I don't know. The complaints keep making me recall the passage as far more misleading, and that the passage was very extended, but it's a tight little piece of writing. The whole "emotionally manipulative" sequence lasts a bare eight pages. Personally, I think it's a testament to Kay's writing that the reaction against it is so strong -- clearly readers were heavily invested in the question of who was dying, and probably in large part because of his authorial decision to make it an obscure point and leave them hanging for a few pages. Well, no, it's not really more subtle. It's one of _the_ major questions of the series, and the reason it's a question because in the dozen or so chapters we had of Ned, we are repeatedly prevented from getting the particular thoughts that would reveal Jon's mother quite clearly. It's not that Ned doesn't know, or that we weren't inside his head when he thought about Jon and the past on any number of occasions in AGoT. It's purely GRRM's authorial decision to make that piece of information a secret. It's "subtle" only because readers are willing to accept such conventions when it touches on the plot. I personally don't believe there's any such thing as "unfair manipulation" in literature. There can be bad manipulation -- creating a cliffhanger, say, and then resolving it with a deus ex machina that wasn't even hinted at -- but so long as it's well-constructed in terms of narrative logic, the manipulation is always reasonable. Kay shared (quite reticently, I should note, because he generally hates the sense of tainting discussions when he offers his opinions) some thoughts that touches incidentally on the Velaz matter, as part of a larger discussion of the way he dealt with identity in The Lions of Al-Rassan. You can find it here, if interested.

This merely emphasizes the distinction between reader and character -- they are not the same thing, and there is nothing that requires that the reader know everything that the character knows. To borrow from a certain fantasy series, Ned Stark very well knows who Jon's mother is, but we don't know, despite having been in his head during times when he must have explicitly thought on it. This is also an example of authorial manipulation. However, it seems that readers are more forgiving -- even desirous -- of having plot knowledge hidden from them, but if the author manipulates the knowledge they provide to readers for reasons of greater emotional fidelity to the narrative this is much likelier to be a problem. It is a very interesting thing, to say the least.