Jump to content

Ser Leftwich

Members
  • Posts

    3,189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ser Leftwich

  • Birthday December 27

Profile Information

  • Baker of Humble Frey pies!
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,501 profile views

Ser Leftwich's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. @EggBlue We don't know where any of those four were during the Robellion. Period. Vagueness: Walys might have been at Winterfell or not (he may have traveled with Rickard or not, we don't know). As for Richard Lomouth, look for Lonmouth = Lem Lemoncloak theories; those are the only things based on text that references Richard that are of any merit.
  2. Are there any theories about the metaphor of the Crakehall's (boars) being related to the eventual fall of Tommen? (Boar killing Robert, Crakehall killing Tommen?)
  3. GRRM would have used almost all the same words, just arranged in a different order.
  4. "Chekov's Gun" is used a lot on here and is often overstated. 1) Chekov wrote only one novel. He wrote mostly plays and short stories, which have to be shorter and more direct/efficient with what is mentioned. 2) It is advice from Chekov specifically about writing plays. Plays are short (see #1). Compare to Martin's writing, which often tells us more about how the chicken looks than the characters. 2) It is not an absolute rule. You only know which story elements are important at the end. ASoIaF isn't done. Not everything that is mentioned in ASoIaF will be important.
  5. Ignoring everything in the text and suggesting instead "no Tywin did it," is not a theory. It is contrary-ism. "Everything is a red-herring, my opinion (not based on the text) is what really happened" is not a theory, it is fan fiction. Proposing fan-fiction as theory is trolling.
  6. @corbon Don't feed the troll. This is not good faith discussion.
  7. So Tywin, who has drastically and publicly fallen out with Aerys, suddenly does his bidding in private, seemingly framing Rhaegar, but also gets the Kingsguard (2 of which are famously loyal Rhaegar) to stay with Lyanna, and then double-crosses Aerys, to help Robert. This isn't a tinfoil hat, it is a tinfoil 4 bedroom house. ETA: Lyanna died from complications/illness related to childbirth.
  8. Options include: 1) Ethan Glover. He was a prisoner in KL when Ned arrived and then also accompanies Ned to the ToJ. Rhaegar was in KL for some time before the Trident and could have talked to Ethan Glover. 2) Ashara Dayne. She was famously "not nailed to the floor in Starfall" and was reasonably acquainted with most of the parties involved. There is a wonderful tragic irony of her telling Ned the location and then Ned killing her brother. 3) Some random person. Howland Reed will be able to tel us, when/if it even matters/comes up.
  9. We don't know. Full stop. Anyone that says otherwise is guessing or lying.
  10. Years ago it used to be almost taken as fact. The some issues that arose about are that: 1) tough to confirm; 2) it doesn't really serve the story. In that everyone in Westeros would pretty much say, "So what?"
  11. This is the only relevant part of any debate about claims.
  12. What do we know about the characteristics/motivations of Howland Reed? What does he know, about whom? What are Howland's goals? Whom would he approach? Why would he approach them? Who is Howland loyal to? Frankly, what is "reasonable" is meaningless, unless all of the above is answered in detail, as well as... Is Aegon legitimate? Is Jon? Does Howland know if one or both is legitimate? (BTW, 'Legitimacy' means nothing.) Why would Howland have waited to seek out Aegon or Dany to tell them that they have a "brother/nephew" lurking? Why not go before now? Why not go to anyone else at any point before now?
  13. All Pates, always. Pate the Plowman Pate the Woodcock Pate of the Blue Fork Pate of Fairmarket Pate of Lancewood Pate of Longleaf Pate of Mory Pate of Shermer's Grove Old Pate (This is not a topic, it is nonsense, please try to talk about the books (there should be a separate section of the forum for this).)
  14. The actions of leaders ignoring or acting on "Winter is Coming" is itself a choice within the story, and adheres to the original premise of this thread. It is the choice that matters, not the specific reasons that created the need to make a choice. "Stupidity" is relative to what knowledge/information that one has, balanced against responsibility. Why did Tyrion do what he did at point A? Why did Jon do what he did at point B? When Tyrion ignores the rotted hand in the jar, he is weighing 'the realm' vs. 'the threat of the jar' (and the dubious emissary), based on what he knows and believes at the time. We readers know considerably more than any character in the book (except maybe Bloodraven). When Jon lets in the Wildings, he makes the choice about "Winter is Coming" based on different information than what Tyrion had when he made his decision. Both decisions are based on 'duty/love/honor/obligations,' to realm/humanity/dynasty, based on what they each knew and believed at the time when they made the decisions. Judging characters (and/or any given action by them) summarily is exactly what we are not supposed to do as readers. We have vastly more knowledge than any character making any given decision at a given time. (see the different way that readers viewed them after having the POV of Jaime, Cersei, Brienne, Quentyn, etc.) Even without having the POV of the Hound, we can empathize with him after learning his motivations (fear of fire, realization of the futility of vows, etc.), in that is is not just a murderer, but a damaged person. Literally no one in the books knows what happened in the Prologue of AGoT, only the readers do. Should we judge all the characters and all of their actions as 'stupid' because they are not acting with that in mind, even though we know there to be a 'threat'? No, that would be, frankly, idiotic to do. Why did the Others make the choice to do what they did? We don't know the motivations behind the actions of the Others, so it seems harsh to qualify it as a 'threat to humanity.' (I find the vague, existential threat of the Others kind boring, since we have no motivation.)
×
×
  • Create New...