the trees have eyes

If we take Tarly at his word then he still clearly sees this as a punishable crime and one that he took action to prevent. He is showing zero tolerance by dismissing knights from his service to make it perfectly clear he will not tolerate this. Now he might not give a damn about Brienne - in fact he doesn't, the fact is she's highborn is what brings this to his attention. But he wants to both maintain military discipline and avoid a huge scandal with political and military implications as the Lord of Tarth demands restitution for the wrong done him, not to mention he wants to avoid the associated dishonour attached to House Tarly and to him personally as it was by his men or under his leadership that this happened. If we don't take him at his word, literally at least, then he is trying to frighten Brienne off or at least to discourage her by pretending he would offer her less protection than he in fact did (and he is quite obviously potential-victim blaming her to get her off-balance). Until very recently and even today conservatives have had / have a huge problem with women in the military, at least in combat roles, so it's not that surprising that in a pseudo-medieval world or defined gender roles Brienne would be told to go home and encouraged / leaned on to do so. Does Tarly have proof that "it was only a matter of time" or is he just trying to scare her off? I don't think the "Brienne incident" is a good example of Westerosi tolerance of / attitudes to rape or rape as an instrument of war. In modern times the codification of rape as a war crime stems from observable patterns of mass rape as a deliberate form of punishment of a defeated enemy - the Soviet treatment of German civilians at the end of WWII, the use of rape in the Bosnian War to punish or pollute the gene pool of the opposing ethnic groups, the sexual enslavement of the Yazidi women and girls by ISIS (although the last example is a subset of enslavement and genocide). Sadly, I'm sure there's many more examples from modern times and throughout history. In Westeros, only the Ironborn seem to really tip the scales here through the practice of taking salt wives. What foragers do, or what armies do in the sack of a city seems to depend on the orders given by their commanders and how they think their commanders will react if they are caught breaking either specific orders or customary rules of behaviour.

Renly's knights compete among themselves to take her virginity but this is a case of a bunch of young hoorahs having a competition to get a woman into bed. She's highborn so Tarly disapproves and dismisses several of his household knights over it but there's never any suggestion any of them were planning to rape her. Rape is a crime, rather than a war crime per se, but like a lot of crimes - theft, assault, arson, murder - the line gets blurred during combat as to what will be overlooked and what will be punished. Dany after the sack of Meereen is a good example. Amnesty is effectively given for what happened during the sack but the rule of law is reinstated immediately afterwards and rapists are subsequently punished by gelding. I imagine Army Commanders would apply similar standards depending on their characters / ulterior motives with Stannis being notoriously rigid and unforgiving rather than the norm.

I should probably leave this topic alone but about poor Melara.... She must have had tremendously bad eyesight to fall down that well. And she must have drowned extremely quickly to die before Cersei could have summoned help by screaming blue murder until some guards, servants or nightwatchmen arrived to see what all the fuss was about; or before Cersei could lower a bucket on a rope so at least she had something to hold onto until help arrived. What Maggy tells Melara is A Feast for Crows - Cersei VIII "Not Jaime, nor any other man," said Maggy. "Worms will have your maidenhead. Your death is here tonight, little one. Can you smell her breath? She is very close." Now you can read that in a poetic sense, in that in an impersonal metaphysical sense death is nearby, stalking her, creeping up on her. Or you can read it in a literal sense, that the person who kills her by pushing her down the well is stood right next to her (since when was Death a "She" rather than an "It"?)... And as for helping her: A Feast for Crows - Cersei IX She could still hear Melara Hetherspoon insisting that if they never spoke about the prophecies, they would not come true. She was not so silent in the well, though. She screamed and shouted. So it seems she didn't hit her head on the way down the well shaft and drown while unconscious. She is shouting and screaming for help. Cersei though doesn't once in her recollections ever indicate that she did anything to help. In fact her memories of Melara are all negative because of Melara's revealed infatuation with Jaime, a clear motive for Cersei's actions. And then there's the walk of shame A Dance with Dragons - Cersei II The queen began to see familiar faces. A bald man with bushy side-whiskers frowned down from a window with her father's frown, and for an instant looked so much like Lord Tywin that she stumbled. A young girl sat beneath a fountain, drenched in spray, and stared at her with Melara Hetherspoon's accusing eyes Why accusing eyes? GRRM in his classic style, drips information and clues to us bit by bit. You can take a whitewashing or defence lawyer's argument that you can't prove Cersei pushed her in but this is art not law and it seems pretty clear what the author is telling us. I mean you can spin it into part of the great tragedy of Cersei's life that she lost her closest friend at such a young age A Feast for Crows - Cersei V Taena's wit always cheered her. Cersei had not had a friend she so enjoyed since Melara Hetherspoon, and Melara had turned out to be a greedy little schemer with ideas above her station. I should not think ill of her. She's dead and drowned, and she taught me never to trust anyone but Jaime. but that is to see her as she sees herself, always a victim (with the dead girl the wrongdoer and Cersei the injured party!) and her pov is given to us to explain her actions not justify them, a distinction that seems fairly straightforward.

IIRC two prisoners in Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital, one a convicted murderer who went on to murder a further two inmates in other prisons, tortured and brutally murdered another prisoner (a quite prolific paedophile) over nine hours. I consider Raff the Sweetling to be scum but Arya kills him in a revenge killing for the murder of Lommy Greenhands (staging the killing in the same way) not serial paedophilia. His seedy response to Arya offering herself to him is opportunistic rather than predatory / compulsive and is further confirmation, if any were needed, that he is human excrement but I don't think he's comparable with a serial paedophile (or his killing with the Hannibal the Cannibal / spoon murder). I remain broadly sympathetic to Daeron, who some people seem keen to portray as a rapist / paedophile to justify his killing, while glad that Raff got his comeuppance, if slightly troubled by how accurately Arya recreated Lommy's final moments.

The weirwoods are widely spread over thousands of miles and are present in locations like the Isle of Faces where the connection of one grove to another seems physically impossible. Like with Aspens a grove of weirwoods is linked by one root system but different groves are different colonies. What ties the weirnet together are the green seers and / or enthroned singers (really depends on whether the enthroned singers are repositories of that grove's ancestor memories and that the green seers link the groves or whether the enthroned singers are the green seers). I imagine losing a colony has a huge impact as ancestor memories and fragments of those ancestors themselves "go dark". I suppose for the enthroned singers or greenseers who could project their consciousness into distant groves this would be traumatic but for the regular singers it would be more of a cultural or psychological violation than the same as losing a part of your own physical body. But if you knew the spirits of your ancestors lives on in some way - until some barbarians turned up and started murdering them - you wouldn't need to experience the slaughter at first hand to pick up weapons and fight.

Well you may have misunderstood my point so there's that for you to mull over or give another snarky response to as you see fit.

Thomas Cromwell was Henry VIII's premier minister for years and he wasn't noble at all. Despite being born the son of a cloth merchant he came to hold an enormous number of titles including Chancellor of The Exchequer 1533-40, Principal Secretary 1534-40 and Lord Privy Seal 1536-40. I hope we can agree that neither the existence of Thomas Cromwell nor LF upend the general operation of the system. I know Tudor England is Early Modern rather than Medieval England but the problem of using "realism" as a cudgel arises when you take a sanitised view of a medieval ideal (the middle ages lasted c 1000 years) and create a stereotype that you require the author to adhere to. Real history is much messier.

Thanks for that quote, I love it The really surprising thing is the number of people who complain about things like travel time, map scale or population density. The world is the canvas he paints the story on, not the masterpiece itself. I don't care if The Wall is too tall because that in itself has no story impact. Or I disagree if someone thinks he should have done more work on religion or culture or class or bureaucracy etc. because the story does just fine with what it has. In fact there's already too much without adding heaps more background and world building. Creating and detailing the World shouldn't overwhelm the story. And bureaucracy? Don't people read fantasy to escape bureaucracy?! Honestly scratching my head at this one. If you're focusing on this you're missing all the fun. I never really get the point of these discussions. Fantasy simply takes inspiration from the real world to create a world of the author's imagination, The influences are many, overlapping and are synthesised as the author plots, writes, changes his mind and takes as much or as little as he considers necessary, appropriate or desirable to create the world he wants to in order to frame his story and make it come alive. The Wars of The Roses heavily influenced GRRM but the author read widely (maybe too much about food and heraldry...) to get a window for the time period and the elements he wanted to incorporate or use as influences for his world.

I didn't ignore it, I overlooked it. Quoting a post removes the embedded quotes (as it has done here for your Machiavelli quote). But why ignore everything on the actual subject we are discussing - the characteristics of recklessness, arrogance or impulsiveness (compulsiveness / impetuousness) and to what degree they are present in individual Lannisters, particularly Tywin, to focus on several marginal comments? If you prefer: the vast majority (one might also say the lion's share) of the blame and and the infamy attaches to the Freys and Boltons who carried out The Red Wedding but the obvious benefit to the Crown (/Lannisters) is clear - the North and Riverlands return to the 7K under loyal bannermen. They are none the less at arm's length from the events and Tywin's actions result from the textually explained calculation that he is insulated. Whether he is right or not will become clear in time but it is a decision driven by calculation not impulse. Yes but I confess it was over 30 years ago. It's still on my bookshelf. Thank you for asking. So you take a metaphor where he deals with Fortune (and compares it to a woman, or capricious Lady Luck if you will) and advises that it is better to be bold rather than cautious, in other words to drive events rather than to wait on them, to take calculated risks rather than being paralysed into inertia by fear, and interpret that as an argument in favour of recklessness and impulsive action without thought of the consequences? There's two meanings for impetuous. The first is moving forcefully or rapidly and is what Machiavelli is advising (synonyms are powerful, vigorous, forceful, relentless and rapid). The other, which you are construing, is acting or doing quickly without thought or care (synonyms are impulsive, rash, overhasty, heedless, reckless and foolhardy). I hope it's clear which behaviour Machiavelli is advising Princes to adopt and that it's to be vigorous and forceful not heedless or foolhardy. If we can agree on language then we might be able to agree that Tywin's behaviour throughout is in line with Machiavelli's advice and that neither his behaviour nor the advice is to be impulsive or reckless.

Sigh. So give me all the examples of young drunk Tywin acting impulsively and recklessly. That's right, there aren't any, any more than there are for Ned or Stannis. Tywin equally was "never the boy you were". You are making a bad argument with nothing to support it. Joffrey also gets drunk at his wedding and attempts to humiliate Tyrion, upending the chalice over him. Not to mention the kitchen cat or Joffrey's faun. Brandon = the wild wolf, Ned = the quiet wolf. Robert is wild and impulsive, Stannis the opposite. Family members have different personalities and instinctive behaviours. Tywin is not impulsive and this is a bizarre point to circle the wagons around. Lol what? Ser Rodrik rides out and captures "Reek" (believing he has killed Ramsay in the process) but he leaves a dispute between two Stark bannermen - Bolton and Manderly - to the king to resolve. The fighting between Manderly and Bolton troops happens after Ramsay is captured because both now have a claim to the Hornwood lands that the king must rule on. This is about Bolton and Manderly's actions not Ramsay's initial crime. The Ironborn are not Stark bannermen and invade so he goes to fight the invaders. Pretty simple to understand his actions in both circumstances really unless you misrepresent his actions or misunderstand his job (or both). I think you overlook the extent to which private wars were a feature of medieval feudal systems. Which is understandable as we have a completely different system but not helpful to an understanding of either the Hornwood-Manderly or the Lannister-Tully(Stark) disputes. Tywin is neither impulsive nor compulsive. He plans carefully, hiring sell swords and mustering troops before raiding the Riverlands in order to draw Ned out from KL and kidnap him to trade for Tyrion. Cersei boaring Robert to death makes Joffrey king and completely changes the situation. Raiding the Riverlands may be ruthless but it's strategic calculation not impulsiveness. And it's never 1 v 7. The Lannisters have a dispute with the Tullys/Starks that only spills into open warfare after Robert's death. At that point Joffrey is king so legally Tywin has the whip hand vs the Tullys and Starks even if the war of the five kings is a free for all. Almost comically wrong. Jaime had no intention of kidnapping Ned. If he had he could have done so right there. He has 20 guardsmen and Ned has 4. Done as easily as Catelyn took Tyrion. He can put a bag over his head and whisk him off to Casterly Rock as easily as he goes there himself. But this is Jaime we're talking of so he kills Ned's men to chastise him and then has to abscond as a fugitive, without the prisoner you somehow manage to claim he had calculated to acquire. It is reckless, impulsive and plain foolishness and he never planned or attempted to take Ned captive so let's not pretend he did. TBH I don't really know what point you are trying to make here. He was wrongfooted by the Stark-Frey alliance and Robb's relief of Riverrun and capture of Jaime put him at a tactical disadvantage. Given both Stannis and Renly have declared themselves kings at this point and Renly has the Tyrells, Tywin's military position is not good with the south in rebellion as well as the north and Riverlands. Robb has shown himself a capable opponent but he is not Tywin's only opponent so what are you trying to demonstrate? Harrenhall has a clear central strategic location between KL and Casterly Rock and controlling north-south troop movements while living off enemies' lands. In any case he also attempts to move back west to gain reinforcements but this is scuppered by Edmure's defence of the fords and Robb's victory at Oxcross. Why you think the fortunes of war give some insight into impulsive or compulsive behaviour on Tywin's part is unclear. Of course it's true. The blame is on the Freys and Boltons. No Lannister troops took part in The Red Wedding. This odd behaviour of attempting to blame all Tywin's calculations on impulsive behaviour is just totally wrong. I think you could read The Prince and accuse Machiavelli of being impulsive, you're that far off here. If you want to disagree with his political acumen or understanding or any of his decisions, then by all means go ahead. But there is a logical absurdity in decrying his political and diplomatic calculations as "not calculating" because you don't like or agree with them. There is also no grounds for effectively accusing Tywin of being ideological or intransigent, he is above all ruthless and pragmatic. If you think Tywin is impetuous in not moving with the times you'll have to attempt to explain what you mean, otherwise it's a nonsensical word salad. So you agree that Genna's "paranoia" is an accurate and astute reading of the difficult situation she is in and well founded. Seems you have a non-dictionary understanding of paranoia as well. Okay. Well, yes, none of us want to play the game of thrones I hope but you could at least try and discuss characters in context. Of course it's normal for nobility in a feudal system. Land = money, military force and political power. Despite that some characters are arrogant and others are not based on their personality and to varying degrees, just as in real life, both historical and contemporary. Neither Genna nor Kevan strike me as similar in behaviour to Joffrey, Jaime and Cersei but if you want to make a class based argument for them all sharing characteristics based on birth and education that override any differences of character or personality I find that quite mistaken and a really limiting approach, although a useful cudgel, to take to most characters in story. I think we're at cross-purposes here. Early Tyrion has a big mouth but his actions are not impulsive or reckless, they're quite reasonable or considered as we're often in his head to see. Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey are all presented in the early novels in an appalling light with little to no impulse control, few or no boundaries and an astonishing recklessness. Later Tyrion is darker and more reckless - killing Shae and his father when he had no need to even confront them - but I'm not saying emotion is not an important part of his make-up from the beginning (being a dwarf obsessing over Tysha it's very much there), more that he has a better control over it and that this is when my impression of Tyrion as a character formed. I partly agree with the last sentence but being quick thinking and decisive is not the same as being impulsive. Being impulsive is acting in line with an emotional reaction or a subconscious desire, or acting in line with a conscious desire without considering the implications or consequences. So Tyrion demanding a trial by combat at The Eyrie (or KL) is a considered response to his predicament after weighing up his options as is the gambit with the mountain clans when he is kicked out of The Vale of Arryn. This is one of his strengths, a quick reading of the situation and the selection of the best available option, often high stakes and / or creative as the situation demands. Taking Shae to KL on the other hand is impulsive because he knows the risks but ignores them because he wants to.

No, Joffrey is drunk. Tywin is never drunk in story. Drunken showboating is entirely out of character for Tywin but not for Joffrey (also drunk at his wedding and determined to humiliate Tyrion). Saying you can imagine a sloppy drunk 13 year old Tywin acting like Joffrey did is as pure a piece of invention as to say 13 year old Ned or Stannis would have got sloppy drunk and acted the same. Why not indeed... None of those characters would have got themselves into that situation. Tywin is one of the most calculating and considered characters in story, not impulsive at all. It's not impulsive or reckless. It's a considered response that punishes a slight to House Lannister by punishing House Tully (Catelyn being the one to kidnap Tyrion) and attempting to draw Ned out of KL to capture him and trade him for Tyrion. Private wars or armed conflicts between rival nobles were a feature of medieval feudal kingdoms and breaking the king's peace only earned a rap on the knuckles provided no treason was involved. Remember that after Ramsay kidnapped, married and starved Lady Hornwood Roose Bolton claimed the Hornwood lands and we had Manderly knights and Bolton armsmen fighting each other over who would claim the Hornwood inheritance. Ser Rodrik's response is to try and restore the peace and let Robb sort it out. That's the calculation Tywin makes. Now Jaime waylaying Ned in the streets of KL, butchering his men and then having to flee is entirely impulsive and reckless. Tywin is ruthless and his response is extreme but it is carefully calculated. Please be serious. Jaime is investing Riverrun and Tywin is blockading the King's Road. The only place for Robb to cross the Greenfork is The Twins and they are impregnable with Walder Frey expected to sit on the sidelines as he did during the Robellion. Tywin is outmanoeuvred by the Stark-Frey marriage pact but it is hardly because he is reckless and impulsive. All the stigma for The Red Wedding and all the blood is on Frey and Bolton hands. Tywin wrote a few letters, made a few promises and carefully ensured his ends were achieved and that House Lannister is insulated because it took no part. I think you have a non-dictionary understanding of recklessness and impulsiveness. None at all. He doesn't respond to Balon's approach because Balon is already attacking and weakening the Starks so why should he make concessions or promises when he has no need? Balon has claimed independence and will be brought to heel in time. If by Aemon you mean the Night Watch's appeal for aid then the calculation is the same - trouble in the North means trouble for the Starks and a tactical benefit to the Iron Throne. No one believes in the boogeymen to the north so his calculations are based on imperfect information (as all decisions are) but it is calculation not impulse. I think you're mistaking his instinctive grasp of the political and military situation for an impulsive unconsidered response. We don't have much on them but I'm curious as to why you think Genna is paranoid, let alone extremely paranoid or why a potential misjudgment on Kevan's part would make him and / or Genna as recklessly arrogant as Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey. Do you mean Genna can clearly see that setting up in Riverrun after The Red Wedding with a lot of Riverlands nobility inc Edmure held hostage is a horribly uncomfortable and exposed situation? And that as Emmon's a bit thick and absorbed with pride at his new title she confides in Jaime? I think she has good grounds to worry. Still, what little we see of Genna and Kevan strikes me as pretty normal and in no way resembles the behaviour of Cersei, Jaime or Joffrey in their self-indulgent and arrogant excesses. Tyrion can't keep his mouth shut, true, but he's shrewd. We see Tyrion as Hand so we can see how he approaches ruling as opposed to Cersei and we can see how Tywin and Joffrey approach the same problem of what to do with prisoners after the Blackwater - kill them all (impulse, emotion, vengeance) versus forgiveness for oaths of loyalty (calculation, statecraft). As Genna tells Jaime, Tyrion is Tywin's son.

A Lannister always pays his debts, sure. But would he have got himself in that position? I sincerely doubt young Tywin would have got sloppy drunk while on a ride with his fiancee or that, if Arya had struck him with a stick, he would completely have lost his sh*t and started swinging a sword at her. Acts of enormity tend to come from difficult situations springing from earlier terrible decision-making. So if you don't bang your sister in a Lord Paramount's castle and get caught committing high treason by their seven year old son you don't need to throw him out the window and if you don't get drunk and pick on someone you don't have to demand the murder or maiming of two children when your showboating goes wrong. Tywin is ruthless but not reckless, calculating not impulsive. In other words I can't see young Tywin pushing Melara Hetherspoon down a well either. Joffrey has an extra level of entitlement as royalty, a level of irresponsibility and insulation from accountability due to maternal indulgence and his own personality issues (a certain kitchen cat comes to mind). I'm close to it being a consequence of inbreeding (after all Tywin married his cousin and their union produced the twincest) with Joffrey getting Jaime and Cersei's self-centredness and recklessness but then Tommen and Myrcella seem pretty normal kids. Maybe GRRM wants us to see that all genetics (and personalities) are coin flips. Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey all seem to have a reckless arrogance that Tywin, Kevan, Genna and Tyrion don't. The older Lannisters had to endure a time when their house was weak and Tyrion has always been an outsider so they seem to have less arrogance and entitlement than Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey who have always believed that the world would bend to their wishes.

There's a degree to which Walder is a responsible parent, providing for all his offspring. And then he goes and involves them all (mostly) in The Red Wedding, including his daughters and grand-daughters, most notably the poor terrified Roislin who bait the trap for the Northmen/Riverlanders. That's some wedding day! Most of his offspring are now criminals or pariahs in Westeros. Plus, consider poor old Aegon "Jinglebell" - "he's a grandson, not a son, and he never was much use". He cares about his House and his blood but does he care about his children? Not much, I think. We are talking about emotional abuse and controlling behaviour. Horrible example of what, exactly? "Don't make me rue the day I raped your mother"...... There's a problem here in that you are fighting the good fight against what you perceive to be "Tywin apologia". This leads you to question the motives of anyone who takes your view that Tywin is somehow uniquely cruel as somehow minimising or condoning Tywin's behaviour. Maybe you see that in this thread but I don't, I just see a lot of people condemning Tywin but pointing out that he is not unique in his behaviour, or that they consider Cersei to be a worse person than him. People can agree or disagree on this, yes? You also seem to treat the examples given to you of other terrible or abusive parents as some kind of attempt to portray this as the system and therefore somehow normal or okay, thus again justifying or excusing Tywin's behaviour. It's not. It's pointing out that terrible as Tywin is, he's not unique. You can make as much or as little as you want of this but you seem to read between the lines and treat this as a defense of Tywin which leads to both lecturing and emotionally charged responses which don't really help either the tone or conduct of a discussion. Regardless of our own personal takes, Westeros has a feudal nobility with a strict paternal and hierarchical control of one's House, whether children, siblings, or, yes, widowed mothers (Hoster Tully ordered Brynden to marry and Brynden had to leave his service to avoid this; Robb could have ordered Catelyn to marry again for political reasons had he chosen to). No one comes out of this particularly well by modern standards: Ned marries Catelyn in his dead brother's stead and they have never even met; Catelyn, as delegate, arranges Robb's betrothal to *any* Frey girl without Robb even being present and Edmure is later shoehorned into Robb's place despite his obvious reluctance; Hoster Tully effectively trades Lysa to Jon Arryn for military support (this is exactly what a marriage alliance is for). No one has free agency. Tywin tells his son not to take the prostitute he has taken up with to Court and later arranges Tyrion's marriage to Sansa Stark so Tyrion's son will be Lord of Winterfell. No one's saying he's Dad of the year but if you want to portray Tywin as uniquely terrible, controlling and abusive towards Tyrion this isn't the way.

Jaime was fostered by Lord Crakehall from 11/12? entirely in keeping with Westerosi norms. He then joined the Kingsguard completely against his father's wishes so removing him from his father's orbit - and depriving Tywin of his heir. Cersei was married to the King of Westeros so removing her from her father's orbit. When she manages to murder her husband Tywin attempts to reassert paternal control but as Cersei is Queen Regent she has a degree of latitude. Tywin's death obviously occurs before any betrothal has even been arranged. He's hardly Dad of the year by modern standards and he is a cold, proud, stern and unloving man but it's only towards Tyrion that he displays any emotional abuse. I mean Randall Tarly chained Sam up in the dark for days when he said he wanted to be a maester and told him that nothing would please him more than to hunt him down like the pig he was but that his mother would be sad so he was going to send him off to the NW instead so it's not like Tywin has a monopoly on being pretty dreadful in order to protect his House's interests. Tywin's a deeply unpleasant man but is he worse than Randall Tarly, Roose Bolton, Balon Greyjoy or Walder Frey in the parenting stakes? Seems they're all much of a muchness.

The ghost of Silvio Berlusconi wants to know what all the fuss is about But, yes, Tyrion is neither King, nor head of House Lannister, nor even Hand of The King so to act like this against his father's express instruction while holding down a provisional position is unwise, even provocative. I don't think anyone disputes that Tywin is controlling. But just as politicians today are image conscious and media savvy so The Great Houses of Westeros are very particular about their image and honour, particularly in public and at Court. Tywin took a gamble on Tyrion keeping House Lannister's image and honour intact when he sent him to Court. You can put this down to Tywin seeing how Tytos's liaison with a mistress eroded House Lannister's reputation and made Tytos himself a laughing stock with his bannermen as much as to Tyrion's earlier drunken marriage to a crofter's daughter. A modernist take that Tyrion should be free to screw or marry whoever he wants to screw or marry simply doesn't fit the Westerosi system: marriages are arranged and liaisons are kept discreet to avoid reputational damage. No one advocates for the Westerosi system but the characters in story should act in conjunction with the world's societal rules not our own. Tywin, as Head of the family appointed Hand of The King by the Queen Regent, telling his wayward younger son that he will delegate the Handship to him (while he fights the war) and not to take a prostitute he has taken up with to court is hardly damning stuff. He empowers Tyron with High Office and basically tells him to look as well as act the part.

Well, yes, and never say never, but ofc we have had five rather large books that trumpet on about Targaryen madness, a widely known and remarked upon phenomenon in story that is acknowledged even by family members (Aemon in conversation with Jon) but nothing at all about the mythical Stark/Tully madness which exists only on this forum or other internet sites for the empty purpose of point scoring and flag waving while sticking it to the libs "Starks fans".

You do know the Freys weren't Targ loyalists? Walder sat on the fence and turned up late to The Trident. Dany has no reason to reward or elevate the Freys, who are deep in cahoots with the Lannisters, not a House high on Dany's friends list after murdering her father, niece and nephew in the sack of KL. Given they recently murdered a swathe of Riverlands nobility along with the Northerners at The Red Wedding and are actively despised throughout Westeros, I doubt she'll touch them with a barge pole. The Freys make good villains but they are relatively unimportant and it would undermine rather than strengthen Dany's position to reward them - she would lose any goodwill in the Riverlands and The North at a stroke. The Freys will be a footnote and cautionary tale in Westerosi politics.

More asking than saying. I read the ravens as GRRM's equivalent of homing pigeons, no more, no less. The speaking of messages (and perhaps the sending of ravens to locations they were not familiar with) was down to green seer / skin changer magic but the ravens we see in story - the Castle Black ravens Sam releases on The Fist with no messages for example - operate as ravens do in our world, intelligent birds with a homing instinct. In story the white ravens appear only to announce the changing of seasons so there is almost no information about them. Whether GRRM added them purely as a symbolic and portentous element to highlight the importance and mystery of the changing of the seasons or whether there is some secret tied to them that ties into the maesters and magic I can't say but the former works on it's own and the latter has no in-story set up (the magic and mystery may be hinted at in the pseudo-histories but whether this counts as set up or background mythos for flavour and thrills is another matter). If White Ravens are only bred in the Citadel Rookery why would they travel to Castles throughout the land that they have never visited and which, in most cases, have long since cut down any weirwood groves? If they are magical, who is their message to and who from? The maesters study many subjects and their chains are formed of many links of metal, magic being just one element and one not studied by many, so their importance doesn't disappear if the white ravens are revealed as something fantastical. They don't become charlatans and useless but there would be mockery for them pretending to more than they can do - hypocrisy and pretence being poorly received whether from Crown, Church or Academia.

Idk, I think this is just saying they don't know when seasons will change or how fast the change will be, vitally important things given the impact on agriculture and survival. We take for granted a regular and entirely predictable change of the seasons so the impact of not knowing whether a season will last two or ten years is hard to really appreciate. The summer of ten years is followed by an autumn of 1-2 for example, with little time to lay up further food supplies for a winter of unknown duration, so it seems understandable that they would be trying to work out a way of predicting the change in advance rather than just observing it occurring. Given summer snows in The North and huge differences further south in The Reach or Dorne it seems reasonable enough to gather reports from across the realm before deciding to announce the change to the whole Realm: those in one region might find the announcement surprising, those in another no news at all, but because the boundary between seasons is fuzzy in terms of observed experience the lack of a meteorological yardstick makes it a judgment call. Aren't the ravens returning to their home nest, so to speak? How else do the Citadel ravens (white or black) know where to go?

Pretty much this. But Shae knows this, has known it from the very start when Bronn dragged her away from another customer and Tyrion set out what he expected from her. When he takes her to KL the situation is more of a medieval nobleman with his kept, low-born mistress than a transactional relationship with a prostitute but this is all to Shae's good because she is well looked after. Tyrion may fool himself into thinking he loves her, may even come to love her, but she is managing a client / Sugar Daddy. The problem of the power imbalance is always there and I believe Shae could have left had she wanted to but that it was to her advantage to remain with him. The real problems arise when she is forced to abandon her jewels, gowns and gifted house and live and act as a serving maid which quite clearly are not what she wants or expects in general (she would fare much better with other clients). He does want to keep her safe from what happens to Alayaya but his solution is obviously Tyrion-centric. The talk of marriage from Shae is probably real, though she might not understand that Tyrion's wealth and status can be abruptly cut off by his father which would have rendered him a poor catch from her point of view. But there are plenty of other Sugar Daddies or prospects in The Red Keep and, almost certainly once Tyrion is imprisoned and accused of regicide, his value to her becomes nil. She does very well out of the ensuing situation, securing promises of payment from Cersei for her false testimony (reneged on of course) and ending up in the bed of the most powerful man in the realm. I don't think we can talk of Shae being terrified by the story of what Tywin did to Tysha when we find Shae in that man's bed wearing the Hand's necklace. She's in her element here and I doubt Tywin regularly lets random prostitutes cavort around wearing the Regalia of State so it seems she she's moved on seamlessly from son to father. I find it hard to see her as much of a victim tbh. If Jaime and Varys hadn't sprung him from the Black Cells he would be dead or on The Wall while she would be safely ensconced in a Manse as Lord Tywin's paramour. I tend to view her somewhat in the same vein as Janos Slynt, an opportunist who used her skills to further her interests and made herself useful to those in power but, with no real power of her own, was always vulnerable to enemies she made.

Absolutely agree that this is the crux of it. Dany with her dragons, Arya with her training with the Faceless Men, Bran with his green seer training, all have some form of magical power but what will they choose?

You're free to conjecture but it's a mistake to present unsubstantiated speculation as fact. You seem to be inventing rules for passive / unconscious skin changing because you like the idea of it but there's no basis for it. Or it could be that having been raised around humans who offer them no threat the dire wolves do not regard humans as a threat. But if their humans and other humans fight or square up then the pack instinct kicks in, or if other humans offer them harm then self-preservation kicks in. The model to follow here, quite obviously, is how dogs behave, with the dog's character reflecting the way they were raised or trained (contrast Nymeria with Lady), not that the Stark children have been unconsciously enslaving and controlling the minds of their pups on a near constant basis to prevent the wild animals suddenly tearing every human around them to shreds. You can object to the comparison all you like and tell me a wolf is not a dog but it's clearly the basis for the relationship between the children and their pups, just with a dash of magic and fantasy thrown in. Was Bran mind controlling Summer from his coma when Summer saved his life from the assassin or was Summer exercising wolfie free will? And how controlled and targeted was Summer's urge to "harm others"? What have they done in their dreams? I think you may be imagining things. Yes. This is the fundamental problem with skin changing: it's the possession of another creature's body and the ultimate violation of self. This is why skin changing another human is the ultimate taboo and why even Varamyr only attempts it with Thistle in the last extremity, driving her mad in the process. And it's why Bran's control of Hodor is so problematic. But The Singers taking over the body of ravens to deliver messages, messages that were spoken, doesn't reach the same threshold for me. I don't think GRRM intended this to be horror, more a nod to a magical-medieval postal/messaging service by ravenmail and we don't know if the ravens suffered mental anguish. And the warging of Summer by Bran, although more problematic as we know Summer resists, doesn't result in any harm to Summer. Perhaps it freaks you out because of how you imagine it works for the wolf or because you wouldn't want it for yourself but it's the author's universe and I'm more prepared to follow how he portrays and develops this. You've built quite a fantastical array of charges against the Stark children's perverse powers, consciously or unconsciously wielded, waking or sleeping, but it's only Bran who has any problematic behaviours. Maybe you should consider it's a story so, although we don't need to go all Jungle Book imagining cosy substitute family relationships between different species, that is the essence of it. It's not a deception, I imagine the wolves know the difference between a wolf and a human, it's an adopted family, a reverse version of Romulus and Remus, and it's part of the story. You don't need to free the dire wolves from the Stark children any more than Mowgli from the family of wolves that adopted and reared him. No one is fine with Bran taking over Hodor. Plenty of people, including me, think there is mitigation in him being a frustrated child locked in his own body, but that with the right guidance he can realise that this is wrong and that he must stop. I imagine plenty of people are fine with Bran warging Summer if they consider Summer suffers no harm. Ah, yes, the lemon cakes are just a ruse. Why make stuff up? I guess it's your thing. I don't know what you are trying to say here. North of the Wall skin chargers and wargs are not viewed as pariahs or dangerous abominations. It's almost as if exposure to them has led people to become accustomed to and accept them, even favour them. There is an astonishingly clear parallel there with how people have ostracised or demonised groups who don't conform to the norm, such as gay people, because of fear of the other or of a different lived practice. But in this case you sound like you've learned all the wrong lessons and are openly siding with the bigots. I think you've got your metaphor mixed up - or I really don't understand you. A better comparison springs to mind as Highlander was on tv recently. You're actively siding with the villagers who expel Connor McLeod from his village after his miraculous recovery from a mortal wound because they fear him and what he might be able to do. But of course he, and Ramirez, are good guys. You would run him out of town as well because you're afraid he (and Sansa, who turned into a bat after she poisoned Joffrey, after all) might be the Kurgan, in fact because you believe all of the Immortals are unconsciously or inescapably as dangerous, if not as malevolent, as Kurgan, awake or asleep. Too much negativity, bro. The human condition allows for the person to do good or ill (quite a theme in ASOIAF) and magic is just a story tool before we had technology to achieve terrifying results (sci-fi gives us Death stars and energy weapons that destroy suns or even whole galaxies). For every Saruman there's a Gandalf; the moral from X-Men is not kill all the freaks; and the Stark children have powers of varying degrees, that they have understood or used to a much wider varying degree, but they are not abominations. Huh? I think your definition is way too narrow and completely artificial. How did the ravens speak the messages that The Singers sent? Whatever your head canon, it's not what's in story. Varamyr's parents sent him away, yes. But there he is as one of Mance's most trusted advisors. There's Tormund telling Jon he's fond of wargs. And there's Ygritte singing sultry songs to Jon and giving him the eye while he has Ghost lounging next to him, not running away gibbering in terror. You're siding with the peasants with pitchforks again.... Maybe because of what you have argued? The Stark children's tendrils corrupting the minds of their wolf pups? Sansa getting a thrill out of mind controlling other people? Bran mind controlling people with a thought? Arya, Jon and others skin changing whatever you imagine in their sleep? Magic is a tool. It's a form of power but it's obviously not inherently good or evil. Trying to define skin changing as something non-magical and inherently evil seems a muddle. There are plenty of time people think Superman is too dangerous to have around because of the power he has but, in contrast to Varamyr's parents, his foster parents didn't abandon him. In real life, we don't have magic. In story, fortunately, the Reeds didn't.

I believe he is referring to their bloodline potential and the quickening of their senses due to their relationship with their wolves. But we were talking about the evils of invasive mind control so there is no incident (or hint of one) where Sansa or Robb invades and controls the minds of either Grey Wind / Lady or other animals. That is what your objection is to after all. What deception? I get you are uncomfortable with skinchanging but this depiction of the evil Stark monster children corrupting and enslaving their poor innocent prey pups is rather silly. Who says there isn't? This is a world with magic in so there is no way to know. It seems silly to accept the domestication of horses and dogs but to baulk at wolves (or dragons) because "they don't need it". Maybe the direwolves "follow" the Stark children because they choose to. Nymeria surely took some persuading to leave Arya. Invasive mind control is bad. No one disputes this. Bran is the only one who has discovered or been tutored in this ability and it is obviously problematic. But why on earth would you feel the need to outline this hypothesis and get so worked up about it? I do worry about you sometimes.... Listen, it's a story, it's not real. I hope this helps you sleep better. Personally, I wouldn't have much issue with Sansa as a house guest but there we are. Above all, yours is a curious attitude in a story that contains magic. Magic is all about some chosen / gifted / randomly affected individuals being able to do things that others can't. You're one step away from calling for the abominations to be strangled at birth so people can live without fear of the horrors you are so keen to imagine. Maybe, remember that it's integral to the story, that skin changers are rare and that Varamyr is a cautionary tale of the "dark side of the force", not that the Stark children are twisted abominations and we should run screaming for the door if Sansa turned up and asked for a lemon cake.

Of the Stark children only Bran is a skinchanger and that with Jojen's inexpert tuition. His potential far exceeds that of his siblings. Jon has some awareness of Ghost and Arya of Nymeria but Robb and Sansa (and perhaps Rickon) just had an unusual pet they were fond of. Arya's abilities seem to be awakening and she has visions of what Nymeria is doing when they are separated by significant distances as well as being able to see what the cat sees in Braavos. There's no indication from what I remember that she is controlling the cat (or Nymeria for that matter) just seeing what the animal sees and, in Nymeria's case, experiencing what Nymeria thinks and feels in fuzzy wolf terms. Every animal is. If you take the position that pets are slaves then fair enough but not many will agree will you in real life or in story. Wolves are pack animals and the bond between the Stark children and the wolves is very real and reciprocal: the wolves see the Starks as packmates. And the magic works, in whatever weird way it does, both ways. We've known this from the very beginning when Summer started howling when Bran climbed the tower and then kept him alive during his coma. I don't see any real issues until Bran, the only one of the children to have his ability developed, begins taking control of Summer and then Hodor. Magic is power and too much or particular types of power are inherently problematic. Bran's chapters show us this from an innocent and frustrated child's pov as he uses Summer to roam and Hodor as his legs. The behaviour of Varamyr is the cautionary tales of how this power can be abused, Bloodraven and other skin changers in general I'm not so sure - we don't know enough (and can't from an animal's pov) as to what benefits they get from the relationship or how they see it.

I'm minded of the story behind the film ALIVE, a plane crash in the Andes where the survivors resorted to cannibalising the dead in order to stay alive. Gruesome enough but I doubt they became addicted and I'm unaware of cannibalistic practices other than to avoid starvation or for ritual purposes. The New Guinea tribes I imagine you are basing your reference to prion disease on consumed the brains of dead male ancestors in order to pass on something of the dead man's spirit to the next generation but it was a highly restricted cultural practice limited to young men only, essentially as part of a funerary rite. I don't subscribe to Jojenpaste and the bitter taste could simply be a reference to acorn paste, supposedly very bitter. We're dealing with magic and horror (Bloodraven is both being kept alive by and consumed by a tree) so the whole atmosphere is unsettling and there's surely something going on with Bran and the paste but I don't see Jojen and/or Meera's unspecified absence as sinister, in fact I hadn't noticed it at all; time is hard to keep track of in the cave after all.