Jump to content

the trees have eyes

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by the trees have eyes

  1. 15 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

    Do you believe that Mance went to Winterfell of his own accord and for his own reasons, then? 

    It's opaque but Mance does what Mel wants, as all the Wildlings do what Jon / The NW want, because Mel / Jon took hostages.  What better way to turn the tables and escape that bind than to have something Jon dearly wants to offer in exchange, namely FArya?

    Mance was King Beyond The Wall and his interest is in leading and protecting his people.  Mel has a temporary hold over him but that's all it is.  Whatever Mel's vision (vague) and instructions (conditional on that vision) Mance has a plausible objective in going to WF. 

    How he would know that he had not simply left FArya freezing to death around Long Lake while he headed to WF is another matter.

    17 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    You had a pretty good theory a couple years ago about who wrote this, didn't you? 

    I can't take any such credit, unfortunately :)

    The simplest explanation is that Stannis, having sprung Ramsay's trap with the Karstarks, has planted false information with Ramsay to trick him, including having Lightbringer presented to Roose / Ramsay as a trophy by Glover / Umber / AN Other Northmen dressed up in Karstark colours.  The Boltons think they've won and make demands accordingly but Stannis is probably preparing to launch an attack on a WF now off guard.  He prepared Massey for this exact news and ordered him to stay focused on his mission but he couldn't prepare Jon or The Watch resulting in unforeseen chaos at The Wall.

    Stannis' trick is a sound tactical ploy to wrongfoot Ramsay / Roose and retake WF.  This only works if they remain at WF and receive no word of what really happened in the battle from survivors (it's a few days to WF in heavy snow so survivors would face slim odds without provisions, equipment or firewood).  Stannis doesn't foresee Ramsay's letter to WF and the outcome at Castle Black.

    Of course this is what I would like to happen and thought was going to happen and GRRM is master of the rug pull so maybe it didn't.  Maybe The Freys were not outnumbered and slaughtered by Stannis's troops fighting with Glover, Umber and Karstark men who turned sides in accordance with their captive Lord's orders, all while Manderly took them in the flank.  Maybe all that did happen but Stannis's follow-up assault on WF failed (hence seven days of battle being more than one engagement) and the "false king's friends" really are dead, "their heads upon the walls of Winterfell" (again this would be days after any battle at the crofters' village).

    But I can't see it.  The Freys are in an impossible position given the Manderlys will turn on them once they engage Stannis and the "friendly" Karstarks will prove anything but.  Same with any assault on WF: those loyal to the Boltons will be those who didn't lose anyone at The Red Wedding, which is no one apart from maybe the Ryswells but surely self-preservation, plus the chance to not have their hounds mauled to death by Ramsay's in their own Hall, will sway their decision. 

    But then my optimism and GRRM's storytelling don't often go together well (Ned's failure, The Sack of WF, The Red Wedding) so I can't rule out taking the letter at face value.  Whose heads are on the walls of WF?  Is Ramsay bluffing or has he been duped here as well?  I still think it's from Ramsay in either case.  It should really be from Roose but with Ramsay being the aggrieved husband wanting his "bride" back he has a strong argument to send it as Bolton spokesperson.  Maybe Roose wants him to work at his statecraft and negotiating skills which surely could do with some polishing.

  2. 6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Did I say this was a "good news update"?

    See this retwisting of someone's guess of motive as a straw man to shoot it down was exactly my point about the "motive" part of the debate.

    I don't care whether I convince you or not.

    Then I have no idea what you are talking about.  I don't understand what you are implying Mance's putative coded communication with Melisandre was designed to achieve.  If Mance's coded message to Melisandre was telling her

    "The message itself is coded to give an update on what is going on:

    • The Boltons believe Stannis dead and have his sword, but Mance is equally boasting Stannis' battle abilties
    • Arnfolf Karstark and Crowfood are dead
    • But the walls of WF are manned by friends to Stannis
    • Ramsay's hunting for fArya and his Reek, believing them to be at CB (and Mance has no way of knowing the contrary), in other words, he did his job.
    • Mance is in a pickle
    • Come with everyone and all forces"

    and these are your words, how is that not a good news update?

    Strawman?  Retwisting?  Huh? 

    Yeah, you're not going to convince anyone like this so it's a good job you don't care. :rolleyes:

  3. 3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Imho, literary evidence points to Mance:

    I follow your arguments for Mance based on wording, it was the objective he was aiming at I am querying.

    3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    My guess of the motive is that Mance was supposed to send a letter to Castle Black with an update by Mel's request (for she couldn't see Stannis in her fires anymore). She expected a letter and the letter instructs Jon to confer with Mel over it. Mance had no way of knowing that Jon would distrust and abhor Mel's manipulations so much, he'd rather plot and plan with Tormund over it for hours than go to Mel with it. He also had no way of predicting that Jon would read it aloud at the Shieldhall.

    So it's a good news update disguised so elaborately that it achieves the opposite effect and everything at CB becomes fubar.  Wow.  I mean GRRM likes to do the good guys down but to screw them over when they've won due to simple miscommunication?  That trumps Theseus and the black sails for tragedy.

    I'm not convinced, it's too risky, can easily go awry (as it does), if he can even get the letter out anyway.  It also relies on Mel and he having a code worked out in advance, not impossible, but another layer and there's little to suggest Mel and Mance are thick as thieves.

  4. 46 minutes ago, sifth said:

    Isn't that just another word for "slave", lol

    It was a pretty restrictive long-term employment contract - usually used for apprentices to learn their trade, to pay off debts or as a judicial punishment.  Indentured servants of European extraction were used in the Caribbean and U.S. colonies in return for their passage being paid to The New World until the hardship and mortality rates from disease led to a supply shortage and landowners to look elsewhere for labour and we all know how that ended up......

  5. On 1/30/2023 at 8:18 PM, sweetsunray said:

    I'd rather say the point is to make the wildlings march on WF, not necessarily Jon. Though one of the possible motives could have been to freak the NW out and get Jon LC-off, which was a dumb move from Mel and/or Stannis. Mance's motives may have been more malicious. I don't think he cared if Jon got killed in the process.

    But what if Jon decides to comply with The Pink Letter and hands over Val and The Monster?  Or, if he doesn't and a cabal within The Watch try to assassinate Jon and to comply with the letter's demands - as appears to be happening?  What if Jon keeps his counsel and plays the long game, waiting for Ramsay to come to him?

    The only way Mance can be confident Jon or The NW won't hand over Val and his son to Ramsay's agents is if Stannis has completely defeated The Boltons.  And if that's so why does Mance need to lie and get Jon to march south - is he really hoping Jon will hand him an army so he can fight Stannis?  He couldn't get away with a lie here for long anyway as Stannis or any of the Northern Lords would soon send word that The Boltons were defeated, proving his bluff a lie.

    I don't see how Mance makes this calculation.

    Stannis makes less sense as the letter might drive Selyse, Shireen and Mel to flight or risk them being handed over to The Boltons.  Even if it didn't, look what The Pink Letter led to at Castle Black: mutiny, murder and chaos - hardly any objectives of Stannis.

  6. 50 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

    Ah, right. Maybe those were some "off the record" thralls, then?

    It's more the practice of gaining new thralls that would provoke Robert or any Lord in the 7K, there are no enforcement agents inspecting The Isles for open or hidden thralls.  It seems they head to Essos like Euron with his crew of mutes for that until Balon's rebellion Mk II.  Any complaints by Smallfolk to Ned, Tywin or Mace (or their forebears) about IB ships stealing women and children and they would have been shut down pretty hard.

  7. On 2/10/2023 at 2:15 PM, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

    I honestly can’t believe no one talks about this. She is one of the most evil and conniving characters in fiction. She portrays herself to the world as a plucky little underdog girl (with 3 dragons) freedom fighter, when is truly an evil soul that is completely irredeemable.

    Succinct yet comprehensive and well-written OP.  Sadly some may not take it as parody.

    On 2/10/2023 at 6:54 PM, SeanF said:

    I certainly don’t.

    She used to post here as Apple Martini.  She gives the impression that Daenerys wronged her personally.

    Holy cow, well I know what to expect so I'll give it a pass.  I remember her constant arguments against Dany very well.  I particularly remember her saying how happy she was that she had persuaded a friend who thought well of Dany to see her point of view and regard her negatively.  It truly felt like she made it a mission to try and convert people.  Being an influencer reaches a wider audience than this humble forum I suppose... :blink:

  8. On 1/16/2023 at 2:13 AM, Sydney Mae said:

    The stress triggered the madness in Cat.  Ned's public execution triggered the same illness in Arya.  Something very stressful will happen to Sansa and she might break too.  Their blood make them vulnerable to madness

    PTSD is not hereditary.  Arya, arguably, has a form of PTSD. 

    Cat went mad at the very end, but that was just the final act in the classical Greek tragedy of her life.  We meet a happily married powerful noblewoman with five children and progressively: her middle son is crippled and rendered comatose, her husband and daughters are separated from her and then arrested / taken hostage, her husband is executed, her father dies perhaps of cancer, her elder daughter is married to a mortal enemy and her younger daughter disappears, her two younger sons are murdered and, finally, her last child is murdered in front of her face.  Sophocles could not have done any more to her.

    On 1/16/2023 at 11:02 AM, StarkTullies said:

    There's a sudden explosion of madness threads which are obviously joke threads, but it seems that this one is actually real?

    It's not, at least no more or less than the others.  It's just a circle jerk for some people.  Establishing contrarian positions and then pretending the "alternative facts" are legitimate is apparently entertaining and empowering.  We all got to get our fun times somehow I guess.

    On 1/16/2023 at 1:10 PM, SeanF said:

    Terms like "madness" and "insanity" are bandied around far too readily.

    There is nothing to suggest that Catelyn suffers from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or major clinical depression.

    However, Catelyn does get increasingly depressed as her life goes from bad to disastrous.  Her husband and (as far as she knows) two sons, and a daughter, have all been murdered.  Sansa is a prisoner, and then Robb is murdered in front of her. She finally snaps.  At the point that she kills Jinglebell, she is almost certainly insane in the legal sense. 

    But, it's not because mental illness runs in her family.  Her psychosis is triggered as a result of all the horrible things that get done to those that she loves. 

    Exactly.  But some folks have chosen a side and anything that makes the other side look bad is good and anything that riles the other sides' supporters is extra special fun. You'll have more luck convincing a MAGA crowd to drop election denial.

  9. 19 hours ago, James Arryn said:

    My most sympathetic angle on the idiot Balon Greyjoy;

    Too sympathetic I think :)

    The IB are a raiding seapower who plunder their neighbours and have not been dispossessed of any lands, in fact they have been confirmed in their ancestral lands despite rebellion, i.e. being the one to break the peace treaty.

    And in fact they conquered the Riverlands so are really an imperial power themselves who have been pushed back to their core territory.  Balon can't abide this any more than Euron so they seek to conquer their neighbours again and restore their geopolitical influence which shows them for what they are: a revisionist, expansionist power with imperial ambitions wanting to return to the glory days.

    More Putin than First Nations in other words.

  10. 7 minutes ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

    She may have her Theon the Latecomer, to make the Kingsmoot illegal and take power while Euron is away or after suffering one or several defeats that weakened his credibility. 

    Though of course she and Theon need to survive, and to be freed on condition by Stannis or the Starks for this to happen.

    That does seem to be her plan but even with Rodrik The Reader backing her it's really just a coup.  How will she hold power against challenges and how does she even go about changing the culture without being replaced?  Besides, she was just fine with taking part in Balon's assault on The North to prove herself worthy of being his heir so she's not exactly a change agent.  Major problems lie ahead.

  11. 31 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

    The Ironborn do not place that great a stock in being clever, but being strong. In addition, the Islands are not built for an easy life. This means that selection pressures are, in essence, favouring brawn over brains. I expect most clever but not particularly strong Ironborn, especially those not of the noble class, would leave the islands, meaning the availability of 'intelligent genes' is lower and lower each generation.

    I like this :thumbsup: Selective breeding for stupidity. 

    The culture, like many island cultures, is, well, insular to the point of impenetrability and xenophobia: outsiders are thralls or potential victims of reavings.  It's hard to see how this changes and why they would follow someone who tried to enforce change.  Maybe Asha will show us the answer but after her rejection at The Kingsmoot it's hard to see the Lords of The Isles changing their minds and taking her seriously.

  12. 10 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

    True, many will find it hard to trust the Freys.  But if we use the same idea, many would find it very hard to ever trust the word of a Stark.  Robb Stark broke his oath to Lord Walder Frey.  Jon Snow broke his vows to the Night's Watch.  So in this, I say both families will have a terrible time earning trust again.  Both families violated something considered sacred. 

    Robb broke a promise to marry a man's daughter; he made restitution by Edmure marrying one of Walder's daughters in his place.  Walder Frey slaughtered thousands of men and murdered dozens of guests from noble families in The North and Riverlands under his own roof.

    What harm did Robb really do the Freys other than a bit of injured pride and what possible restitution can the Frey family make after The Red Wedding?

    You are drawing an utterly repugnant false equivalence that beggars belief and it's absurd to see people engage in this nonsense.

    As for trust: why does one of the Mormont girls write to Stannis to say they will recognise no king whose name is not Stark?  Why does Stannis offer to legitimise Jon and make him Lord of Winterfell?

    This stuff is not hard to pick up from the books, really it's not, you might try reading them some time :read:

  13. 6 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

    Yes. To all of the black brothers his behavior and his intent to attack the Boltons is madness. 

    Which part?  After he read out the pink letter his intent to attack the Boltons appears exactly as it is: a move to gain the tactical advantage in view of Ramsay's threats.  Or do you mean his behaviour in sending The Watch to Hardhome?  Maybe  you think Chett and his pals a fine bunch of heroes for planning to murder Mormont and the other officers for "the madness" of their orders too.  At some point the penny has to drop you're backing the wrong side.

  14. 1 hour ago, Darth Sidious said:

    Jon doomed the Watch because he started a fight with Ramsay. 

    One might say Mormont came close to destroying The Watch with the disaster of The Fist and that Jon rebuilt it with aid from Stannis and The Wildlings. The Watch would have been just fine if Bowen had let Jon head off with nothing but Wildlings.  But he started a mutiny and things are in the balance.

  15. Eh, the more you feed the trolls, the more they come looking for a meal.  Sad to say as it's kind of the death of the forum when it descends to this childish baiting but there's no point in trying to use logic when people just want to get a rise.

    On 2/4/2023 at 8:15 PM, LongRider said:

    Jon deserves all the shit he gets because…………..he sent Dolorous Edd away! 


    So very wrong. 

    He defo should not have.  But Edd got a castle (ok a ruin) with a bevy of spear wives to give him foot rubs and feed him grapes so I'm sure he's coping as best he can :thumbsup:

  16. On 2/1/2023 at 7:50 PM, James Arryn said:

    Does anyone else remember the…dunno if rumour or theory is more appropriate…after the last book that his comments that he had already written a bunch of later chapters, that therefore the delay between Dance and Winds would be relatively short? Also the absence of a Mereneese knot would mean smooth sailing.

    Or, OMG, the advance chapters he was reading OUT LOUD surely had to mean imminent publication? I think the first of those was like 9 years ago. I now use the shadow of southbound geese to prognosticate Winds release dates. So far they haven’t been any less accurate than any other method. 

    Most definitely.  And there was an implication (or maybe I made an inference) that the battles of Meereen and Winterfell / Stannis v Boltons had already been largely written and were simply moved into Winds.

    I thought the publication of sample chapters was something in his contract to show the publishers he had reached a certain page count or milestones for advances.  Maybe I shouldn't say that :uhoh:

    On 2/2/2023 at 12:45 AM, BlackLightning said:

    GRRM gave his 75% done and 500 pages left to go chat in December.

    AGOT is 800 pages long.  Either TWOW is going to be 1600 - 2000 pages or he's about half way, maybe not even that.  He could write faster if he was motivated to but that's the real issue and has been for some years.  Only he can rediscover his desire to write this story.  I sure hope he does :)

  17. 8 hours ago, Springwatch said:

    Nevertheless, a Jon presidency would be a different thing to a Robb presidency.

    I'm not so sure.  They are both war time presidents and while Robb is on the offensive campaigning in the Riverlands and Jon is on the defensive at The Wall - to both north and south - they are both acting strategically in the best interests of The North as Ned taught them and as they believe right.

    Of course GRRM being GRRM they both make strategic mistakes (Robb more so than Jon) and are both blindsided and undone by treachery (how very Nedlike :crying:) but I think their peacetime rule in the North would be very similar in how they treat their vassals and the smallfolk, which is really all ruling is in the absence of crises to manage.

    Are they different individuals? Of course but nothing like, say Robert and Stannis or Balon and Euron in terms of how their character would shape their rule.

    7 hours ago, SeanF said:

    Jon was actually dealt a pretty bad hand by the Starks.

    A big motivating factor for him to join the Watch was his belief that he would be destitute before long.  When it came to it, Catleyn was in a position to throw him out, in Ned's absence, and Ned had made no provision for him.  The Watch was a shithole, a penal colony, where 90% of recruits joined up only as an alternative to execution or starvation.  The likelihood was that Jon would die at a young age, on a wildling's axe, never having married, fathered children, or held lands.

    It is no thanks to either Ned or Catelyn that he survived and became Lord Commander.

    I think the example of Uncle Benjen takes the edge off this.  True, Jon is a bastard and he can expect no favours from Benjen but as Donal Noye, Aemon and Mormont all know and quickly confirm he is castle trained and, more importantly, educated as a Lord's son.  He has a lot of potential and he has to earn any rank or station in The Watch but he has a huge head start over the average recruit and is groomed for command from almost the beginning.   This wasn't guaranteed - Sam shows that - but I think it was always a good bet, if not that he would make such a meteoric rise.

    It's still a hard and bleak life for sure and he does get picked for Qhorin's suicide mission so life is not without dangers but the alternative was probably dying with Robb at The Red Wedding or with Ser Rodrik in The Sack of Winterfell. 

    And a lot of Jon's danger stems from Lannister overtures to yes men in The Watch.  Ned thought The Watch would be a safe haven compared to the particular dangers to Jon at Court but he couldn't know The Lannisters would prevail at KL and bring court politics to The Wall as well.

  18. 17 hours ago, Springwatch said:

    Truth is stranger than fiction, it is known...

    Jon's rivalry with Robb is natural, I think. There's more of the north in Jon, and his wolf is bigger, strong, white as snow - a wolf fit for a King of Winter. So, more of the south in Robb - his nature is warmer, he's not snow, he even melts snowflakes. They're not just rivals for high office, they represent opposing forces. Which is better for Winterfell? We don't know yet.

    Whatever the symbolism their relationship was close rather than one of sibling rivalry to the extent that Robb very likely legitimised Jon and made him his heir.  Contrast that with the Barratheon and Greyjoy brothers - or with Domeric Bolton and Ramsay Snow!!

    Only when he believes all his brothers dead is Jon tempted by the offer of WF and even then he says no.  He never reaches for it or plots for it or considers it, however idly.

  19. 2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

    Jon's psyche and mental-well being

      Reveal hidden contents


    Pretty good as it happens.  The sibling rivalry was never an issue and although there was coldness from Catelyn as "the wicked step-mother" the relationship with Ned was one of warmth.  I can't help but contrast Jon's joining the watch with "Megxit" and Harry's unresolved issues with his brother and father (and the impact of the absence of his mother during his adolescence).

    It's a bit colder on The Wall than California but Jon found his place and both a cause / duty and surrogate family.   Regrets over Ygritte, Qhorin or the burden of leadership are pretty natural and he knows he had to distance himself from his friends - "Kill the boy and let the man be born" (sic).  Ghost is a source of companionship and an anchor. He's managing it all pretty well until you know what.

  20. 17 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    He's not putting Cersei before Tyrion either. He's choosing Tommen.

    Ultimately.  And only maybe - as part of trying to become a better person.  But he's at Riverrun not safeguarding Tommen from Cersei's influence.

    But when Cersei denies she had anything to do with the dagger I don't think she is lying and doing it out of a fear Jaime will choose Tyrion or Tommen over her.  Tyrion's transgression is far too great and outweighs anything else.

  21. 2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    It wasn't much of a gamechanger when Tyrion lied he killed Joffrey

    Actually it does mark their estrangement and Jaime turns his back on him for good.  I can't think of him regarding Tyrion either fondly or with regret after this.

    He's not putting Tyrion before Cersei here in any case which seems to be the heart of whether Cersei would need to lie to him or not.  I still can't see that she does.

  22. On 1/29/2023 at 3:00 PM, sweetsunray said:

    I'm pretty sure that Jaime cares more for Tyrion than he does for Joffrey. And Cersei knows this. Jaime loved her, and was the seed provider, but he was never allowed to form a bond with them. The sole son he just tried to become some type of father figure to was Tommen, right before Cersei sent him away to the RL.

    True but Joffrey is Cersei's son so it's not so much pitting Jaime's love for Tyrion against his love for Joffrey as against his love for Cersei.  And murdering her son (as is believed) is surely a gamechanger if there was any doubt as to whether Jaime was going to ride off into exile with Tyrion.

  23. 13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Jaime is seeking for a justification why Tyrion would murder Joffrey.

    She knows Jaime has a fondness and weakness for Tyrion that is in her opinion irrational.

    So your view is that it was Cersei that uttered the line about it being a mercy to kill Bran / putting down injured animals etc leading to Joffrey hiring the catspaw?

    I mean it's possible and she's blaming Robert just like she blames her maid for "shrinking" her dress in the wash rather than acknowledging her middle-age spread.

    But to think she would consider Jaime would be angry with her for an action that indirectly led to Tyrion being in danger that he came through unscathed is a pretty light straw against the pretty heavy bale of Tyrion having (as she believes) murdered her and Jaime's son.  I just don't see a reason for her to lie in this scenario.

    If she did send the catspaw then she might have more reason to hide this from Jaime but Tyrion having murdered her son outweighs this by far and makes it very hard to see why she would need to hide an action that was not intended to harm Tyrion and, though it made his life uncomfortable, did not.

    If anything - and as  Jaime wonders - revealing that she did send the catspaw might give Tyrion a / another motive for killing Joffrey (to punish her rather than get revenge on Joffrey).  Which in turn would surely help to overcome Jaime's "strange affection" for Tyrion and help her to convince Jaime to kill him for her - as she later attempts to persuade him to do in White Sword Tower in return for a blow job :blink:

    13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Jaime is seeking for a justification why Tyrion would murder Joffrey.

    She knows Jaime has a fondness and weakness for Tyrion that is in her opinion irrational.

    I'm not a narcissist, not a pathological liar and don't have a brother who's always had my other brother's back. You approach Cersei as a rational normal person. She isn't. She never was.

    She loathes Tyrion so cannot understand why Jaime does not as well.  That's not really that unusual.  Is she self-centred, manipulative and narcissistic?  Yes, but I don't see how lying here benefits her.  At best I can see that she (not Jaime) might think that the dagger became a reason for Tyrion to kill Joffrey so she disassociates herself from the event and projects blame onto Robert for inspiring Joffrey, similar to how she disassociates herself from Melara's "fall".

    Interestingly you've made me consider that the catspaw plotline may still have some mileage - in the culmination of the Lannister siblings tangled relationship.  I still think it unlikely though: Cersei accepting responsibility for inspiring Joffrey to hire the assassin, leading to Tyrion's arrest, leading to Tyrion's murder of Joffrey, only really has relevance if Cersei admits it to herself as no one else can know this and it only really has relevance for Cersei's personal tragedy (as she morphs into Catelyn with all her children dying) because no one else gives a damn about Joffrey. 

    This doesn't seem likely and the reveal about who did kill Joffrey is likely to have more of an impact on their relationship.

    Cersei is not "normal" as in "well-adjusted" but neither is she irrational (unless you're positing her misuse of power as a secret Targ developing full-blown Targ madness rather than a standard case of megalomania?).

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    Ironically enough, the "both barrels" aspect of it is one reason why I don't trust it. If an author writes a mystery subplot into a story, does it make sense that he will have some characters simply blurt out the answer? It seems too obvious. It seems like it could be a misdirection.

    Such an important plot element ought to have a strong resolution, not just a few characters guessing at it.

    That's a stretch.  You seem to be looking for reasons to reject the text rather than assessing what the author is trying to do.  If he wants to misdirect then Tyrion's conclusion is enough.  Instead he gives us two pov characters who come to the same conclusion.  No, there's no trial or smoking gun, no deathbed confession, but that doesn't mean we should assume what the author shows us and then reinforces with a second confirmation is false.

    He's on the record as saying that readers might come up with solutions that were more pleasing than his own and this seems exactly what he has in mind.  I feel you simply don't like the solution or the reveal while a deeply-layered and complex scenario planned years in advance and still hidden (the enigma of Mance Raydar) seems more satisfying.  Whether you feel the solution ought to be stronger or more satisfying this is what he came up with.

  24. 6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    It's not the morals of the assassination attempt on Bran's life that Cersei would lie for. She doesn't care about that. But it was such an amateuristic sloppy execution too (so nothing to claim in pride), and it got Tyrion arrested by Cat. Cersei doesn't care about Tyrion, but she knows Jaime does. 

    But this is long after Tyrion returned to KL quite safe and sound.  If he was still a prisoner in The Eyrie I could see why she might want to hide it from him but not at the time Jaime talks to her.  At that point Tyrion is a convicted regicide and parricide and Cersei asks Jaime to kill him for her.  I don't see her worrying about his reaction to her having put Tyrion at risk, however inadvertently.  And after all she would have been protecting Jaime and herself by trying to get rid of the witness to their incest.

    7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Automatic response. She does it even in her own head during the walk of shame. She's a pathological liar due to her narcissism who cannot be seen as being responsible for anything "bad" that happened, and by extension Joffrey. At the most she can admit at some point during the walk of shame is that she agreed to do the walk of shame. 

    In part.  She remembers that Melara "fell" down the well when they were children but even in her head she does not admit she pushed her.  The reader has to infer that.  But the author presents us with a very clear picture that she did.  Given she is a pov and truly believes that Tyrion killed Joffrey I would at least expect her to gnash her teeth that her ploy with the dagger did not get Tyrion killed and thus spare Joffrey.  But the author gives us none of this, just Tyrion and Jaime reaching the conclusion that it was Joffrey.  And then it's never mentioned again.  Except on this forum  :P

    7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    There's no way she's going to allow Jaime to be angry with her over the brother she despises.

    That brother has killed her son.  Jaime's son.  He was found guilty in Court and Trial by Combat and I really don't think Cersei is going to worry about Jaime being angry with her over Tyrion.   After all Joffery was both her and his son and she might expect him to feel something for Joffrey (though he does not). 

    Forget we're talking ASOIAF for a moment: your son is murdered by your partner's brother.  Are you really going to worry your partner might get angry with you over something you may have done that put him at risk a few years ago or are you going to be cursing that he wasn't killed before he could harm your son?  If your partner is more angry about you accidentally putting his brother at risk (he survived unharmed) than he is about the murder of your son you are 100% getting a new partner.

    31 minutes ago, Aebram said:

    Cersei was aware of the change; that would give her a reason not to trust him as much as she normally would.

    Tyrion is a criminal and kinslayer wanted for murdering her and Jaime's son.  He knows secrets that will kill them both in a heartbeat (Tommen and Myrcella too).  The dagger doesn't even register on the scale for her and is not something she needs to hide from him with Tyrion being Westeros's Most Wanted.  Assuming she ever had a reason to hide it from him when they were travelling from WF to KL for however months.

    Cersei is not honest I give you.  But that doesn't support Cersei sent the catspaw and it certainly doesn't outweigh the textual explanation the author gives us with both barrels.

  • Create New...