Castellan

It could be dormant or it could be luck or he could have some kind of Targ immunity!

and cats! https://www.cats.org.uk/cats-blog/can-cats-see-colour

I had noted this pattern of 'identity'- which starts in AFFC and continues in ADWD - and saw the rest simply as chapters that cover the Ironborn and the Dornish, who are introduced in these books. Having these titles made them seem temporary or extra somehow. Also, at least in AFFC, they tend to have only one or two chapters each. And they're giving different angles on the same events - the Kingsmoot in one, and Arianne's foolish Queenmaking foray in the other. So no real need for numbering by POV. However, I then realised that a lot of the Ironborn and Dornish chapters could also be seen as about changing identity e.g. Quentyn's are The Merchants Man where he plays the role of a servant to Gerris Drinkwater, then the WIndblown where his group has joined a mercenary company under false names in order to continue their journey, but are then instructed to go to Meereen; then The Spurned Suitor and finally, poignantly, The Dragon Tamer. I think the titles do actually add to the atmosphere of the books. I suspect he would think of them that way, too. I doubt he thinks or says "I am writing Tyrion XIX" now but thinks of them by shorthand - like "The Princess in the Tower" and "The Queenmaker".

Aaargghh! Actually considering the major post before this was "Dark Days" (ignoring posts discussing releases) perhaps it means in the current climate dreamers will be lonely.

(TWOW, ADOS) belong to him alone (not fans, not publisher) but it means he is lonely and can't help feeling negative vibes. Maybe from me! and you!

Yes, I am fairly hopeful the next one will come out.

Tyrion is my first thought. He seems like the most important character to the author, has the most mentions of any character in the text, I think, and as he is a real journeyer, he can journey on to the end. Brienne - possibly. Possibly as an undead person. Arya - who can say? I can't see why she wouldn't survive. Sansa - likewise I can't see a narrative/character necessity for her to die. Unless her role in the plot becomes limited to one thing like Petyr's machinations trying t make a northern force and then GRRM dumps her. Bran - he's become a greenseer, he doesn't seem like he'd be on the author's hit list Rickon - he'll be a blast from the past when the Kings of Winter were harder and wilder Jon - because I think he deserves to Samwell - he'll be a very wise advisor by the time he gets to the end Aemon Steelsong - what the point of knocking him off? Pure spite? Won't survive Jaime - I think he'll run his race in TWOW. Well, I think he'll live on for a while as an undead like Beric and Catelyn, but not for very long. Tommen & Mycella - too much to be hoped for. Shireen - I think the show gave away what is now obvious from various things like her ashy face and dragon nightmares. Not to mention Patchface jumping around her chanting creepily about the netherworld below the sea. Petyr - villain must die! There'll be no role for him once the war of five kings ceases to be the main struggle. Cersei - doomed doomed doomed Martells - Doran seems to have some wisdom but no practical brains at all. He sends his children on missions that are the opposite of any talents they have. (Except for Tyrion and Jaime, I really don't have much faith in my own list above. GRRM keeps us guessing).

there's a crowd?

I thought the OP was quite amusing.

I guess its a pointless discussion in a way as GRRM hopefully doesn't write straight from a whatever-it-is-that-establishes-diagnostic-guidelines. I suppose 'some behaviours like those with a personality disorder but she doesn't really fit the bill' describes her, anyway.

I don't really know what I think about this. Sandy Clegg makes good points that firstly, GRRM inserts in the text the information that the Strangler is not one of the Essosi names for the leaf or crystal and the Strangler seems to be a Westerosi nickname for it, and secondly that Cersei herself connects Joffrey's death from the Strangler with Maggi's prophecy. I really can't see a good reason for bothering to insert the information that the names of a poison are forgotten other than to set up for Cersei dying from something that's real name is the Little Brother Both having the little brother pool wider than Cersei realises, and having the word refer to a poison, do the job of the prophecies - to bite you in the bum - you can’t escape them and they are not what you think. It could be argued that having it refer to a poison makes a bigger twist and also a bigger surprise to the reader, but then, does that mean that it’s NOT going to be either of Cersei’s brothers? Because I think if she is strangled from poison administered by Tyrion and the reader somehow learns, “oh that poison is also called the Little Brother” it just messes things up. The only way it would work would be if she had someone kill Tyrion, felt very smug, and then someone poisoned her with the Little Brother. I suppose just hearing that Tyrion is dead and jumping for joy then dying because someone else gave you the Strangler would also work.

poor old sweetrobin hasn't had any tiny chance of normal development! no need for an autism diagnoses. I agree re Pod and others. And I think Stannis is the only one where I think the author might have modelled him partly with a condition in mind. I seem to be landing the role of arguing that Cersei has a personality disorder when my initial reasoning was just that I didn't see her as autistic, and that, if anything, I'd say she had a personality disorder. I do see a chain from Tytos to Joffrey of troubled persons. Tywin's weird smileless personality develops in reaction to Tytos constant need to appease and please etc. PS I don't know that I buy 'just amoral'. I was thinking that labelling people as 'just amoral' probably allows psychiatrists to avoid having some very unpleasant people in their office!

Sorry I can't really join you in this exploration I don't generally see any point in diagnosing characters in literature and in any case I don't have the knowledge to do it. I also managed to get through university before feminism got the academic treatment and dropped out of literature in first year as the particular faculty was completely unengaging. I never had the slightest inclination to study psychology. So after making an attempt to read your post properly I can see you may have some points but also I simply do not have the background to engage. I had family members with personality disorders and Cersei rings a giant gong for me, that is all I can say. I think its all explicable in what GRRM has given us about her childhood. The reaction that people in real life have to the behaviours of people with certain kinds of personality disorders (presuming said people aren't au fait with these conditions) is eventually just a frustrated "She's just CRAZY!" in my experience so perhaps if readers react that way it just shows how well GRRM presents her. BTW, I find this bit from your post puzzling But categorizing a character as having a personality disorder only really serves the narrative purpose of allowing readers to write off their interiority as “crazy”, and reduce the character to being important to a story for plot reasons alone, i.e., GRRM created Cersei so she could be a thorn in the side of the “actual” characters in the story, not a character with a story of her own. Why would readers thinking a character is autistic react differently to said character than if they think (or have been told) that said character has a personality disorder? It just sounds like autism is in fashion and no-one would 'write the character off as 'autistic' ' whereas for some reason they would of course write off a character as 'having a personality disorder'."

I don't think her problems relating to others stems from autism. I think there is a line of personality disorder from Tywin's father to Cersei to Joffrey. I don't mean genetic.

I have always considered Stannis as a character who was autistic-like, more as a comparison to explain his intractabilty than saying 'oh this character is meant to be autistic'. Although come to think of it when I look at Cersei I do think 'oh, this character is meant to have a personality disorder'.

Classic style british murder mysteries seem quite popular on the thread so I thought I'd mention I've been on a binge of reading British Library crime classics edited by Martin Edwards. They are reprints of classics mostly prewar (possibly entirely - not sure). The good thing from my point of view is that they are mostly on kindle unlimited so if you subscribe to that its a treasure trove. I have been interested enough to get through all bar one of those I've tried, though I have to say I'm glad the form has evolved beyond the set puzzle - e.g. a murder happens at a party so noting who goes in and out what door etc etc is important. I did find E C R Lorac which was a pen name for Edith Caroline Rivett among them, and have since gone on to binge on those which are also available on kindle unlimited, not as part of the British Library crime classics. She was very prolific and some of them ere not quite as good as the others but I have become a fan. I like the environments and the personalities she protrays and her main series has a very likeable 'London Scottish' detective. Having written this I am now having doubts about how many people would actually like these, even if you like their more modern descendants. BTW, the great Kate ATkinson has a novel coming out this year Death at the Sign of the Rook which is the form of a classic Agatha Christie mystery and continues the Jackso Brodie series. https://www.kateatkinson.co.uk/jackson-brodie/

perhaps its one of those 'first hints' in the three fold revelation.

I thought it was accepted that he'd been poisoned - there is mention in the text of such a poison, that closes the bowels. Oberyn is in KL for revenge (despite his silly brother's instructions). Oberyn was scandalous even in Dorne because he didn't fight fair duels - he poisoned his spear so if he lost, his enemy died anyway. He has done this to Gregor and he made sure Tywin dies too. It would be easy for him - slip it into a goblet, a la Olenna. The only thing is that after Tyrion enters the room and sees Shae there and strangles her, the text goes something like 'he found his father where he knew he would be - in the privy." This could be interpreted as the only place that he could be, since he is not in the main room. Or it could be argued that Tyrion must have been the one who poisoned him, an we know Tyrion has a stock of poison. But I think Tyrion has deduced that if Oberyn made sure of Gregor's death he would also make sure of Tywin's. I have to admit there is a bit of a flaw in my argument there as how would he know its a poison that would drive him to the toilet? Unless Oberyn gave him an actual hint, of course.

I thought its just sposed to be those vulgar upstart Tyrells (they started up centuries ago when a steward became a master but that's still how they are painted) showing off, can't give a cheap present after all, and celebrating that they are now going to be part of a new royal dynasty (once Margaery has a child). I did at one point wonder if it had a secret little well in its inner wall so that someone could release poison inside by pushing a certain jewel of fiddling with a handle or something, but its not feasible as there's a chance some smart person might decide to examine it extremely carefully and also you have to have someone make it for you, and that's too big a risk.

When I considered myself a chocoholic, I could never understand people who say they are chocoholics and then say they have have chocolate in the fridge. If I buy chocolate, it ends up in me, not a fridge, and pretty damn quick. I seem to have aged out of chocoholism, though. I can now pass it by, amazing! I will join you by trying to eat sensibly, which I pretty well do, but do it more consistently and no lapses, so that maybe I will lose a small amount of weight. Also I will resume my morning walks which have fallen by the wayside.

I think Petyr hides his cards and its hard to know if he even likes Sansa. He might be aiming to ultimately marry her but the Tyrells and Tywin were also keen to capture her as a political tool.

I agree that Olenna and Margaery poisoned the wine. I personally think it was a shared enterprise and that Olenna could have passed the crystal to Margaery as she is in the best position to get it into the chalice unseen and to choose her moment. In the quote supplied upthread, GRRM says this is what the careful reader will think and then adds he has two more books to write and there may be some surprises. I think there is so much evidence for it that if that turns out not to be true it would be a really cheap HA! I TRICKED YOU! reveal. I can picture something like Petyr has made them THINK they poisoned him while really arranging a more certain dispatch, or, more likely, that we just don't know yet everything that was going on. Thematically part of what makes his clues that Margaery and Olenna did it is just the old 'poison is a woman's weapon'. And in this case with a woman's motive. From the point of view of their house, its a great alliance. From Margaery and Olenna's view, it is an unacceptable one. Olenna is not going to let her granddaughter marry and sadistic and erratic husband. And the solution is obvious - Joffrey has a brother. Instead of trying to measure the seconds required to do this and that, I take account of the characters as they've been shown so far, and their behaviour. Margaery and Olenna's reactions to the choking seem well rehearsed. Margaery gasps out her line "He's choking!" ("not poisoned, but choking" and Olenna then takes charge Her grandmother moved to her side. "Help the poor boy!" the Queen of Thorns screeched, in a voice ten times her size. "Dolts! Will you all stand about gaping? Help your king!"and in a stenatorian voice tells all to Help your king! (aren't I helpful trying to save Joffrey?) and then after a few paragraphs of description of Joffrey's ghastly end Margaery Tyrell was weeping in her grandmother's arms as the old lady said, "Be brave, be brave." (Keep yourself together and stick to the plan! Be strong like me!) But later, they are a bit let down a bit by their family who are not in the know. When Joffrey has been pried from his mothers arms and drops lifeless to the floor: The High Septon knelt beside him. "Father Above, judge our good King Joffrey justly," he intoned, beginning the prayer for the dead. Margaery Tyrell began to sob, and Tyrion heard her mother Lady Alerie saying, "He choked, sweetling. He choked on the pie. It was naught to do with you. He choked. We all saw." That's a very strange way to comfort someone! No-one has suggested its Margaery's fault. Its almost enough to make me think Alerie is in on the plot. But I think that Alerie knows her daughter very well and recognises her sobbing from childhood as caused by a sense of guilt and fear of being in trouble. She starts this sobbing when the High Septon starts to pray for Joffrey to be justly judged. The idea of judgement may be what brings on her sobbing. Also, the Tyrells seem to make too much of Margaery having drunk from the chalice. Its self evident but Mace can't shut up about it. I think the women folk have got it into his head and now it can't be got out!

I basically think it was poison from the necklace dropped in the chalice by Margaery at a suitable point, such as after she has had a long drink. However the way Tyrion's piece of pie is dropped into proceedings at a key point looks like GRRM is deliberately creating a bit of confusion, or that there could be more to the plot than we know. I'm only toying with this notion. I think the idea that there is more going on than we know about is more appealing than that Olenna and Margary weren't trying to poison him. its noteworthy that Tyrion's piece is placed down in front of him. I therefore don't see a problem with why others weren't poisoned etc. We don't see it cut out of a communal pie - the sword is only used to open the novelty pie full of birds. The actual pigeon pie comes from the kitchen. It could have poison shoved into the middle as it was brought out. And the serving man who brings it spoons lemon cream on top - the poison could be in that. Petyr seems like the one person who would like Tyrion dead, to free Sansa for useful marriages, and because Tyrion was the one person to work out what Petyr was up to as master of coin, and must have in general have freaked him out a little as the only person almost as cunning as himself tin KL. I had thought Petyr was happy at the idea that Tyrion would become the scapegoat for Joffrey's poisoning and be executed, but poison would make sure he was dead. Petyr is someone with a network, in the chaotic wedding I am sure he could either have someone already on place as a servant or just get someone to walk in to the kitchen, take a piece of pie and sauce, and walk out. The lemon cream could be where the poison is. Sansa in contrast has no motive and I don't think she has suppressed memories. her demeanour for a lot of the banquet - distracted, off in a world of her own - fits with her wondering when her escape opportunity will come and whether she will manage it. The flaw in the idea of poison in the pie is that Joffrey's symptoms are those of the strangler. And the wiki article emphasies that the strangler is absorbed on contact with the wall of the throat and acts immediately, and it implies that it needs to be dissolved in wine. If placed in a pie or even the thick lemon sauce, there is a good chance it would be ingested without really touching the throat. So I don't know if I believe any of the above just couldn't help toying with the idea. It seems clear GRRM has orchestrated a sort of ballet with people moving about the room, with the singers and entertainers providing a ghastly accompaniment, and the dangers of Joffrey's uncontrollable behaviour building to the climax of his attack on Tyrion, and death. is this just all for the skill of writing such a dramatic scene or is he holding back some secrets for a later reveal?

Oh well, I don't think they are that peculiar. Pouring out the wine - On first read, I read it as Tyrion is as stunned as everybody else, and struggling to think given his drunkenness. I thought he took the chalice as he felt in need of wine. It seemed a natural, slightly unthinking action to me to pour out the wine, he may have thought 'it could be poison' at that moment, and turned his idea of drinking it into pouring it out because its dangerous. However, I now I think it is staring at the colour of the dregs left in there that has triggered his brain into making the connection with Sansa's hairnet. And if Sansa is implicated, so might he be. Or he may feel sympathy with her. I definitely think he has made some connection when he looks at the wine - it reminds me of the moment at the wedding breakfast where he stares at Joffrey after Joffrey boasts about being familiar with Valyrian steel, making the connection that it was Joffrey who sent the catspaw after Bran. His savage response to Jaime is triggered by Jaime's confession to him re Tysha. Tyrion is absolutely horrified. Of all the ghastly treatment he has received by Tywin and Joffrey, nothing approaches this revelation. He has joined in gang raping his wife. And this was caused by a lie told by the one family member he trusts. All Jaime can do is stammer that he didn't know it would happen. Tyrion wants to hurt Jaime as much as possible and can only do it with words at this point. He is denying the bond they have had and implying it was never there, by saying he killed Joffrey. Of course, the fact that he did make that connection about the catspaw also gives him a motive for killing Joffrey. Because he let Joffrey know he knows. And Joffrey could be expected to get back at Tyrion, once his initial fear wears off (Joffrey is quite taken aback in the moment, and just wants to end the conversation and leave). Likewise, it could have triggered Joffrey into trying to poison Tyrion and somehow poisoning himself! And so the theorizing goes on.....

I think so too but I was a bit alarmed by the logistic details @Gilbert Green pointed out.