Jump to content

TsarGrey

Members
  • Content Count

    222
  • Joined

About TsarGrey

  • Rank
    Squire

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,321 profile views
  1. I don't have that, so would you care to tell what it says in the relevant part? Anything else than just listing him present or something of the sort? Not disputing the rest. Not in the mood and too little info for that.
  2. I'd be interested in source/s hinting or confirming Hightower's presence and/or actions in the BotB and about.
  3. @Walda, Vic was in the Straits. AFfC, The Iron Captain. ADwD, Victarion I. TWoIaF, The Iron Islands: The Old Way and The New. Note also the landing on Harlaw and the belligerent language used for the isles in plural. More on the plural note, here's Cersei on the subject. AFfC, Cersei VII.
  4. Sure it does. I was just asking a question here, not starting some cross-examining. It hardly hurts to thank you both again.
  5. All right. Thank you, and @zandru as well.
  6. @zandru, care to tell me how we know that BwB was following Sandor and Arya? Are there any mentions or hints after the two cross the Trident at Harroway?
  7. Got it then. Thanks. Checked those alchemists. You are correct, they seem to have lost a few masters. ACoK, Tyrion V. Ah, I find the whole memory to be pretty mechanical. Feelings are not mentioned, they are just implied in the reply and in Jaime's reaction to the looks from the Westermen. I see no gloating. Sure, you can use the argument that Jaime not telling anyone shows a lack of caring. Which would be true, assuming he ever thought the danger. This whole thing demands suspensing the disbelief, as one would expect that the guy would think it at some point during these fifteen years. But as he doesn't need to be altruistic to tell - given that he himself, as well as Cersei and other people he might care for, are also in danger - I'd say that it can be just thoughtlessness, rather than suicidal pride. Or, it can be both. Re: listening the pyromancers, recall that whole stuff about going away inside? Aware of the 1993 outline. Story grew in telling. That motive doesn't necessarily exclude the concern for the Kingslanders. Re: golden armor, yeah, that's a nice point. AFfC, Jaime IV. You have just pointed out that Jaime could have thought the action beforehand. This is one point where we can insert the altruistic consideration. Multiple motives. Negotiating with Aerys would take time and Chelsted already tried. Right. Add missile weapons to the equation. No need for those loyalists: just have Varys step from behind throne with a crossbow when Aerys turns to flee, or shoot Jaime from the balcony. Spirit the king away and the KL burns. Westermen delayed by one closed door too many. Yeah, but there were still loyalists capable of fighting, and they should not be discounted. ASoS, Jaime II. Here we also see him ordering to spare those who surrender, possibly showing that he also cared of the lives of others than the Westermen. Hm, I guess. Are you aware of any such children between the death of dragons and Dany? If not, can't they be just explained by living too close to the dragons? George has compared dragons to the WMDs, no? What about magical radiation? Haven't thought about that deeply, but some sort of memories would be necessary to "turn all his enemies to ash." Why interact with the dragon at all? Just recognize it as a king and forget it, unless it starts trying to communicate or someone wants to claim it. I see no reason why it would not work perfectly. They want money now? Their call. They want it to be safe from the fire? Ship it off to the Dragonstone with Rhaella. Either way they are compensated and the matter is dealt with. Not going to bother my head how the alchemists would then deal with the gold. The problem is delegated to them. Hm, alright. If summaries fit, why disregard them? Considering Aerys' mental state, this should not be implausible. Rhaegar is specifically mentioned to have had his hands full. Not that we need to agree, of course. And regardless of what I just said, I see no reason to disagree with the last sentence. After the Trident is when Aerys sends Rhaella and Viserys away. Alright. I do not see Rhaegar as power-hungry, so I see no reason why he would be interested in claiming the handship. He evidently didn't need it. I also wouldn't wonder if he just ignored the whole Chelsted thing. He had an army to marshal, and the Targaryen dynasty was under attack, so not exactly the time to deal with Aerys. He planned to do that afterwards. We also see that he still considered Aerys' wishes. AFfC, Jaime I. If Chelsted truly was loyal, perhaps he did not wish to share to knowledge, hoping that the matter would be forgotten with nobody any wiser if he managed to convince Aerys. Doesn't follow. Even if we accept the premise that Aerys was also periodically protected by other three KGs around (which I see no reason to not do), that does not need to mean that any of the wildfire plot planning sessions would take place during those times. I also see no reason to discount the possibility that they could receive other missions away from the capital. Re: wanting power, see above. Hightower and Dayne were both in the south. You recall any specific instances? And b/c Aerys tells Jaime the same thing, there is zero reason to think that the message did not come from Aerys. Occam's razor. Not actually what I meant, but more interesting. And Varys' involvement would explain why the plan actually worked, as he has the ear of the king.
  8. Okay, so if were to put words in your mouth, would you say that Jaime's gradually (or not so gradually) growing bias and hatred paint these men in the worst possible light? Re: 15 yrs later, that's fair. What vision? I'll look into it. Rossart "fought like an alchemist", so one might think that he at least was in a bad shape, adding physical limitations to the consideration. For the record: I made a mistake with the chapter numbers here. Both said rationale for the regicide and the motive to lie to Brienne can be found in Jaime V (ASoS). Okay, first, do you agree that the offered rationale for the regicide and Aerys' inability to relay further orders are mentioned together as a way of explanation, rather than with no connection to each other? Thus meaning that Jaime himself says he did have that motive? Assuming that the answer to that is yes, we then have ask whether he is lying. Insert my previous answer here. Re: multiple motives (I still maintain my rule of thumb that the motivation is the sum of motives), I agree. I do not think that Jaime was (merely) a selfless, altruistic white knight wielding the sword of righteous retribution. He may have had such a motive, (or not,) but that would not need to mean that it was his only motive. And mind you: I do not expect that Jaime had this in his mind during the moment the act happened. I mean, see this quote in Jaime IX, ASoS. So, two-handed Jaime didn't use to think while fighting. Now, let's look at the act itself. ASoS, Jaime II. First he reveals his colors. Then he kills fleeing Aerys. Any thoughts are mentioned after the act, which one might take to mean (but, if we start splitting hairs, does not necessarily do) that this is when they appear. And to the contrary of the quotes above, we do not actually know what other thoughts (and when) Jaime may also have thought but we the readers are not privy to. However, none of this means that an altruistic motive could not have been part of the consideration when Jaime decided to go through with the act. On the other hand, one can read malice to his reply to the king. That premise is true, but I reject the following conclusion. Even if Aerys was not sending any new messengers atm (a variable that might change), the man was still a would-be mass murderer in the position of authority. And the situation was living. What if the guys bursting to the room were not Westermen, but rather a group of Targaryen loyalists led by Varys, aware that Jaime had turned his cloak and here to defend and serve their king? No, the guy had to be stopped. The more distractions the better. Well, it thus far seems to fit, doesn't break anything I know, might answer to at least some of the questions we voiced, and I am not aware of anything that would disprove it atm. But well, it does take a small leap of logic. Nah, not saying it would've worked. Haven't seen the chapter where the dragons are born in a while, but see what Dany had and Aerys may lack? The dragon eggs. Or are you aware of any possible stash in the KL at the time? As for the living dragon king, why not? Government could be handled by the regent(s) and the small council, Viserys would be the heir apparent (swap to any correct title if needed), and the dragon Aerys II would enjoy the dragon life while also legally holding the status of the king. Or we can avoid that entirely and just crown Viserys. The hostage situation? Well, they can just be sent to the Dragonstone with Rhaella. It could utilize both the carrot and the stick: the hostages are in the power of the crown, but also enjoy the relative safety of the island fortress, and if they can make it work, they might yet end up in the service of the royals. And while Aerys might not be much of a one to employ the carrot, that does not need to prevent his advisors pointing it out either to him or to the alchemists, or the alchemists realizing it themselves. As you can see, I also suggested the reimbursement in advance. If you pay them, they can then mind the gold themselves. Also, Dragonstone. The gold could be held in the custody of either these Schrödinger's hostages or the crown. Also, if Rossart survived and Aerys the dragon prevailed, he'd still be the Hand, and would have just proved that Aerys' faith in him was not misplaced. Which, to be sure, might not be a thing to promote among the surviving Kingslanders. Well, that's certainly possible. But you see, I have a favorable opinion of Jaime's people-reading skills (and so give weight to his assessment of the man). Just see this quote (AFfC, Jaime III). Note the word used: Jaime senses Payne's contentment, despite his grim expression. I think that's meaningful and telling. Or, he might just be projecting his own contentment to Payne. Okay, now that's a list. Thanks for sharing, this might give me some food of thought for myself. I'll reply to each, but don't think that I would presume to tell you the right answers. 1. I do not see the problem here. Recall what Jaime says? (ASoS, Jaime V.) I mean, Aerys has a point. The Tully entrance to the war changed everything. Before that, there were three separate rebel pockets, and the Stormlands were already being contained by the Tyrells. Then the rebels united at the Stoney Sept, the post-Ashford royalist advance was halted, the realm was lost from the Riverlands to the Wall, and the rebels gained a more or less unified base of operations. Add in the radio silence from Tywin. Now is the time to regroup, and that's what they do. And now is the time to lay the plan B, which they do, in the form of the wildfire plot. After the Trident it is too late. Same chapter. Why do you object to it? Aerys was scared, paranoid and correct. Preparing in advance is the proper course of action. 2. You say below that Aerys had reason to consider Chelsted a loyalist. Perhaps he was correct? What if Chelsted wanted to keep Aerys in the throne and chose to try dissuading him for that reason? Even the resignation could be an attempt to sway: recall Unwin Peake? 3. Good point. All I have to offer is keeping the king's secrets. And this quibble: do you get Rhaegar charging Jaime with the defence of his family from the weirwood stump dream? Is it to be trusted? 4. As you can see in the quote in the point 1., Martell, Darry and Selmy are all sent away. I imagine they'd be occupied with different military duties, which might include fighting in the Riverlands. Rhaegar refuses to take Jaime to the Trident, and Darry tells him obey. Re: Other KGs hearing about the wildfire, are you not in direct contradiction to the text? Also, Barristan, the only other surviving member of Aerys' seven, knows nothing of this. 5. There's piece missing from this one. I'll assume that your point is that Rhaegar should have replaced Chelsted. I have no problem with that myself. Aerys distrusted Rhaegar, no? Why empower him even more? Also, recall all those slights to Tywin? I see. Any specific reason why Aerys would consider Chelsted a loyalist? Ok, that's possible. One point: I do not see the reason to have Varys meddling with the communication between Jaime and Aerys, when Aerys himself tells Jaime to bring him Tywin's head. Do you have some sort of basis for this assessment? B/c I wouldn't put it past her. AFfC, Jaime II. I would argue that while the true parentage of Robert's heirs is integral part of the story, that regardless does not define Jaime Lannister. His relationship to them is barebones, they do not know their parentage, and Jaime himself does not really need them to be who is. AFfC, Jaime I. Remove Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen. Jaime remains pretty much the same. Remove the regicide instead. Now what do we have here? Re: vacuum. I'll concede that.
  9. The Discarded Knight chapter? Jaime's trauma with fire and the people associated comes from his experiences in the Aerys' court, not from experience prior to that, no? So Rossart & co., unlike Cersei, should not benefit from the doubt caused by Jaime's views on Aerys. They are themselves part of that dynamic. Sure, it's possible there's more there than we know. (Say, Jaime himself could know where the wildfire stashes are, as he "heard it all".) However, we, or at least I, do not actually know that those people exist, on the contrary, the alchemists "did not even trust their own acolytes to help." As you yourself may occasionally voice in the military threads, George does not really care about the logistics. Fair enough. Tinfoil below. He certainly does give that as his rationale, that's a piece of data we're given. If that's in doubt, check the quote from Jaime V, ASoS, in the post you quote. As for if it's true? Well, Jaime himself does not indicate that he is lying to Brienne. "Why am I telling" in Jaime V does not translate to "Why am I trying to convince". He does have a motive though. The same chapter. And as Roose later warns us, Lannisters lie. Read it in any way you prefer, I'm not going to try convincing you. If Jaime was indeed kept in sight, due the demand by Ned for example, that'd explain why he didn't go after them sooner. However, both Jaime and Tywin are arrogant and independent people, and they have an army present. I'm actually receptive to the idea (thanks!) but I'd assume it'd chafe them. Here's the tinfoil you were promised: Aerys indeed believed that he would transform to a dragon, and he (with Jaime not knowing this) shared this belief with the alchemists, who were receptive to the idea. (Recall Hallyne asking Tyrion about the dragons in ACoK.) The "greatest funeral pyre of them all" could, depending of the combined arcane knowledge of the initiated, double as a massive human sacrifice including the royal blood of Aerys himself, his descendants Rhaenys and Aegon, and other royal descendants such as Elia and Jaime (descendant to the Kings of the Rock). This would also shear Rhaegar's branch from the line of succession, resulting to a clearer path to King Viserys III. However, as Aerys, Rhaenys, Aegon and even Elia with her Targaryen blood all died, there was no longer a reason to try carrying out the plan, as all people (save Robert later and possible Targaryen descendants such as Longwaters) allegedly capable for transforming to the dragons were dead. /tinfoil. We have no reason to assume that these alleged loved ones of the alchemists existed. Occam's razor. But if they did, we can just assume that the alchemists told them to escape the city. Shouldn't attract much attention, rebels were coming. Or perhaps Aerys fell to his familiar modus operandi, (demonstrated with Jaime and Elia with her children,) and used them as hostages to ensure the loyalty of the alchemists. As for property, (tinfoil back) who cares about that when there are dragons in the table? Kraznys and the rest of the Good Masters certainly bargained (tinfoil off). Also, the king who left a flowing treasury (and could be generous to those who pleased him) should have no problem in reimbursing the losses of his loyal servants should he so choose. In advance if necessary. Recall Belis' gold? Yeah, but what did he know and how did he come to know it? Jaime, who to be fair is insulting and dismissive to quite a few, assesses him as "not utterly stupid", which hardly is the highest praise one can imagine. And he thought him craven, but he did demonstrate courage. So either Jaime is way off or Lord Chelsted outperformed himself. Note also that Chelsted is an Eddard Stark -style character. He snooped the secrets in the court and resigned over a principled clash of opinions with his king. So what was Varys about? Think about his pattern to close in to the Hands one at time. Ned, Tyrion, (Tywin post-Blackwater?). So did Varys tip off Chelsted? Did he prop his bravery? And even if we assume that Jaime is correct and Chelsted became suspicious on his own, couldn't Varys then feed and lead those suspicions? As for Varys goading Jaime: just no. First, Jaime thinks that Aerys wanted Varys to watch him, which (if he also thought that then) would make him unreceptive. Also, Jaime could just report any overtures to the king, making Varys himself vulnerable. (Yep, applies to Chelsted too, but it'd be easy for Varys to give Chelsted remote and/or indirect hints instead of personal overtures if he thought that was a concern.) It's unnecessary risk to the both of them, unless you're thinking some remote action like the one Varys used on Barristan. Also, neither gives any hint of it that I can recall. And Varys hardly deserves any credit for making Jaime familiar with the plan. Aerys is enough for that, and Jaime was the only KG present. And second, such influence would, arguably, steal the thunder of the most defining act of Jaime Lannister, the Kingslayer. If his most important decision is not wholly his own but influenced by the outside manipulator, is that particular human heart truly in conflict with itself? Perhaps, but not only. However, and seriously, let's cut this detour. We are completely off topic. Should you choose to reply, I'll read it, but unless the circumstances change, I'll take a step back.
  10. Sure, that too. Such a reasonable assumption however does not need to exclude other possible interpretations. Here's another quote. ASoS, Jaime II. So, Aerys was a pyrophiliac. Rossart shared his passion. Belis and Garigus, in different instance but in related context, are stated to be same as Rossart. Thus, as long pyrophilia qualifies, we can reasonably derive from the text that these three alchemists were, indeed, "nuts". That's a bit contagious, you know ;-). I mean, as you say, there's no reason to just write them off as a doomsday cult. Not only did Belis try to bargain and Garigus weep for mercy; Rossart too fought when Jaime came on him. ASoS, Jaime II. Now Rossart differs from his colleagues in the sense that he did not accept a loss. He might very well have continued with his mission had he prevailed. However, Belis and Garigus singularly failed to act on the plan despite having a time window of several days before Jaime came for them. ASoS, Jaime V. So apparently they had no fresh orders to act. But did they not know that Aerys was dead? Even if they had no standing in-the-case-of-emergency orders, why did they not improvise and act independently? Were they in the full knowledge of the plan? ASoS, Jaime V. Rossart. The guy who cooked Lord Rickard. The one who "shared the king's passion". The man who was sent to the critical mission and fought the intercepter. And the alchemist who was elevated to the lordship and to the Hand of the King. Aerys did not, in this instance, share his vision with Belis, or Garigus, or the three together. Was it Rossart who knew everything? However, preventing the further messengers is what Jaime gives as his rationale to kill Aerys. So, given this, we can draw the conclusion that the two must have known enough to be able to carry out the plan themselves. And they didn't. Why? Did the rebels enforce a curfew? And if they were hiding, then what for? To act, or to escape? Was this gold Belis offered a means for the latter? And if they were willing to escape, and live, wouldn't they (and why not Rossart too) then indeed want to have the means for escape also in the case where the plan was succesfully executed? Mind you, I'm willing to accept Rossart as a fanatic suicide bomber. Why would it be necessary to assume that he expected to escape the city? He knew that the Lannisters were inside the walls, whether that means the city or the Red Keep. ASoS, Jaime II. And besides the alchemists, there are Varys and Chelsted to consider... But this is supposed to be a Barry thread.
  11. Well... ASoS, Jaime V. You do have a point with Belis and his offer of gold and Garigus pleading for mercy, though.
  12. Can I find what you refer to in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt?
  13. I once saw a poster here to say something along the lines that where conservatives want to be just left alone, progressives have to agitate for change. That simple dichotomy is the core difference between the right and left in my view. I think of three sliding scales or lines. Individuality versus communality. Frugality and accumulation versus distribution. Conservativism versus progressivism. Humans are not rational actors and tend to have multiple motives, all of which they are not fully or at all aware, but we regardless tend to pursue our own interests. We all have our own agendas, may try to enforce our views and and prefer to maintain and protect our comfort zones. And we have trouble in understanding each other, as we are simply too different: we try connect by finding a common ground, but we understand everything from our own individual angles. Differences arise and cause confusion, especially when the other parties fail to affirm or simply reject our views. Sometimes over something minuscule, like a choice of words. Communication itself is impaired. It is, in short, simply a social dynamics of a tribe which nowadays is increasingly global and connected, over the the oceans, language barriers and different cultures thousands of years old, and mingling. First line, individuality v. communality, is the struggle between the personal freedom and the responsibility/duties toward others. Should our own wishes take the priority? Are there any laws or norms we should respect? Why? Who makes those guidelines, and by what authority? Why should we have any group, community or society at all? Et cetera. Well, obviously, teams work. It is often beneficial to compromise with others in return for all they can offer. However, the peer pressure is a thing. People try to conform, and try to make others conform. Sometimes for their own personal motives, but also to ensure the unity of the group, to make sure that "we" as a group are ready for anything that might befall us. Those who fail to conform, sometimes without any reasonable fault of their own, may be ostracized and rejected. When this phenomenon goes too far, it becomes harmful. Individuals become hesitant to offer alternative viewpoints; the discussion whittles down; the Overton window moves, perhaps outright shrinks; and groupthink emerges. People self-censure, with overall loss of ideas and options. In the other end of the line is anarchism; in the other, well, erm, communism? Second, the frugality/accumulation v. distribution. Simple. It comes down to need and greed. Those who have little want more, and those who have more want to keep what they have. It's a zero-sum game over resources. On the one hand, distributing recources to those who genuinely need them is often seen as ethical. Especially when the existing distribution of goods is grossly unfair. On the other hand, enforced equality in distribution runs into the death of initiative, drive and entrepreneurship. People are unwilling to make effort and commit unless it is for themselves and theirs. Not to mention that forced redistribution is reminiscent, and may be indistinguishable, from theft. There may also be very good reasons to resist redistribution of resources. Say, those who have them may legitimately want to save them for future. But then again, unfettered accumulation - read: capitalism - and unrestricted competition lead to problems as enterprises eat each other and reach new heights of power comparable to the national goverments. Some management is obviously required to ensure free competition and prevent the rise of private enterprises as de facto rulers of people. And third, conservativism v. progressivism. Conservatism is, well, conservation. Wish to protect the status quo for whatever reason, or perhaps even bring back an older state of the affairs. There are good reasons to be conservative; most obvious being the adage of not fixing what isn't broken. Conservatives press the brakes: they do not necessarily see the need for change at all, or they are unsure or outright rejective of the solutions offered by progressives. This has the obvious benefit of the counterweight; not everything deserves to be implemented, and those propositions that will be should face scrutiny and hopefully constructive criticism. Progressivism, then, is the will for change, when people are unhappy with the current state of affairs and want something. Progressives are those who upset the status quo, who demand things and press ever further. As I see it, what is typically called the political right is an amalgam of different combinations of the more individualist, frugal, and conservative positions. There are progressive right-wingers, for example. Some members of the National Coalition party here in Finland are what I would call an example, it's designation as conservative by Wikipedia nonwithstanding. A MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen resisted the designation of nuclear power with a Green label, for example, which I personally but perhaps misguidedly saw as a very Green position in line with their distaste of the nuclear power. Yep, I'm aware that I just used an instance of obstructionism as a way to associate someone with the progressives; that is because I typically consider the Greens to be progressive. MP Elina Lepomäki is another example, I recall her rejecting the conservative label somewhere. The current chairman Petteri Orpo has this thing in his resume. There is also this thing about the wish of to have a strong leader; a longing for powerful and effective leadership. A very common sense notion when observed in isolation: if you have to have boss at all, better to have someone who is good at what s/he does, surely. It is however a notion that is horribly tainted by fascism, nazism and dictatorships in general. And sure, the power that is granted can be abused. This is something that logically belongs to the right, as the leadership involves asserting one view as superior over others, even if done beningly. If assertiveness is not involved, it's a negotiation and guidance. And asserting a view over others is tied to the individualism. Of course, while I may think it as the right-wing thing, asserting dominance in human relationship is an universal phenomenon and also happens among left-wingers. And of course, if people wish to delegate the leadership, that should be their right. It’s what we do in representative democracies all the time, anyway. So what would be the ideal of a political right? A protection of personal liberty and property? A protection of status quo, or optionally an orderly and carefully managed transition when the change is seen as desirable? And of course, protection of interests. These are their goals. This is what they do. The goal of the right is not to be robbed of the privileged position they enjoy. The goal of the left is to attain such position. So ideally the right should then seek to create an atmosphere and situation where people can generate wealth and wellbeing from about as equal footing as possible, but are then not punished for their success; where human resource is not wasted, but constructively salvaged as an investment to the future; where the human rights are respected, in line with the individual freedom; where people can, but are not forced to, to have input in the political processes; where the law enforcement is supported, educated, and as transparently managed as possible to ensure trust, as well as cooperation, tolerance and legitimacy; and so on. The ideal of the right could be to incorporate the left in an acceptable way; to create win-win situations that, while enabling the preservation of their own values and interests, both harness the contribution of the left-wing thinking and avoid creating a discontented opponent willing to revolt. Such situations, when it comes to wealth, might require a continual economic growth for example. And here if not before we start running to the problems again. Because of the finite resources and climate crisis.
×
×
  • Create New...