Jump to content

The Ned's Little Girl

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About The Ned's Little Girl

  • Rank
    With rings on her fingers and bells on her toes
  • Birthday August 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cloud 11

Recent Profile Visitors

1,895 profile views
  1. The Ned's Little Girl

    Lord Tywin Frequented Brothels (Theory)

    No, the differences are not merely semantic. The similarity to Catelyn's event is literally the only thing the theory has as support; there's zero actual evidence of it. So the similarities had better be pretty dang persuasive. Did Joanna Lannister hide in Kings Landing because one of her sons was nearly murdered and she suspected the family of the queen as the culprits? Not likely, but Catelyn did. Did Catelyn Stark hide in Kings Landing because the king lusted after her? Nope, that was supposedly Joanna. So the reason for each being there is totally different. Was Joanna Lannister hidden in a brothel by a quasi-family member who did it as an insult to both her and her husband? Naw, that was Catelyn again. So the reason a brothel was used is totally different. Did Joanna's husband house her in a brothel? Don't know - it's possible, but totally different than Catelyn. Did Joanna place herself in the brothel? Again, don't know - it's possible, but totally different from how Catelyn ended up there. As they say, the devil is in the details.
  2. The Ned's Little Girl

    Lord Tywin Frequented Brothels (Theory)

    That wasn't my point. You brought up the (speculative) idea of Joanna being hidden from Aerys in a brothel as a parallel to the in-book example of Catelyn being hidden in a brothel. But there actually aren't any ways that the two things are parallel. Except for (possibly) Joanna came to Kings Landing without Tywin's knowledge, but we can't know that because there's no evidence for it. Even if Joanna did that (BIG if) then she either hid herself in a brothel (which is not what Catelyn did) or Tywin hid her there (which is not what Ned did). So if your argument is that the in-book example of Catelyn hiding in a brothel can be understood as a repetition of an earlier event involving Joanna Lannister hiding in a brothel, it's pretty useless because it's not actually very similar.
  3. The Ned's Little Girl

    Lord Tywin Frequented Brothels (Theory)

    But it wasn't Ned who hid Catelyn in the brothel - that was Littlefinger who did that. Even if Tywin needed a place to hide his wife from the king (a huge if), why would he use a brothel? Doesn't seem like his style. He's not poor; he could just buy a house and have her stay there.
  4. The Ned's Little Girl

    R + L = X

    It wasn't so much because Robert had fathered a child out of wedlock; it was more that she was convinced he would not be able to remain faithful to her. Then you would need to explain why Ned kept Jon's father's identity a strict secret from everyone, to the detriment of his honor (and his marriage to Catelyn, since Ned insisted upon raising Jon at Winterfell under right Catelyn's nose). Who in Westeros was more politically dangerous than Rhaegar that would require such absolute silence?
  5. The Ned's Little Girl

    Why did GRRM make Arianne 6 years older than Aegon VI?

    I think it's because we're supposed to wonder that someone in her position would still be unmarried at her age. Also, the fact that her father kept throwing obviously unsuitable possible husbands at her. Those are hints for Doran's secret plan.
  6. Excellent point. D&D made Dany "crazy" because they're talentless hacks and that's the easier path to take. And because they sneer at themes as only suitable for 8th grade book reports. I don't believe that book-Dany will be "crazy" at all. I think one of GRRM's main themes (eff off, D&D!) is that our choices make our fates, not our parentage or whatever. I believe in the books Dany's journey will reflect (partially) Theon's story after he returned to the Iron Islands. He had many opportunities to choose between an incredibly bad option and a less-incredibly bad (but still bad) option and consistently picked the more-bad one. Because he had locked himself into a specific view of himself, just as Dany has. (And yes, I know that Theon eventually went insane; I don't think Dany's story will parallel his to that extent. Just to the extent of her having to make choices that will eventually lead to her destruction, Greek-tragedy-wise.) So I don't think she will end up "crazy". She will end up as a tragedy; she will likely be killed, but it will be painful and sad. All the more so because it will really have been necessary. I'm definitely interested in reading that.
  7. The Ned's Little Girl

    This is all Jon’s fault

    These two sentences are the biggest crap points that are ever made in all of these forums. Judging imaginary societies and imaginary characters is literally why fiction exists. Westeros isn't a "medieval society". It's a fictional society. The only reality in which Westeros actually exists is the late-20th and early-21st centuries. Of course we can judge the standards of a fictional society by our own standards. That's why fictional societies exist. Of course we can project our feelings on book characters. They're also fictional and only exist in the minds of readers, who are modern-day people, every single one of them. These characters are written in these books for the exact purpose of us readers judging them by our own feelings and experiences. That's why fictional characters exist.
  8. The Ned's Little Girl

    The Tower of Joy

    I'm going to nitpick over this one thing, because the reason I almost always argue back when someone says "and a fevered dream at that" is because it somehow implies that it's the drugs talking when describing the dream. The drugs are irrelevant. It's the same dream he's had before and that's the takeaway that we have to pay attention to. Ned is haunted by something represented by the dream and he has been for a long time because it's an old dream. Pointing out Ned's being drugged during this occurrence of the dream just muddies stuff up. And of course the dream isn't entirely literal. Just the fact that it's a dream is enough to indicate that. Although, it is explicit proven history to a certain extent: the encounter, the battle and the deaths did actually happen. But that's not what the dream is about; it's not there as explication of history. It's there as explication of Ned. The tower long fallen, the 3 knights in white cloaks and the bed of blood: these are the symbolic representations of the burdens carried by Ned and blighting his life to the end of his days. All the death, all the lies, all the suffering; Ned caused none of it to happen, he wasn't responsible for any of it, yet he had to bear the burdens of those events and their aftermath always. He had to allow his reputation to be besmirched before his peers. He had to blemish his marriage and make his wife suffer to maintain a deceit. Most of all, he had to inflict enormous suffering upon Jon Snow, an absolute innocent. Sure, he saved Jon's life but at what cost to both of them to do so? So the dream is Ned trying yet again to come to grips with all this. Why did this happen? Why did it happen the way it did and not some other way? What did it mean then and what does it continue to mean to Ned all these years later? You know, themes. It was explained much better by @SFDanny above (it's in post #88). I would argue that, in particular, the conversation between Ned and the 3 KG is wildly inaccurate. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. It's just that its truth isn't about "what really happened on that day in that place".
  9. The Ned's Little Girl

    The Tower of Joy

    You have two separate things going on here. (1) You did indeed directly quote text from the book. (2) You asserted that quoted text as proof that the author is deliberately using parallel events. (1) does not equal (2). The parallel events idea is your own interpretation of the story; it's not set in stone, it's not incontrovertible. There's nothing wrong about reading the text as consisting of parallel events - in fact, it's quite an interesting way to go about it - but what I have a problem with is your insistence that any reader seeing it differently simply hasn't "accepted" it. This is bullshit, to put it mildly. You have an interpretation; it's fine to have an interpretation and I hope you go on explaining and defending it, but it is not holy writ. It's one way - among many! - that readers might find useful (or not) to illuminate the story. I can't speak for the others here, but at least for me this is simply not true in any way, shape or form.
  10. The Ned's Little Girl

    The Tower of Joy

    Here's the quote from the book. First of all, Ned is thinking this after he is awakened. So he's not dreaming and his thoughts occur in the middle of a conversation with his captain of guard. Ned is speaking lucidly and plainly, i.e. not drugged. "... Jory's father was buried far to the south." There's that word, "far", again. I doubt "far" describes 10 minutes outside of King's Landing or even nearby Maegor's Holdfast. So you're saying that Ned and Howland Reed dragged 8 corpses far to the south (by themselves?) until they could find a tower to pull down to build cairns. Really? The "where" is not debatable in the least. "Ned had pulled the tower down ... Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy ... " It's the same place. It even had "bloody stones", as they would be if a battle had been fought there.
  11. The Ned's Little Girl

    The Tower of Joy

    If you're arguing that the fight between Ned and the 3 KG happened outside the royal apartments, then how do you explain how Ned built cairns for those who died in the fight - cairns built from the demolished tower of joy far away in Dorne?
  12. The Ned's Little Girl

    The Tower of Joy

    You're forgetting these parts (the opening and closing sentences of the dream description): "He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." "He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years."
  13. That's pretty absurd. Westeros doesn't actually exist. It's perfectly valid to look at the themes being explored in Westeros through the lens of our own modern-day experiences and assumptions. These novels are being written by a 20th/21st century man for an audience of 20th/21st century readers. It would be odd indeed if they did not reflect the society in which they were written and the people for whom they were written. They're not strictly a set of pot-boilers (not that there's anything wrong with that) that have no purpose beyond being page-turners. They're meditations on the nature of power, ambition, honor, oaths, sexism, the patriarchy, and much more besides. Why do novels exploring themes exist, if not to hold up a mirror to the reader's society so they can see the reflection and ponder the meaning of what they see? Why would anyone bother to read them at all if they didn't at least attempt to do that? So, no. We don't "have to use the values in asoiaf". It's possible to see the books as having a broader and richer complexity than that.
  14. The Ned's Little Girl

    That AGoT line foreshadowing the last scene of ADoS

    I'm not looking at the comic as I don't have it (and I don't intend to) but it seems to me that this line isn't the droid you're looking for. 1) That particular line has been discussed and referred to many times on this website alone, so I don't think it's one that people have skimmed over or not thought very significant. Just the opposite, I would say. 2) Again, I don't have the comic, but I don't really see how adding those 4 should sentences would require much re-working. The scene has to end at some point, that line is a perfect end point to transition to the next scene. So, I just don't see that one line as likely to be the one. Fun topic, though!
  15. The Ned's Little Girl

    Why was Viserys mad and his "Sister" and "Brother" wasn't?

    "Crazy" is the absolute last thing that was. In a military order, when a junior officer publicly refuses a direct order from his Lord Commander - rejects said order multiple times, in fact - and insults the LC personally as well, it would be crazy to let Slynt get away with that. Jon's executing Slynt was just, proper and correct. Not crazy.