Jump to content

The Ned's Little Girl

Members
  • Content count

    1,389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About The Ned's Little Girl

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Cloud 11

Recent Profile Visitors

2,025 profile views
  1. The Ned's Little Girl

    Sansa's betrayal consequences partly overestimated?

    "And she must have been clear about the high risk for Arya in case Robert would believe his son." You just made my point for me. What do you think the consequences for Arya would have been had Sansa testified truthfully, that Arya struck the Crown Prince with a weapon and that Arya's wolf attacked him (and drew blood)? We may think that Arya behaved admirably in standing up for the butcher's boy, but there's no way a monarchical society would see it that way. Certainly the actual monarch and his wife would not think that a mere butcher's boy had any reason or right to even defend himself against their son. There good reason to believe that Sansa, by refusing to take either side, was attempting to protect her sister as much as to exonerate Joffrey. There was plenty Ned could have done. He could have kept Sansa away from the whole "trial". She had already told him the entire story and he believed her. He could have done the talking on her behalf, being the adult and all. Instead he hung her out to dry and didn't say a word about it when her story didn't match up to what she had previously told him. He need not have killed Lady at all. He made sure to arrange for Lady's corpse to be returned to Winterfell for the express reason that he didn't want Cersei getting a wolf pelt. He could have sent back an alive Lady and told Robert she was dead. Nobody would have been the wiser. After this incident, Ned could have seen it for what it was - a flaming, blinking red flag that it was a bad idea all around for him to be involved with Robert's kingship in any way and an even worse idea for his daughter to marry into that family. It should have been as plain as the nose on his face at that point. It's kind of incredible that he kept the betrothal in place after that, nor did he even attempt to have a frank talk with Sansa about it. Ned could have remembered that he didn't entirely trust Robert and hadn't for many years. I mean, at the very beginning of the book, Ned makes sure to think about how he hadn't seen or spoken to Robert in a number of years. He had separated himself from his bestie, someone he was once closer to than to his own brother, for quite a long time; that was not accidental. In short, Ned could have acted like an adult and not let the situation get so out of hand.
  2. The Ned's Little Girl

    Is the hound Sansa's 'new direwolf'?

    I don't believe anyone was arguing that Meribald's speech doesn't apply to the Hound. Your contention was that Meribald was speaking directly and personally about the Hound. That's certainly how I read it, anyway. If you meant that Meribald was speaking of the Hound only theoretically and that his words are a general approximation for the Hound's emotional state without referring specifically to him, then it was not clear at all by how you wrote it. It's not clear if Meribald, who spends a great deal of time away from the Quiet Isle as he travels all over the Riverlands on foot, has even met the Hound.
  3. The Ned's Little Girl

    Is the hound Sansa's 'new direwolf'?

    Whoops, sorry! That was a bit confusing! I think Sandor is saying that if he had fucked her bloody and torn her heart out, then that would have been a kinder fate for her than the one that he left her to because he failed (due to drunkenness, fire trauma and inability to talk nicely) to persuade her to leave with him. Instead, he left her behind and look what happened to her, because of him. (I also don't think he meant the rape/murder bit literally.)
  4. The Ned's Little Girl

    Is the hound Sansa's 'new direwolf'?

    I always read "before leaving her for the dwarf" as "instead of leaving her for the dwarf".
  5. The Ned's Little Girl

    Is the hound Sansa's 'new direwolf'?

    "before leaving her for the dwarf" is another part that people tend to leave out. Those six words are the point of the whole passage.
  6. The Ned's Little Girl

    The Stranger has three heads?

    There's also Rhaegar's 6 rubies at the Quiet Isle; they're still waiting for the 7th to show up.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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".
  15. 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.
×