Jump to content

Nathan Stark

Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Nathan Stark

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight
  • Birthday 08/17/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

825 profile views
  1. There is a character like that. And that is Tyrion Lannister. GRRM is not pushing Arya towards the dark just for nihalistic shits and giggles. He's exploring themes of vengeance and justice and how far you can go for the sake of vengeance before you become like those you fight. The Faceless Men offer a temptation that Arya must ultimately overcome. Lady Stoneheart may also function to remind Arya of the need to let her justified rage go lest she become like her undead mother. There is nothing in Arya's nature that would cause her to blow up Kings Landing.
  2. You may be wondering why I chose to make this post about a children's poem that has nothing to do with ASOIAF. That's because the poem does have something to do with ASOIAF. It has a character archetype, the Hungry Mungry. Shel Silverstien's poem tells the fanciful tale of a boy so hungry that he eats, and eats, and eats, until there is nothing left to eat but himself. And when he is nothing left but a pair nattering teeth, the poem ends, with Hungry Mungry eternally lonely, eternally hungry, eternally nothing. There are a number of similar characters within ASOIAF who seem driven to take everything for themselves, to carve up the biggest peice of Westeros they can to satiate the emptiness inside them. From Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton, to Cersei and Euron Greyjoy, the series is filled with malignant villians who are driven ultimately to fill up the largest space they can, to rule over all. In the end, however, like Tywin rotting away pathetically in the Sept of Baelor, they are fundamentally hollow. Tywin's desire to make his House the greatest power in Westeros ultimatly has led to the brink of its downfall. Ultimately however, the greatest Hungry Mungry of them all is Petyr Baelish. Littllefinger is at heart a dissapointed romantic. He may have best loved the songs about plucky underdog figures who bested the knights and got the lady in the end, or so it appears from his actions. He wanted Catelyn and fought a duel to win her hand, because that was what happens in the songs. His defeat left behind a bitter, spiteful broken little boy determined get revenge on the Starks, obsessed with gaining wealth and power and devoted to the proposition that Littlefinger should have all of Westeros because Littlefinger is the plucky underdog. Like Hungry Mungry, Littlefinger is never satiated, will never be, he thinks, until he has won everything in the world; Westeros, Sansa, Winterfell and Harrenhal and Riverun and the Eyrie, why not? At the end of the day, Littlefinger is still the angry, resentful dissapointed romantic. He has spent his life expanding his wealth and power, eating up everything in his path. But he is hollow, his nihilism leading inexorably to the point where there is nothing left to consume except himself. He is the ultimate Hungry Mungry.
  3. Nope. The reason Stannis doesn't have the power or allies to take the throne is because... Renly took them for himself. Say what you will. Even with Renly having to be dealt with, Stannis would have taken Kings Landing if Tywin hadn't arrived at the exact right moment. So this notion that the Stormlands isn't powerful enough to win the Iron Throne just doesn't hold much water. Renly's "explanation" for why he "needed" to take the crown is, plainly put, nonsense. He tries to act as if the crown was inflicted upon him, when in reality, he just took it for himself. He took the crown because he wanted it, not because it was his "moral obligation." This is feudalism, not democracy. Renly's moral and legal obligation is to bend the knee to his older brother, join the power of Storms End to Stannis's cause, and help take Kings Landing away from the illegitimate Lannister regime. They might lose the Tyrells temporarily, but at this point, the Tyrells have nowhere else to go. They are primarily interested in being on the winning side, whoever that happens to be. If a Stannis/Renly partnership takes Kings Landing, simply put, that looks like the winning side. It might have worked out that way too, since Stannis told Renly he would be named heir until a son was born to Stannis. So the Tyrells might still be tempted to join the King's peace again and marry Margeary, this time to an heir to the throne rather than a usurper. Renly should have taken Stannis's offer. He would have been King later rather than never.
  4. There's literally no reason for Renly to declare himself King, other than his own ego. He should have bent the knee to his older brother.
  5. Robert murdering the Targ children while ignoring the cuckolding going on in his own bedroom would have saved nobody, exept maybe the poor Wise Masters. The War of the Five Kings would likely have happened as a result of Cersei and Jaime's incest regardless of the Targaryen children being alive or not.
  6. Sam's actions contradict this claim. He killed an Other despite his fear. He manuevered Mallister and Pyke into supporting Jon Snow for LC, despite his fear. To paraphrase a very wise man, the only time a man can be brave is when he is afriad. I don't care how many times Sam calls himself a coward. We have more than enough textual evidence to show us otherwise.
  7. Most of the Lords paramount traditionally married into the families of their bannermen, which makes the sudden determination of the Starks and Barratheonss to form marriage alliances with each other rather unusual. Plus, Hoster had Catelyn betrothed to the heir of House Stark well before the rebellion began. I say the actions taken to build alliances among the lords paramount points to a larger intent to form an anti-Targaryen block in Westeros. Hoster Tully insisting that Ned marry Cat isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that this political arrangement didn't happen.
  8. Barristan makes note of the events in A Dance of Dragons. He was there as well as Jaime.
  9. This is Aerys we are dealing with. He would look at all of those things you reasonably and rationally list as disqualifyers and see a good way to spitefully keep House Martell in line. Also it seems to be unclear whether or not one can refuse if the king names you to the kingsguard.
  10. Sam will do what he always does: try to keep his head down, read all the books he can get his hands on, and focus on his studies. He was born to be a Measter. This notion that he is a coward completly ignores subtext. Sam thinking he's a coward because his monster asswipe of a dad beat it into him does not, in fact, mean Sam is a coward.
  11. Maybe you should take this one up with George himself. I don't have the exact quote with me atm, but he did say that Robert's Rebellion was largely justified. I do believe that Rickard Stark, Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully were forming an anti-Arys coalition through marriages and warding their children off. And given Arys's increasingly unhinged behaviour, who could blame the high lords for wanting a change in leadership? Your argument really suffers for ignoring the cause of Robert's Rebellion. Rickard Stark went South to treat with his King, negotiate his heirs freedom, and head back North again. That's what he expected. He didn't expect to have to fight a trial by combat, against fire. He didn't expect to be roasted alive. Or to have his heir strangle to death trying to free him. Feudalism relies on a contract; give the King obediance in exchange for the King's protection. Arys broke that contract in a massive way, by not just executing a High Lord and his heir, but torturing them to death. Then he ordered Jon Arryn to send his wards off to die. Arys overstepped his legal bounds. Once he did that, Roberts Rebellion was justified. Viserys and Dany were innocents who shouldn't have suffered, its true. Their experience, and the murder of their cousins on war criminal Tywin's orders, casts a pall over Robert's final victory. It's similar to how the Allies cause in World War 2 was just, but their war methods often were just as bad as the Axis. It doesn't change the fact that Arys Targaryen had to be gotten rid of.
  12. Ser Aliser couldn't be any worse at Kingsgaurding than Boros Blunt. Likely better.
  13. There's plenty of good discussion to go around on these forums. I do think the recent nastiness is borne partly out of quarentine borebom and partly because we don't have TWoW out to discuss, so the only real things available to discuss are decades old material. If we ever get Winds, I think folls will be more invested in the new material than in rehashing old arguments.
  14. Ah, the banners! The steeds! The thunder of charging warhorses and the sunlight glittering on steel! All to the glorious sigil of half eaten pie and the warcry "Hot Pie!"
×
×
  • Create New...