Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Tyrion1991

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,516 profile views
  1. Tyrion1991

    The Starks

    You’re right. Killing the deserter rather than heed his warning of the apocalypse is a far greater crime. Potentially dooming the North to genocide. Neds death as some pretentious and arrogant landowner means far less. His feelings are not more important than anyone else’s. How many orphaned children were made because he wanted revenge for somebody pushing his boy out a window? House Stark are not the only family suffering and it’s their own fault. The Starks do not care about the consequences of their actions, much less take responsibility for them. All of them would gladly hurl half of Westeros to the slaughterhouse if won them their revenge. These people are cannibals who warg into their wolves and hunt the small folk for fun; or who warg into their small folk when it suits them. These are not the actions of good people. They deserve far worse than what fate has hurled at them. That pressure is only making them show their true nature.
  2. Tyrion1991

    The North: a proto-democracy?

    Democracy in the real world took examples from Ancient Greece and Rome. Westeros does not have comparable institutions to draw inspiration from. You don’t have legions of educated elites who think the Roman Republic was epic and that we should do that rather than have a King. Also, a lot of enlightenment philosophy goes into a liberal democracy. Which is not present in Westeros and incredibly unlikely to develop in the rural and depopulated North. It’s not just the basic premise of voting people in. Electing Kings was not unheard of in Europe. In the Holy Roman Empire elector counts would elect the Emperor. In Poland Lithuania the Lords did the same. Both systems favoured the landed aristocracy and in the former became dominated by the Habsburgs anyway. So these weren’t Porto democracies. They were just vehicles of aristocratic power. I mean the Praetorians got chose the next Roman Emperor, did that make them a democratic institution? I disagree completely with the sentiment that the North is on the path to modernity. The North is a rural, sparsely populated wilderness with few towns that can barely feed itself. It’s closer to Russia than it is to Scotland. You’re far more likely to see the region become marginalised as the South develops and urbanises. Places like Oldtown and Lannisport are far more likely to be centres of commerce and learning akin to the Renaissance and Enlightment than Winterfell. Even White Harbour is a provincial city by comparison. Plus, being rural and with few people the North would have to adopt similar harsh labour practices to control the serfs like in Tsarist Russia. These would naturally run counter to any kind of modernity. Also, the Northern Lords are not men of the people. Just because they’re poor and smell of their own faeces doesn’t mean they’re down with the small folk. These people are huge landowners who own thousands of peasants who they are living off. If a peasant complains about his taxes, these good men who have him hung, drawn and quartered. Just because Rob can have a chat with his peers doesn’t make the North a democratic society.
  3. Tyrion1991

    What do people think about Rhaegar?

    OP I don’t like his character. George uses him to push the idea that “love makes you do stupid things” and always leads to tragedy. The problem is: 1) Not always 2) Not to such a ridiculous extent I think George is being satirical here. Compare this with Wheel of Time where every POV finds THE ONE and two half’s become one complete whole in all these lovely moments. He’s clearly writing in opposition to that sentiment in High Fantasy. Which is why Rhaegar and Leanna is a disaster. Why almost all romantic feelings in the series have went this way. In the series I don’t think anyone apart from Sam and Gilly will be in a successful relationship at the end. Which I think will be a tough sell and borders upon narcissism. Plus, he seems to be of the view that love is just a chance for sexy time coz all them lustful youngsters. So of course it’s a silly irrational thing that always going to be a detriment to real world stuff. He doesn’t consider the idea that two people who love and trust each other would compliment each others talents. It’s always a detriment and a burden that brings conflict. Which the Rhaegar and Leanna thing embodies. To take a historical example off the top of my head, Justinian and Theodora the rulers of the Roman Empire. That sort of power couple doesn’t really exist in Georges world. However with Rhaegar I don’t buy it. The whole story of how the war starts is too stupid and contingent on too many conveniences to be believable.
  4. Tyrion1991

    The Starks

    The parents dying is a trope that helps tell the kids story. Why should I sympathise for Ned Stark more than the deserter whose head he cut off in the beginning for no reason? Is that person less human? Rob could have done with a worse ending. Maybe falling into a latrine and drowning under the weight of his own plate armour. Instead he gets the Caesar death which turns him into a martyr. Cat is the only one who has a truly brutal death. I do not think any of the other Starks will die. Rickon is not even a character. The Starks have had it easy in the death department. They do not deserve a break. The worst death is all the people the Mountain has killed. Only we don’t get their stories so they’re not considered as important as this family of landowners.
  5. Tyrion1991

    Robb’s War Was The Most Just Of Them All.

    This is not Braveheart. Yes the North is in a similar geographic position but that’s where the similarity ends. I don’t think the common man ever factored into any decision a Stark made; especially not Rob Stark. He wants personal vengeance because his Daddy tried to start a coup in the capital. Then his Lords proclaim him King to enhance their own prestige. There’s no talk of southern laws and religion being imposed upon the people of the North. There’s not military occupation. All the atrocities happen to the North as a direct consequence of the Starks prosecution of the war. That is no more morally justifiable than the Emperor of Austria starting WW1 because his son got shot. It is incredibly petty and an egregious abuse of power by one family; which has brought nothing but death and ruin to the world. Also, because Rob Stark is upholding feudalism he and his family are by definition holding the people of the North as serfs. This is a form of near slavery and is a system that can only be sustained through violence and coercion. They are a parasitic warrior aristocracy that is living off the backs of their peasants. They do not at all care about the people of the North. If they did they would not uphold feudalism as a social system. You are assuming that when Rob refers to the North he is referring to a nation. This is a 19th century concept that would not exist in the Middle Ages. The idea that the people comprise the nation and that this entity should naturally be independent. Rob is referring to his property when he talks of the North. To him there is no distinction between the North, a region full of First Men in the icy north to the Riverlands. Which, he spends a copious amount of time trying to incorporate into his families estates. This is not a nationalist struggle. The very fact that George refers to this region by such a bland geographic name like the North rather than its own name heavily implies that this isn’t a separate national entity. Stannis actually has a clear dynastic claim to the previous King. Rob Stark secedes from the Kingdom after his family fails to overthrow the government in Kings Landing and murder Tywin heir. He then digs up some ancient claim to Kingship 300 years ago. These are criminal actions which the Starks do not have the authority to do. Balon Greyjoy is literally doing exactly the same thing that Rob Stark does. Yes, he’s an ugly and minging man but that’s a trite distinction. He wants to secede and he wants revenge for personal wrongs. The Lannister’s are a status quo faction. They wish to keep Cersei’s children on the throne. If you ignore personalities, that’s only a problem because the Starks start a war to depose their family. Everything the Lannister’s do is a response to the Starks continuous provocations and straight up bungling. Kidnapping Tyrion. Trying to kill Tyrion in a show trial. Escalating by declaring Tywin a criminal. Starting a coup in KL. Sending a Northern army into the Riverlands to conquer it. Tywin is mostly just responding to what the Starks are doing and the above are not remotely innocent acts. From the Lannister perspective it’s reasonable to assume that the Starks, inexplicably, are making a bid for power to overthrow the Baratheons. So yes Rob is the worst and least morally justifiable contender to the throne. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people have died to avenge one boy being pushed out of a window. This is one families quest for revenge.
  6. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    What Tywin and the Dothraki do is the standard practice. That was the reality. Having a fantastical world where “the good man” can snap his fingers and magically feed his men and impart 19th century values into them isn’t. It’s silly and you’re hugely down just how violent this society was. Edward the Third devastated France during the 100 years war. In the Thirty Years War they depopulated Germany just from the armies scouting the land bear. To say otherwise is to imply that war can be civilised. Most of the damage caused in war is by the attrition, famine and devastation of the land. Very few people died in battles. Most people died of disease, exposure and starvation. Plastering that over sanitises the nature of war. It is a huge piece of context for any moral discussion on the subject. The draft title for Dream of Spring was A Time for Wolves. This is them passing under the shadow. Every setback they have is just setup for that comeback. You have heard of sarcasm and back handed comments right? It’s not good that the Starks are gonna have their power fantasy trip and be so Wolfy wolf face that make Lemman Russ blush. It’s mocking them. Mild criticism and almost all inference. Mostly technical discussions on Rob Starks abilities as a strategist or commander. Plus it’s biased. You aren’t going to have threads on why the Stark’s are amazing because you’d just be repeating what’s presented in the text. George isn’t presenting some hidden critique of House Stark. Characters like Cat. People keep telling me there is criticism of House Stark but I’ve yet to see an actual quote of a credible character making a legitimate criticism. Do tell, how was the War winnable exactly? How are there no idiots among the Northern ranks? Seems quite odd for such a poor country with low manpower. Never mind that amongst an entire army you should have a range of ability. Unless now you’re admitting they are given special treatment. When are they ever ridiculed or questioned? I don’t think we’re meant to take Craster seriously. Again, where is the criticism if not point for point in the form of a Mirri? Arya is passing under shadow. She’s gonna remember who she is, get Needle and get out of being a FM. I think that George is playing to his audiences preconceptions about what a hardy warrior society would look like. He knows people like wolves so he builds a whole mythology around them and taps into aspects of Saxon and Nordic culture. You get the same thing with Space Wolves from 40k and in itself that’s usually inoffensive. So of course he’s trying to sell that the Starks and the North are cool. The issue is that he sets them up as being the solution. These cold blooded stoic, raven haired and incorruptible Germanic warriors who are going to sweep away the weak, effeminate, corrupt and decadent south. It’s when he starts making that narrative that it becomes sinister and has fascist overtones. If the story ends with the Starks victorious and imposing themselves into the South that will be the bottom line. I completely disagree. The story isn’t remotely morally grey. If you study history it changes your perspective on what morally grey is. Was it right for the allies to bomb German cities? Was it right to use a naval blockade in WW1? Is there hypocrisy in opposing the Kaisars imperialism when you own 2/5 of the world? George doesn’t come remotely close to creating challenging morally grey situations. To me morally grey can only means both sides are on a level, where neither side is better or worse than the other. Anything else is just trying to work peoples suspension of disbelief and be edgy. George so exaggerated how bad Lannister’s, Freys and Bolton’s are that it doesn’t matter if a Stark does something a tad off or a Frey does something kinda neat. It’s still very black and white at its core.
  7. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    That’s hand waving the issue. In a modern army you need a trained officer core and professional soldiers who have a nationalist spirit. Otherwise your army is just going to devastate the countryside. These things did not exist in the Middle Ages. Rob could not possibly keep his men in order and it’s absurd to suggest that he could or even that he would be inclined to. Medieval warfare such as that in the Hundred Years War involves active attacks on the civilian population. Again George is only considering personalities and not the systems. This a key piece of context if you’re asking moral questions about whether this is a just war or how extreme a punishment is. It’s not just a stylistic choice. Why are we asked to question the Dothraki destroying a village when that would be true of any other war?This fantastical situation allows George to position the Starks as good people despite waging a pre modern war and operating a feudal society. Bending reality like this undermines the credibility of the story and makes any moral message it makes trite. Why doesn’t Rob discuss his manpower situation in the same terms? Because he doesn’t have one. The Starks are never going to be depicted as weak because that would undermine their Uber man depiction. Again, George had the option to make the story about how logistics and real politick is more important than romanticised personalities. Sweden in the Great Northern War is a perfect example of this. Instead George wants this to be about personalities and how but for that weakness love the Brave Wolf King might have prevailed. I am satirising the opinion of other people saying “ohh the Starks had the first word and they’ll have the last”. This is precisely the sentiment Stark fans have. They see them as these Uber men from the North who are morally superior and superhuman. Why should the criticism of the Starks be silent but the criticism of the South be loud? If the North is doing things wrong then we should have characters like Cat thinking “god these people are morons”, “god does the North not realise the wars unwinnable”, “what are we even fighting over”. With Dany there is very frequent and on the nose criticism of what she’s doing; Miri for example. Why should George take an entirely silent approach with the Starks when he doesn’t do that’s for non Stark characters. The more obvious answer is that the author isn’t posing any question marks over House Stark. The Young Dragon conquered Dorne for a day. Rob conquered the Riverlands for over a year and the odds were more stacked against him in terms of soldiers. Credible criticism. We aren’t meant to take anything Cersei or Balon say seriously. It’s framed as disingenuous bluster. Often with a character like Tyrion undermining or satirising it. You don’t have a character of moral repute making a real criticism of House Stark either in its strategy, the image of its soldiers or the superiority of its blood. Such empty criticism only ends up enhancing House Starks image because they’re baseless accusations. If an author is being silent on criticisms he could make then that’s not accidental. Some characters are closer to the author than others. Vic is a cartoonish caricature that’s meant to contrast the sober and idealised Stark man who has self control on account of his wolfsblood. Making the Stark enemies all cartoonish paper cutouts also is a way of making the North look good in comparison. George isn’t writing a nuanced or morally grey story. He’s backing the white horse. That’s all by design. He never wanted the Starks to be in a conventional war where neither side has the moral high ground. Thats me being bitter and sarcastic. I am saying that it would not surprise me if George continues on this path and will end with the Starks in a position of ultimate power. How he rationalises that perhaps won’t be as egregious and silly; to me it certainly feels that outrageous.
  8. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    I recall it being mentioned that Rob Stark kept his men in order. Which is a handwave. Only the rogue elements who refuse the light of Stark wisdom are shown doing anything questionable. All of which falls far short of the impact any pre modern army would have on the countryside. There is a reason the Duke of Wellington called his men the scum of the earth. If the iron duke in the 19th century had issues with his men going on a rampage I don’t think an illiterate thug will. For example when the army of the Spanish Netherlands wasn’t paid it sacked the city of Antwerp and the same happened in Italy with the sack of Rome. Rob should have had similar issues if he’s from an ostensibly poor country trying to I field a massive army hundreds of miles from home. There should be a trail of devastation caused by the Northern army. George massively plays this down. Youre making an inference. Contrast that with Dorans frank and real discussion of his manpower situation. This is good because it relays the risks and creates conflict. You don’t get this with the North. What you get is the North will rise again and the expectation that Jon is gonna clap his hands and fifty thousand plate armoured men will appear from thin air. At the end this will be a time for Wolves and that means a military that will dictate the future of Westeros. Thats an inference. George doesn’t mock the KarStark brothers for that the same way he mocks the rainbow Guard. Yes there’s a comparison with the Young Dragon but frankly he achieves more than the young dragon and his end is romanticised. Rob Stark is a martyr. They are all mouthpieces for the author. All of them have great admiration or grudging respect for Northern military power and have very little bad to say about the Starks. Even Jamie comes to help their Tully allies and comes around to scraping to them. Clearly setting up him joining their camp and begging for forgiveness for all the bad things he done to them. The failure of Rob is simply the Starks and the North passing under the shadow before the time of wolves. This is absolutely written as an Arian master race poem. Once the Stark POV character come into their own, then the North will rise again and cast down the inferior people who stabbed them in the back. I really doubt that George is going to hurl manpower issues and bankruptcy at them. This is not the Sweden of the Great Northern War that has to confront reality. Maybe they’ll just steal Stannis’s loans. At any rate this moment of weakness is just setting up Stark ascendency and primacy where they will dictate the future of Westeros to the corrupt South and Essos.
  9. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    When is there any criticism of the Northern way of war? Of the North? When is there a criticism of the Starks? For example, the North has a low population and is very poor. They shouldn’t be able to absorb losses and should have to continuously punch above their weight. Which isn’t sustainable in the long run and should make the army a glass cannon. Same problem Sweden has in the Great Northern War because they lacked the manpower and they can’t easily replace losses of trained men. It’s the absence of these critiques which is grating. Instead we get this stab in the back nonsense. Oh the Northern army was never defeated in the field and if it hadn’t been for treason then Rob would have been victorious. His own should have killed him before he even got to the Twins with how that war was going. Whereas George is going to town on the Knights and Men at Arms of the South as being a quaint method of fighting. They’re playing at war, the Knights of Summer and not the equal of hardy Northern soldiers. He is saying they are better than everybody else. George isn’t a fool, he’s wants to avoid them appearing arrogant and believing their own hype; so he has southern characters do the hype for them. It’s the southerners who are self critical and satirising themselves whilst holding up the Northern army as this world conquering host that wins battle after battle. That way they can be modest and powerful. George does trash talk them. That’s why he has the Tourney of the Hand be a fiasco with people dying and the long being an ass. Ned is very much a mouthpiece for the author when he criticises Knights. These are not neutral acts. There is a huge amount of moralising and condescension in what’s being written about. Which is fine. But it’s hypocritical to then say in World of Ice and Fire how awesome it is that in the North they have this man on man action in these melees where they’re all getting lathered in mud and breaking each other. A melee is not different than a tournament. It’s exactly the same macho competition that makes a game out of killing. But we don’t see moral condemnation or satire of this because George does not ever satirise the North or anything associated with it. George is using modern concepts of what honour would look like, which have more in common with the gentlemanly duels of the 18th century. A real medieval knight would have cut Bron up like a pig and strung his tarred corpse up in a gibbet; which would be considered perfectly honourable. They win every battle where they are not grossly outnumbered or stabbed in the back. No other army has that effectiveness in the series. The Riverlords remain loyal even after Robs death and are all like “the North will rise again”. Which is setting up them rejoining. The Freys are depicted as sub human troglodyte creatures. Again, this is not a grey or nuanced storyline. The author really is backing the white horse here. Because the Martells know what they are and they accept it. George doesn’t try to argue the Martels are the solution to Westeros problems like the Starks. He lays out their problems, their manpower issues, the weaknesses and foibles of their character. There’s a nuance that is not present with anything to do with the North and the Starks. He never says or implies that Dorne is perfect. People talk about why it’s a bad idea for Dorne to go to war yet it’s never once discussed about being a bad idea to make the North independent. Not once.
  10. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    Because all those factions are derided at one point or another. The Starks and the North are not. If the Starks were not being put on a pedestal and being treated differently to the other factions then I wouldn’t have an issue. That’s quite a lot of guys. Plus you have Dacey Mormont, all the She Bears, you have Reeds who are basically swamp elves. You have the Karstark army being introduced as this disciplined machine. Bolton is implied to be a major threat to Stannis and the Ironborn. The fact Rob wins is in part ascribed to the fighting capacity of the Northern soldier. The insinuation is that these are like the Historical Swiss Pikemen, a nationalist, hardy folk who fight hard and come out involved too over soft green knights. Knights are a southern thing. In the World of Ice n Fire George makes a big deal about how the North eschews soft tournaments and instead have big melee brawls instead. Again, he’s constantly playing up and emphasising this Uber man identity. He even says in interviews that the Northern houses are all given harsh names to signify how they are all hard men. To him there’s nothing to criticise and he’s playing this up to appeal to his preconceptions of a cool warrior culture. What did you think the whole thing was with Bron easily killing Vardas Egan in the duel? The scruffy mercenary and the hard man defeats the Noble because he fights dirty. It’s a fight that’s loaded with metaphors. Never mind that in a duel the knight would probably wrestle the little man to ground and gut him; or just poke him once then let him bleed out before cutting his throat. People wouldn’t wear armour if it disadvantaged you like that. I think Shadveristy did a video where he mentioned about all that being in fighting manuals of the Middle Ages. What George depicts is a stupid way of making war when opposed to the practical man of reason. But yeah, the Bron duel is a broadside to the idea the Knights of the Vale are an impressive force. George should address the issues of quartering 20,000 armed scum on campaign without the money or food to support them for years. You can’t handwave issues like that and then condemn Stannis for not making adequate provisions in the North or Dany for having mouths with feet. That is a double standard. Not addressing that massively changes the context of the Northern intervention and the Tully’s kowtowing to them. Apparently the Northern army have a 100 percent reduction in upkeep and immunity to attrition from disease. Guess it’s not very heroic if half his men die of cholera. The Starks are never criticised for being feudal lords. That’s the problem, it’s a central point about whether they are actually good people. This is a society that is worse than the Ancien Regime the French overthrow in the 18th century. It’s a vilified way of organising society that men five centuries dead mocked and called the Dark Ages. You cannot be a good person and be party to that. Putting on a stoic face and having raven hair doesn’t make you a good person. George is sidestepping the real problem with Westeros and putting all the blame on personalities or incest babies. By not criticising the Starks he is implying they are the solution to Westeros’s problems.
  11. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    Because Daenerys earns the right to call herself that. If you miraculously emerge out of a fire with three dragons from stone you’re allowed to be dramatic. It would be insincere and false modesty if you didn’t. Besides, Dany is criticised for that and certainly criticised generally by characters in the series. It is addressed and we as the audience are left to make up our own minds about that. That’s posing an open question to the reader. Rob, Bran and Jon are not criticsed or mocked for that kind of pretence. The authors voice is very loud on this point. He wants to advocate this stoic man of reason and this noble savagery without irony or a question mark hovering over it. There isn’t some hidden meta 4D chess criticism of House Stark in the text.
  12. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    Which is pointed out at multiple occasions by multiple characters throughout the series. “Viserys is the shadow of a snake”. The hypocritical element is that the Starks aren’t criticised for doing the exact same thing. They simply do that stoic long face and it handwaves any moral criticism. They chose a wolf as their sigil as a statement of power and to inspire fear in their enemies. It’s a threat and a petty one at that. Again, George isn’t critiquing what people are doing, he’s critiquing how they do it. Put on a stoic slapped arse face and dye your hair black and you’re excused of anything. That sentiment pervades the novels. Even then, dragons haven’t been alive for decades and were far too rare. Wolves are real creatures that were hunted to near extinction in Europe precisely for this reason. A pervasive threat. They were vermin, pests and dangerous animals. Every positive aspect of a wolf you can find in a dog. The only reason people think wolves are cool is because they like the threat and the danger so want to associate themselves with that. It is no different than having a dragon banner to imply how powerful and dangerous you are.
  13. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    Wolves eat people, Stags do not. Wanting to associate yourself with an animal that is considered vermin and hunted down by your own peasants is not a good thing. Whereas stag genuinely is the noble creature of the forest. People who want to associate themselves with Wolves is because they admire the violent and threatening aspects of the creature. It’s just as sinister as valuing a flayed man. It says we’re the killers in the night who are coming for you. They aren’t taken seriously at all. You have multiple characters including Ned, Tyrion, Cat, Sandor, Ser Loras and the Mountains intended to satirise or critique the notion of Andal warrior culture. No such criticism happens of the Northern way of war or its endless pretensions. Puritanism is pretentious. House Arryns army hasn’t left the Vale and it’s on the margins. We barely see them between Tyrion’s trial and Sansa being taken there. Later, maybe George will have them join the ranks of the good Andals who like kissing Northern boots. Because the Tully’s submit to Stark overlordship. They then allow him to quarter 20,000 barbarians in the river lands and hold the nation hostage. Which is all done so this mafia family can keep their lands and titles. To George a good Andal is one who recognises how Northmen are morally superior Uber men and submit to them. That’s the only qualifier George uses and he plays down any negative aspects of them selling out like this. The Frey’s could easily have accused the Tully’s of selling out and allowing a godless foreign army to bleed the Riverlands dry (Rob has to pay and feed his army from a impoverished country). They don’t because George didn’t want them to have valid believable reasons for killing Rob. It’s not a tragedy if Rob is just another warlord and the Northerners guilty of war crimes.
  14. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    There’s less opportunity. The Baratheons are overshadowed by Stannis adopting the fiery heart and the critique is also on him personally. Plus the Baratheon being stags is a pun on Robert being cuckolded. That’s the purpose of that symbolism. Also a stag is a lot less pretentious animal to associate yourself with. It’s a claim to being regal and is not the edgelord threat of violence that claiming to be a wolf is. It’s a loud statement that, look at me, look at me, I am this dangerous predator and have this savage nobility. It’s clownish and it shouldn’t be taken seriously by anybody. Its why I don’t like the North or Nights Watch. They’re trying to be edgy all the time. It’s incredibly obnoxious. All these slate grey plate clad burly men in wolf cloaks grunting at everything and beating their chests about The Peoples Republic of Yorkshire. There’s a total lack of self awareness whilst in the same chapters George spends endless amounts of time satirising the white knight. Yet the edgelords who dance with wolves are meant to be taken seriously? To me these things aren’t gritty or realistic, they’re just as much tropes as the white knight. The Arryns aren’t in the story yet so there isn’t going to be bird poo jokes. Maybe when the Vale army goes off we’ll get some of that. I think there should be mockery of the Tullys. Let’s associate ourselves with a phalic, slimy and smelly animal. That should be the butt of every joke. It’s isnt because George doesn’t want his audience to mock the good Andals. Good meaning they don’t mind their country being annexed by a foreign power that’s going to drain their lands dry.
  15. Tyrion1991

    The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

    Right before the NW stab him and he returns as the Lich King. This whole love thing is going real good for him isn’t it? Its the weight of support that George gives these notions. It’s not just a statement of belief. It’s a warning. In Jeors case he is indirectly referring to his own son Jorahs marriage to Lynesse. He loved this woman and that causes the ruin of his house because he makes poor decisions as a result of love. Had Jorah not been in love, perfectly capable Lord in Jeors eyes. As an aside I believe this also foreshadows that Jorahs love for Dany will lead him to his doom; which it arguably already has. But Jeor gives Longclaw to Jon as a warning, a cautionary tale to not repeat Jorahs mistakes. He’s quite literally carrying around a reminder of what choosing love means; failure and disgrace. Jon then does get involved with a wildling and the result of that Union is that she is killed for having a soft spot for him. So we see this in action. Choosing love means death and failure. At a higher level, Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna whose love rent the realm into civil war and overthrew the dynasty. Choosing love means death and failure again. It’s in aggregate that these become more than just a few bitter old men’s opinions and some embellishments for dramatic purposes. So I think these amount to a warning. That if Jon were to chose love over duty he would fail. I think this is a consistent theme and do not believe that George is going to provide a counterpoint to this view.