Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Amris

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Role-playing, writing, riding my bike

Recent Profile Visitors

1,801 profile views
  1. I have a theory on why GRRM added the Victarion and Aeron POVs and I think it has to do with your first sentence above: It seems that Victarion and Aeron are the spotlights GRRM uses to illuminate Euron and build him up as a major villain without making him a POV himself. Now I get that you are suggesting why did he not stick with for instance the Asha POV and tell it there. The reason is, I believe, that a second hand mentioning of this stuff by Asha would have had a lesser emotional impact. Someone telling someone elses experiences through hearsay (horrible as they may be) is more removed and thus insulates the reader from the full blast. If Euron was "just another character" that wouldn't matter. But if we assume that GRRM wants Euron to become one of the top antagonists he may well have felt a more forceful treatment was in order. I can see the advantages of this method but like you I still have a problem with it: My problem is that when I as a reader (believe that I) notice that a POV is really only an instrument to enhance another story (Euron's) but goes nowhere in and off itself I feel less motivated to follow it. Now one can ask why did GRRM choose this indirect approach (telling Euron through Vic and Aeron) instead of telling Euron's story directly. There are several reasons I can think of: Quite possibly some mysteries would be unveiled too soon if we got Euron's thoughts. The second possibility is that GRRM went a little overboard with Euron but tries to hide that by telling from a more removed angle. What I mean is that GRRM has claimed that villains aren't really guys who get up in the morning, twirling their moustaches and asking themselves 'what evil can I do today?'. Instead in his view they are the heroes in their own stories. Euron however seems to be pretty exactly that: A moustache-twirling supervillain who gets up in the morning in order to do the maximum evil possible. Now what? I have a suspicion that GRRM - though he knows and has even said that real villains are not like that - secretly has some love for these types of character anyway (his love of superhero stories seems to indicate that too). Since I like superhero stuff myself I find nothing wrong with this. However it is possible GRRM feels a little guilty about this and thus does not dare to reveal Euron too closely. Instead choosing to rather telling about him from a supposedly safer distance 'second hand'.
  2. If you want to encourage a discussion about a topic I would advise to formulate a headline that is result-open. Your current headline already forestalls a conclusion (Ned is not honorable) and indeed emphatically forestalls it ('clearly' not honorable). That leaves the impression that you have already made up your mind about this. Emphatically made it up actually. So what's the point of discussing with you?
  3. Amris

    Am I the only one who really enjoys ADWD?

    ADWD is my fav book in the series: After the low point that was AFFC the book gave me the feeling that there is a life after the Red Wedding. In ADWD my fav characters that I so sorely missed in AFFC finally were there again: I especially enjoy Jon and Dany's storylines. What many readers dislike about them is exactly what I like: Jon and Dany don't get anything for free - they have to find their own ways and forge their own (and the world's) destinies with no clear paths set before them. They have to work through their mistakes and learn things the hard way. The situations they are in are messy with no clearcut 'right' way out of them (just like real life). Their opponents have believable and understandable motives and are hard to find and defeat. Sometimes their opponents are even right, again very much like real life. And sometimes the opponents they see aren't really the opponents. Or vice versa. The 'heroes' are forced to make compromises - some of which are quite questionable. And feelings of triumph are usually later followed by a stomachache. Everything they do has consequences, often negative ones. But right or wrong is never sure - they have positive consequences also. Some of the secondary and tertiary POV characters I am less enthused about. But I can live with that.
  4. Amris

    The cursed libido of House Frey

    On the meta level: Considering that the Freys seems to be based on the twin nordic fertility deities Frey and Freya Walder is only doing what he is supposed to be doing. As ist Amy. On the story level I think it's pretty cool since it gives the family a sort of character and background. Whether its gross or not or makes sense or not is beside the point IMO. I think the point is that it adds flavour to the story.
  5. Amris

    how inbred is daenerys?

    Not inbred enough to be considered a thoroughbred.
  6. Amris

    The stone dragon

    I do not think it is helpful to fixate on who the stone beast is. The more important question is: What does the vision symbolize. And that's what I was trying to answer. In my opinion this part of Dany's HotU vision symbolizes a part of Jon's storyline - namely at Bran being instrumental in uncovering Jon as a Targaryen prince. It may also hint at some clues being hidden in Lyanna's tomb and proving Jon's ancestry but we don't know that yet. Anyway Lyanna's tomb is right there in the crypts where first Bran and then the gargoyle fell so the place is significant in Jon's arc. But sure: if you really feel the need to name a person 'the' stone beast then that person would be Bran. Bran who fell there, later sybolized by the stone gargoyle which fell there too while shadow fire was in the air and which in Theon's ADwD scene looks out of the snow, staring at the skies just like Bran is staring into the far distance through the weirnet, uncovering - things. *** Btw: if you look at the 3 vision triplets in the HotU the other two triplets each end with clues from Jon's story arc too. First triplet stanza 3: Rhaegar whispering a woman's name (likely Lyanna's). (Daughter of death). Jon's parents being dead. Second triplet stanza 3: Bran as stone beast instrumental in uncovering Jon's parentage. (Slayer of lies) The lie being Jon's false identity. Third triplet stanza 3: Jon a blue flower in a wall of ice. (Bride of Fire). Likely Jon as Dany's third and final lover.
  7. Amris

    The stone dragon

    Dany already woke dragons from stone so I don't think it's necessary that Bran does too.
  8. Amris

    The stone dragon

    You don't remember Summer seeing a winged snake over Winterfell, breathing shadow fire? That's at the same moment one of the walls of the Old Keep crashes down during the fire as Bran and Co later see when they walk through the ruins after the fire. The crash is explicitly mentioned during the burning of Winterfell scene. The old keep has the gargoyles ontop of it. So they fall too - or one at least. The one that's later found by Theon in the ADwD scene I cited above. Why is it significant? Oh. For the minor reason that the gargoyle falls at the very place that Bran fell too? (this detail is explicitly noticed by Theon in the ADwD scene). Bran, the guy whose being pushed out the window of that very same Old Keep and falling down (after having climbed along those very gargoyles) set the whole conflict in motion? The guy who is likely on track to become one of the great seers in the story? The one who recurrently keeps having dreams of flying and falling. The one whose visions might well help to uncover Jon's real identity? Not to mention this pushing of Bran majorly impacted Jaime's story. Additionally it is significant because the gargoyle crashed down right at the entrance to the Crypts of Winterfell. The crypts that contain Jon's real mother's tomb. (And possibly more things that have not been revealed yet by the author). GRRM could have landed that gargoyle anywhere. Or not crashed it down in the first place. Instead he chose this very spot! And explicitly added the shadow fire when Summer saw the whole thing. And it word for word fulfills the stone beast line of Dany's HotU vision. GRRM did all this for a purpose.
  9. Amris

    The stone dragon

    No need to mix things up: We have pretty clear candidates for both the waking of dragons (plural!) from stone and the stone beast taking wing from a smoking tower, breathing shadow fire. And these candidates are not the same. 1. As has already been pointed out: We have the actual awakening of three dragons from stone eggs. It cannot get any more literal than that. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - you get my meaning. 2. We also have (in another scene) an actual great stone beast taking wing from a smoking tower - coupled with shadow fire. GRRM has hidden this one better so it usually gets overlooked. But it is there nevertheless - and also quite literal. No need to mess with the grammar by claiming plural and singular don't matter (they do!) or to make two different prophecies into one because you don't find the stone beast scene. (Read the burning of Winterfell scene CoK chapter 69 Bran VII (both as watched through Summer's eyes as Bran & party strolling through the burned castle afterwards carefully. Pay attention to the details, particularly see if you can spot stone beasts, see what is up there and falls and gets found later. Then compare with ADwD chapter 41 'The Turncloak' and find out what's poking out of the snow, staring at the sky right there at the entrance to the crypts of Winterfell.)
  10. You merge the 'three heads of the dragon' and the 'prince that was promised' into one prophecy that reads: 'the three heads of the prince'. That's a good idea, I give you that. In fact it is so neat that I had to edit my post twice because I kept thinking about the subject! First I disagreed, then I agreed, now I don't know, haha. The conclusion I finally seem to settle on is that while I love your basic concept there is one thing that bugs me: if we make the prince into a trinity as well (as the three heads who already are the undisputable trinity right there) then I don't really see how the story is going to end logically. What I mean is that the three heads of the dragon = three aspects of the trinity have to have different roles to play or else a trinity is not needed in the first place. Like father, son and holy spirit are three roles. Or the seven deities of the faith of the seven. Each has their distinct name and role. And in our story we already have the trinity in the form of the 'three heads fo the dragon' so we do not really need a second name for the same thing. Rather we need distinct names for the distinct roles of that trinity. (Like father, mother, crone etc). Thus the 'prince that was promised' seems to serve a more logical function if used to name one of those three aspects, not all three. It also fits Jon especially well
  11. Amris

    The stone dragon

    The grammar in the book is very specific: In ADWD, Jon X, Mel says to Jon: 'When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone' (emboldening by me). Notice the plural form. So Aegon can not be 'the' (as in: one and one only) stone dragon. In conclusion I am with you insofar as it is theoretically possible that Aegon may be one (of several) dragons meant by prophecy. However when the OP states 'the' stone dragon and talks about waking 'the' stone dragon then no. That goes against the text. Multiple dragons are being spoken of, not one.
  12. A nice idea! However the grammar works against it: Yes, I think your starting point is correct and the Valyrian word for prince/princess seems to also mean dragon. Based on that 'the dragon has three heads' could mean 'the prince/princess has three heads.' Indeed most of us seem to think that indeed three humans and not three literal dragons are meant. Here comes the catch though: 'The dragon has three heads' and 'the prince that was promised' are two different sentences. The heads are in plural form, yes but everyone who mentions the prince speaks in singular form. They say 'prince', not 'princes'. Melisandre talks to Stannis of one prince that was promised, in Dany's HotU vision Rhaegar speaks of but one prince. Likewise maester Aemon talks to Sam about the prophecy being about a prince, (not several princes.) And Barristan tells Dany about the wood's witch prophecy that claims that the prince would come from the line of Aerys and Rhaella. Conclusion: while there may be three 'heads' only one of those is the promised prince.
  13. Amris

    Dany's suicide?

    I see two possibilities: either Dany died in the fire and was literally reborn or she somehow magically survived the fire and was metaphorically reborn. My own preferrence is a literal death and rebirth. But which it really was we'll probably never know. And it does not matter either: the point is (I believe) she sacrificed herself (literally or metaphorically) and this sacrifice was an essential part of making the eggs hatch and/or bonding the hatchlings to her.
  14. Amris

    WW invasion happens whos your top two generals?

    I would choose Chezdhar zo Rhaezn and one of his brothers (the so-called 'Clanker-Lords') as my generals and their chained slave army as my troups. The chained slave soldiers make for a nice Troyan horse: Once they get slain and raised by the WW they severely hamper any sort of organized troup movement by the wight army. Imagine those long rows of chained ice-zombies ambling this way and that (and quite likely hopelessly entangling even their un-chained co-wights.)
  15. Amris

    Unpopular Opinions?

    That is actually easy It can happen when you have a complicated story with many interconnected plotlines which is only mapped out in broad strokes but not in detail when you start to write. Since you only create the details when writing you may suddenly - even when you think you are nearly done - hit a wall and notice some of those details collide or don't add up. And as a result you end up having to rewrite big chunks of the book.