Jump to content

AryaNymeriaVisenya

Members
  • Content count

    3,223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AryaNymeriaVisenya


  1. On 8/9/2019 at 8:35 AM, Gnobbels said:

    Hello! I am new to the website so forgive me if this has been brought up elsewhere and I missed it. I'm curious why Viserys and Daenarys of ASOIAF would be under the impression that Targaryens are immune to illnesses. Reading through both companion pieces, it seems that a decent number of Targaryens died of some illness or another, not to mention the girl that died of the shivers and Aegon the Unworthy catching the pox. Their own grandfather died at 37 years old of a short illness that included shortness of breath. I know that Daenarys believes this based only on what Viserys told her but why would he believe that to be true? 

    The Targs believe their own hype. They think they are above the laws of Gods and Men. Therefore they can't get ill like mortal man. Its all a con


  2. Something is off with those Uncle/Niece marriages though. We don't have that full story. First, they follow Cregan who lived a very long time and had multiple wives with multiple issue. This made the girls and their uncles only 'half' related. They share only Cregan as an ancestor. This may be why it was allowed. I may be off here, but I wonder if it was an Alys Karstark situation. Cregan died and these girls were the heirs to House Stark. The two half uncles married them to consolidate power in the House. It never happened again and seems an extraordinary circumstance with these two brothers and two sisters. 

    Cousins are common though. Tywin and Joanna were cousins. Had things been more out in the open Jon could have easily married one of the Stark girls.


  3. Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

    I dont think that's true. She has knights falling over her in the Vale even when she's a bastard. I dont think they're doing it just to curry favor with the Lord Protector (some, but not all). Just a few small romantic gestures, would make her happy, and Sansa should be happy.

    They skipped over all of that on the show. 

    Yeah, she's pretty but that doesn't make people love you. GRRM has that beauty and the beast thing going on. Ygritte isn't gorgeous, Jon is plain. Brienne is beautiful of soul and Jaime is beautiful of face. Cersei is gorgeous but rotten inside. Robert was a young god of a man and then got drunk and fat. Danaerys is the most beautiful woman in the world and the biggest monster inside. As Arya becomes more deadly she becomes prettier. Beware the pretty ones seems to be a message in George's work. I can totally see Sansa, proclaimed as gorgeous die alone.


  4. 28 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

    It's just not a good ending.

    It's a nice idea but they did nothing to make it a good.

    I don't even think its a nice idea but I've been through it 10 times and I don't want to dredge it back up. Suffice to say, I don't like that Arya, the unconventional character is cast out of Westeros rather than forcing Westeros to change. Nymeria would roll in her grave.


  5. Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

    I think you have the contrasts confused. Cersei is the one who thought love was a poison and Sansa insists that everyone wants this basic thing. Because she's right. It's a basic human desire. It doesn't have to be an obsession or a fairy tale, because her parents find it. The author himself is also in a long, committed relationship so I find it hypocritical. The character who loves romance...never finds it. Not even a whiff. Meanwhile the author calls himself a romantic.

    Anything else for Sansa is just fanon now. 

     

    I saw that coming in the books. Sansa dreams of love but no one has ever really loved her besides familiarly. Everyone is using her. She is really the lone wolf, surrounded by predators. This was a key reason I thought the sisters would invert their world views.


  6. Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

    That's my issue, she never had one relationship in canon that was real. It was all fakery or creeps. This is unrealistic if other people, including her brothers and sisters, find love themselves. 

    In the books she didn't want to be the queen like that. She wanted to be a "lady in a song," whether that be a princess or a lady's knight. 

    Sansa in the show wants autonomy, that shouldnt come at the price of finding companionship, or even the opportunity to find it. 

    She doesn't need it though. That is a good contrast between her and Danaerys. Both began saying that they wanted the love of the people as Queen. In the end Sansa doesn't need love. One of her brother's died for it, one was destroyed by it, her sister seems to have broken someone with it. Daenerys on the other hand can't cope without being loved. It gives her validation. When she doesn't have it, we saw what happened.  Summed up by this quite aptly

    Quote

    In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!

     


  7. 21 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

    The character who most wanted to be part of that domestic life never finds it? Even in its more realistic, less idealized form like her parents? Even worse is the idea of a "virgin queen" like Elizabeth - It's ridiculous. Sansa never having consensual sex but Arya and Brienne do? WTF is that?? Meanwhile the two queens who are sexually active, die as the villains? This is eyebrow raising if this is where GRRM is going.

    Elizabeth didn't die a virgin she just appeared so to her people. She married her country. In those days if she married then her husband would be King, a King outranks a Queen. She would lose her power. As for Sansa not getting what she wants, she did, 'I'd be queen someday, its the only thing I've ever wanted', she had to endure the sacrifices to get what she wanted. Some things, she will never have.


  8. I can kind of understand Bran just shrugging but the Crown is Bankrupt. Littlefinger, Cersei and the wars have drained the treasury. Plus one of the few cities in Westeros has been destroyed. Bran is not rolling in it. The North similarly has lost pretty much its whole army and food supplies. In the books it cost Farman 3 priceless dragon eggs to get a crew and a ship. How would Arya know what ship to get? How would she know who to hire? The end of the show is her with maps, picking up a telescope. Arya does not know how to navigate at sea. And if it were the case she hired someone, well why isn't she with this person in the map room? Why is she at the prow as if she's in control. If that voyage goes badly, how exactly can she command the boat?

    I wonder if the Farman stuff was George's version of the GOT ending done more realistically. This woman spent her whole life sailing, she sailed around Westeros and to the free cities. West of westeros was her dream. Arya had a passing thought and no skill to undertake the endeavour. I highly doubt he would give Arya a second hand ending.


  9. On 6/20/2019 at 9:51 PM, hokie3457 said:

    I loved Arya's ending.  I think after all was said and done, that she was empty.  Perhaps she didn't feel like Arya Stark any longer or didn't know who Arya Stark is/was/will be.  A chance at self discovery. At personal renewal through an adventure doing something that in the past peeked her interest?  Yes!  So much so!  I think Arya on her voyage has the world at her feet.  I think she will survive. I think she will thrive.  I believe she will return to both Winterfell and to the far north wherever Jon is located.  When all surviving Starks have departed from their stories, Arya will endure.  To me, she will end up as "The Last Stark". 

    This doesn't ring true to me because of how her arc with the Faceless men ended. 'I am Arya Stark of Winterfell and I am going home'. Her journey to becoming no one only reinforced who she was. Its why she couldn't let go of Needle. There never seemed to me to be any question of self discovery, her proclamation was so powerful. What was the point of it otherwise?

    Yet the story ends with her completely rejecting that and disappearing. How did we get there? I have no clue. 

    The script for 6 confirms my suspicions that she's never intended to come back. I mean, she said that in episode 4. It feels to me like her whole arc was made worthless. She leaves home, her dad is killed and she embarks on a long journey to get back. She gets back, decides she doesn't actually care and pisses off god knows were. What was the journey for? Why have we watched this? Where is the resolution?


  10. I think Sophie's comments are supported by the canon of the show though. Her coronation with her long freeflowing hair...

    https://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/liz1_coronation.jpg

    She never married and never had a child.

    Book Wise, the last marriage out of House Stark to produce children was Jocelyn, the heirs in the Vale Cat mentions when Robb is writing his will.


  11. On 6/17/2019 at 11:11 PM, John Meta said:

    And there were people who came to America just to follow a dream and a new beginning. They still do it to this day. Then there are people who just hear the proverbial call to explore new lands. Arya happens to be one of them.

    What's to explain in a self-explanatory situation? She wants to travel and see unknown places. Pretty common desire even today. The fact that she gets on a ship and heads to sea informs us of that. Would you believe people used to leave their families and go exploring on the seas? And sometimes they never came back. It's surprising (not really) that I have to ask that question but here we are.

    Just out of curiosity, could you provide a couple of examples of the "catchphrases" which "don't mean much" to which Arya was "reduced"? I'd like to see if what you're saying here actually makes sense, or, is just baseless rhetoric of the order someone might say "Oh, Breaking Bad season 5 is awful writing. Everyone was just reduced to catchphrases." 

    You say "she once said she was curious about the west" and, right - that's called expressing interest.

    Her primary motivation of making it back home was accomplished when she made it back, home. Like when Bilbo or Frodo made it back home. Then left again. Was that "bad writing" too? It's funny how when I bring up direct parallels from other well-liked stories like LotR, the critics here don't address them. I think that's telling.

    It's pretty much when you say "going on a voyage we suspect is suicide" that you go completely off the rails of anything resembling reason and tip your hand in a pretty major way. The hand that says "I'm biased, and have an agenda. I have no interest in saying anything other than creating baseless rhetoric in an attempt to justify my criticism of other people." It becomes really transparent.

    What agenda? You've left a big post so I'll take it bit by bit.

    I don't agree that most people went to America just because they could and left everyone they cared about behind. People don't just choose to leave their families without reason, be that crippling poverty or persecution. The show never provided Arya sufficient motivation to take that step. You suggest here she has urge to travel, we've never seen that before beyond a passing comment 3 seasons ago. I'd like to go to Rome one day, is that my destiny now mapped out forever? That is what you took from that scene. I've seen others argue that Arya is disconnected from humanity. The range of interpretations of that scene to me indicates its failure. We don't really know why she goes. She never tells us why she wants to get on a boat and never see Jon or Sansa again. 

    What is to explain is Arya's priorities. She's not booking Air BnBs online. This is a HUGE life changing choice where she will leave everything and everyone she knows behind. What for? I don't think 'I want to travel' is good enough. Especially for a character whose journey has been the antithesis of that. Arya has wandered around trying to get home, to get to her family again? Why? So she can do a head count and leave? This conclusion is a massive 180 from that and it needs some explanation. Just saying she's curious about the west is not good enough for such a massive shift. And to add to that, no one seems to worry or care about what she's doing. Nor do they try to stop her. That doesn't seem natural if one of my family says they are leaving to never return. 

    OK, catchphrases. When she has to tell Sansa how to use a knife. Why would Sansa need to know how to stab something? A contrived excuse to use 'Stick em with the pointy end'. It could have been a meaningful goodbye between the two sisters. No, catchphrase. Same episode 'Not Today'. To be fair I thought that one fit but its part of the trend. Thirdly, 'That's not me'. This is nonsensically brought up last season with Nymeria the wolf too. Why would Nymeria the wolf not go home to protect her family? Nymeria being a reflection of Arya. Again, seems to be their set up of Arya's conclusion. A lousy one considering Arya doesn't end up like Nymeria the wolf at all. But remember when that happened and people were wondering whether it meant it wasn't Nymeria at all? Well she reiterates it in 8x04 to similar fan debates as to its intended meaning. Why not just say something straight? Its not like anyone else knows that is what you said to your dad when you were pre-pubescent. It may need a bit more. The point is collectively these are all things Arya said when she was 11. I don't know about you but I don't want to be held to crap I said when I was 11. Why are the writers doing this? Can you imagine if Sansa was saying the same nonsense she said when she was 12? Sansa was allowed to grow. Arya remains stuck. The Hound has to tell us she has changed because she doesn't talk as much? To be honest I had not noticed a difference in that regard but I guess they assumed silence gave her some badass gravitas. 

    Your example of Frodo and Bilbo doesn't hold up if you think this is a positive ending for the character. Those characters were broken by their experiences. Going to the West was a purgatorial experience to get to heaven. Now Arya is an 18 year old woman in the show, she has been through a great deal and if they showed she was broken like Frodo then so be it.  Tolkein explains why he leaves, that scar he got on Weathertop was a continuing reminder of his trauma that would never go away. Arya doesn't have that arc, its meant apparently to be seen as the opposite, Arya was meant to realise her life has worth beyond her vendettas. That she was to live again. A Frodo like ending doesn't work for her. She is saved from a Frodo like fate.

    We do suspect the voyage is suicide because we know of 2 people who have attempted it and never returned. What else are we to think? Again, I'm not sure as to the agenda. I think her arc in season 8 was rather well mapped out until that curveball of a last scene. As I said before, I never really thought about her ending because the books don't seem to be ending. All I assumed is that she would be home. That she would be like Nymeria, having been cast out of home by her enemies she wanders the world, finds her place and family and never goes back. However we didn't see that. Arya's story didn't conclude. If we are to assume her story is still about finding home we either have to think she'll never find a place or her journey has only just begun making what we actually saw unsatisfying as a conclusion. Even Nymeria the wolf follows this trajectory, she's cast out of her home, wanders, finds a new one and a new family. Arya doesn't. She is cast out of her home, she wanders, she's still wandering with no indication there is an end point.

    I also read a criticism a few weeks back that stuck with me about how Arya rejects patriarchy but instead of being like Nymeria and instigating change she is exiled. She doesn't fit in, won't play the system, doesn't want to change the system and so she needs to leave.  Arya is probably the most overtly feminist character in the series, books and show, so that is jarring too. I hate this ending on a whole number of levels to be fair, I could be here all day. There is my agenda, to monopolise your time! 


  12. On 6/11/2019 at 11:01 AM, Ygrain said:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the show version of fireproof Dany was utilised exactly twice - burning teh evul mage who wanted to steal her dragons, and khal barbecue (discounting the pyre, as that was both book and show). Those were quite cool scenes, but in the grand scheme of things, rather irrelevant. Couldn't - and shouldn't - this special abilities have been used somewhere towards the finale? Say, Dany facing NK and Jon deciding for "the end justifies the means" and sprays them both with dragonfire. The following scene between Jon and Dany would have a lot of potential: "Hey, Jon, you knew I was fireproof?" - "Er...."

     

    ETA: I basically made this thread for brainstorming how Dany's fireproofness could have been utilised, so... any ideas?

    It was just convenience. They had to have her impress the Khals into submission. 


  13. 22 hours ago, John Meta said:

    What do you think happened when America was discovered? Many people left their families behind in droves, never to return. This happens even today, and happens constantly in life. And we don't even know that the Starks will "never return", for all we know they can meet up frequently - save Arya of whom it is still entirely possible she return after a time of exploring - as did virtually every person who ever took to the sea to explore. 

    Believe it or not, there are people who pursue their own path through life even when it diverges from the paths of their loved ones. They're all over the place. The only difference with our present day is, fast travel by means of cars and planes and such. But before those things existed, people would depart from the loved ones never to return.

     

     

    People usually feel forced to do that though. Talking about America, there were families on the Mayflower and religious idealists who felt like they had nowhere else to go but they knew there was something on the other side. It was a risk but they were an end point. Then there were the convicts who were forced over there.  But even then, a boat to the US takes 2 months in the 17th century. If you want to come back, its risky to cross of course but the option is there, tradespeople did it over and over. A lot of the original English colonies were set up by tradespeople. I can't think of anyone today who willingly leaves there family never to return. Syrian refugees?

    I think the problem here is the writing. It doesn't explain Arya's choice. She is reduced to catchphrases that don't mean much in season 8. She once said she was curious about the west, that is it. A passing comment to a stranger 3 seasons ago and we are meant to now think this is a life goal of hers? Not only that she has to throw away her previous primary motivation of home and family without explanation. Then there is the arc Arya goes on when she gets back from Braavos in becoming human again. The soldiers in season 7, Hot Pie, Jon, Gendry, Sandor, they reconnect her with who she is. So in her big revelation in 8x06 is to abandon civilisation and never see any of these people again? Not to mention the arc is about her choosing life after death and going on a voyage we suspect is suicide, the antithesis of choosing life. Its bizarre.


  14. She'll die at sea.  On top of her lines about not going back North there is the Robert and Lyanna parallel. She refused to marry the Lord of Storm's End and ran away to her doom. This is made explicit by these lines

    Robert- I only know she was the one thing I ever wanted. Someone took her away from me, and seven kingdoms couldn't fill the hole she left behind.

    Gendry- All know is you're beautiful and I love you and none of it will be worth anything if you' re not with me

    What they never made clear is why. Curiosity isn't enough to never see any of your family again.


  15. Cersei didn't inherit anything. She crowned herself. A council should have been called but of course she didn't. It doesnt matter to Dany because a usurper is a usurper regardless. To her there is no difference between Cersei and Robert


  16. Several things

    1. She was never accepted as Queen by the realm. Heck Rhaenyra had a more significant reign and she isn't counted. She sacked Kings Landing, that doesn't automatically make her Queen. This is why coronations are done, to make a show of your legitimacy and have Lords publically swear allegiance

    2. If we assume Dany was Queen and her heirs are legitimate its unclear how it would go. It most definitely wouldn't be Bran as he has no Targaryen blood. Jon outranks Dany and renounced his claim taking him out of succession, making her heir technically who she legitimised in Episode 4. Gendry, the great grandson of Rhaelle Targaryen and we are back in the Baratheon line. 

    3. There is no claim through marriage only by blood. Jon's claim comes from his father's blood. His mother's blood gives him a weak claim to the North as Eddard has 3 living children still. Were the situation normal the Starks could have married Jon to one of his cousins to create a Stark Lord. Bran can't just jump into the Targaryen line anymore than Dany can jump into the Stark line


  17. 9 hours ago, Raebo said:

    Ned’s siblings did not stay in Winterfell so why expect all his children to stay there.  They all have their on life to live.  Ned/Catlyn seemed ok with Sansa marrying Joffrey and moving south, Arya marrying a lord and moving away, Jon joining the Watch, Bran becoming a Knight somewhere, do not know about Rickon yet, Robb ruling Winterfell

    It is my understanding in medieval times for nobles, 1st born sons inherited everything, girls married and moved away, 2nd born sons might stay around in case something happen to the 1st born sons, any other sons moved away joining the military, etc..

    The pack stays together has a nice ring but not realistic as they grow older.

    Well half the kids of that generation were killed so only Ned and Benjen were left. When Benjen left to go the wall Robb had been born as well as Jon. There were three Starks in Winterfell at that time.

    We also can't compare situations because they didn't grow up normally. They have been shunted, separated and abused. They all end up by themselves and not only that, Benjen visits Ned, It doesn't seem like Sansa will ever see Jon or Arya again. Maybe we'd feel less like this if Brienne and Pod were with Sansa at the end or Gendry was on the boat with Arya. Their isolation is uncharacteristic considering the flow of the story has been about them being unwillingly isolated from each other.


  18. Cousins aren't considered incest in their world. Tywin and Joanna were cousins, no on cared. As you say, the Cregan Stark heirs seemed to be a case of consolidating claims and even then they weren't full uncles so there is some wiggle room, They are most definitely not in the Targaryen business.


  19. North- Sansa or Rickon. 

    Iron Islands- Asha

    Riverlands- Edmure

    Stormlands- Edric 

    Dorne- House Yronwood

    Reach- Someone through the Florent claim, maybe House Tarly. I thought it would have been Sam but it could be Dickon

    Wessterlands- Tyrion I guess but it is a cop out on the whole Castamere thing if he lives. I know it would enrage Tywin but still. Incomplete foreshadowing

    Vale- House Royce

    I've always saw the First Men reclaiming the Kingdom because of the consistent allusion to them and memory and them having done The Long Night before.


  20. 1 hour ago, John Meta said:

    "Depressing" is a relative term, but I think if you understand the character then you understand that this is a happy ending for him. When Jon was leaving Winterfell and was talking to Tormund about taking Ghost, it was subtext that they were talking about Jon, the White Wolf. So when they say "He'll be happier there" and "He belongs there" that's meaning to be understood about Jon.

    Bran repeats an idea that these characters are always "where you're supposed to be" and in the end montage this is where they are - where they belong, where they're happier for being. It's only depressing if the audience doesn't understand the characters and think to put their own idea of happiness onto them. After all, you know what they say about "one man's heaven.."

    Problem being, they have never shown us that the Starks would be happy to never see each other again. Where was that in the text? We are meant to believe that curiosity about the West or going to the Wall or being Queen matters more to these characters than each other? Where is that supported? We are left to suppose they really don't care about each other that much. 

    I think we all would have said that the trajectory of their stories was to get back home to each other. 


  21. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Drogo is Khal, she is merely Khaleesi, a position of no power at all.  He wears the trousers.  Once Viserys breaks Dothraki law threatens his unborn child he's toast and it's not in Dany's power to decide what to do with him.

    Dany has Drogo wrapped around her finger by this point. If she didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen. 


  22. 11 minutes ago, Sansa Stark's lemon cakes said:

    I think it's just down to our subjective stances on power, politics, governance, good and evil. Dany's character has been the benevolent chain-breaking compassionate queen as well as a power-hungry imperialist ruthless ruler and I think these tendencies have just weighed up differently for everyone. Though tbh I find it surprising that some are claiming the latter (negative) aspects of her just suddenly sprung up in season 8.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=asoiaf+is+daenerys+mad+site:asoiaf.westeros.org&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzkYPIqtfiAhUqTBUIHWhOD9cQrQIIHjAA

    Its not recent

×