Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sweetsunray

  • Rank
    House Rave, For the Critical Watch

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

20,858 profile views
  1. Oh, and what were those poor Free Folk and Wun Wun doing in front of the weirwood north of the Wall? They were waiting, and dying. It seems to me that Free Folk who believe in the old gods, wish that if they do end up with a spirit in a tree it should be a weirwood tree. Are you that short sighted? I'm sorry, Lollygag, but I did expect you to understand the point about the lying in front of weirwoods better. I didn't think I'd need to spell that out for you, line by line, with a whole scenario. It's a sign of your prejudice on this subject and irrationility, because otherwise you have astute reading abilities. Nowhere did I say someone would be executed for lying, and that is not what the scene, Jon's words or Mormont's words imply. Say, you catch someone who raped your granddaughter, or at least he's accused of doing so. But he cries innocence. That he didn't do it. You drag him in front of a weirwood, and the greenseer will see whether that man speaks the truth or not. That's why you cannot lie in front of a weirwood. It knows the truth. It sees the truth. And in that sense, the tree might be your saviour as much as it may be the undoing. If the accused falsely denies having raped the granddaughter, then the greenseer via weirwood tree will expose him to be guilty of it, and I guess he will executed for it (not for lying, but the raping). If the accused rightfully denies having raped the granddaughter, the greenseer via weirwood tree will reveal his innocence too, and he'll be set free. It is quite clear that you are completely irrational about this, since this never ever occurred to you. Which is not surprising to me, as I've discovered most readers arguing "evil sacrifice!!!!!!" do, when I point out the inconsistencies or how they insert human sacrifice just because "EEK a skull!!!!!!" and "EEK a big tree!". Pity. That it's blinding you so much that you consider it barbaric before a weirwood and then MUST be human sacrifice, but have it in front of a howling crowd crying for blood isn't barbaric at all.... that's whitewashing... that's boring according to you. Yes, we disagree a great deal on all of this: I find executions barbaric, period, even when you actually have the weirwood as lie detector to confirm how guilty the person is. I find sticking people a needle in their arm to execute them, after a trial and appeals, also barbaric. The games in Rome were as barbaric to me as the Etruscan religious ritual behind it was. Neither the reason (except for self defense or euthanasia/mercy), nor the method makes me think of the killing of a person as less barbaric at the crux of it all. In other words, I don't need it to be a human sacrifice to consider it barbaric. And I see more mercy in Bran than the greenseers and Starks of old long before him when it comes to a man who indeed is guilty. That you consider reframing the purpose why someone dies - justice - whitewashing says a lot in that respect, not so much about the Starks of old, but of you.
  2. It's not a rationalisation for sacrifice. It's an execution, and then afterwards he entrails end up in the branches of the tree. Which may have a display meaning like Joffrey wanting to see head on spikes, or something to do with the spirits ending up in trees. Just because someody calls it a human sacrifice hundreds of years later does not make it so. Yeah, but you miss out on the irony that it doesn't add up... like Garth and the threat about dying... but Davos lives, no? Our Garth (!!!!), our gardener was toying with your mind and Davos's. I never said the Starks can do no wrong. Hanging entrails in a tree is still a sick thing to me, as much as heads on spikes is revolting to me. And it's possible the moment when captives were executed for their crimes likely coincided with the harvest season, the summer/winter king concept. So, yes, I can accept that it was a mix of "justice" with "let's not waste this execution". But I will need actual positive evidence to that, rather than maester Yandel's claims or a label to an event that doesn't describe human sacrifice whatsoever. Because so far, any man I've seen die in front of a heart tree confirmed to be a sacrifice in actions rather than words, was someone who voluntarily crawled there, after sacrificing his life to save a rather unworthy man - maester Luwin. He was knifed too, but upon his own request. I find it eye-opening how much you call the justice aspect a rationalisation, when you know that the justice aspect of it would ALWAYS lead to executions, and are "harsh" and "barbarous" too. Why do you think I compare this to Joffrey stuff? Because most readers amongst us considered his actions barbarous. Did you not think Ned Stark's beheading on the square a barbarous thing, with the crowd crying for blood? Or Joffrey taking Sansa out and forced her to watch the heads of the people of her household, including her father, after they were put on spikes? Is that not barbarous enough? Or is it only barbarous when it's human sacrifice? In that sense it's eyeopening that you call me stripping off the claims of human sacrifice and reveal the execution aspect as "whitewashing Starks". Or that you consider that "boring".
  3. @Lollygag Oh, I know the World Book makes claims about human sacrifice: that the CotF and the First Men committed it. And I take it with a big grain of salt, because of the sources. Let it be these claims where maester Yandel hardly ever puts question marks behind himself. The maesters and the Citadel are not an objective source, least of all since the Andals arrived and were embraced by the Reach. The Citadel supposedly predates the Andal arrival, and was started by Peremor the Twisted, a child that was restricted to his room because of his handicap - a withered arm and twisted back. He was the son of King Uthor of the High Tower, the first Hightower King. He was bedridden for much of his short life but had an insatiable thirst for knowledge about the world, so he turned to "wise men, teachers, priests, healers, and singers, as well as wizards, alchemists and sorcerers". After Peremor's death, these "wise men" were given land and they founded the Citadel. Simultaneously Uthor was wed to one of the daughters of Garth GreenHand, Maris the Maid, before Argoth-Stone-Skin (allegedly a giant, but wouldn't be surprised if we'll hear of this figure at Skagos) got to claim her hand. In other words, Peremor was a grandson of a greenseer king. Did you notice any greenseers being mentioned in the list of people who satiated the thirst of knowledge of Peremor who was stuck in his room? I didn't. I did notice the mention of priests though, which is an Andal or Ironborn thing (both were anti greenseers). So, we have several things here that just do not add up. Basically Peremor is a parallel to Bran, or what Bran would have become if there had been no Wo5K and relied only on his maester's false beliefs. Why do the maester endorse this human sacrifice claim? They deny the existence of powers such as greenseers have. And well, if you don't believe in greenseers or their powers, then you miss out on the crucial aspect of what they would do via weirwoods, exactly as we see Bran do with Theon: forgive or judge a criminal. And if you don't know or believe the latter, then anything done in front of a weirwood must be explained as a ritual in gods you don't believe in. If that entail executing a man in front of a weirwood you'd call it a human sacrifice. And of course, us readers did not get any confirmation about the greenseer power via weirwood trees in Bran's last chapter of aDwD, after being fed prejudices for all the previous novels and in aDwD itself in Davos's chapters. And yes that prejudice shows Lollygag, when you try to frame the skulls at Whitetree as a sacrifice, and completely ignore the context in which it is shown. This skull is used to tell us two things: greenseers know when people lie in front of a heart tree. wildlings burn their dead to prevent them from rising like a wight, and always have done so. Now why is the first of interest? In which setting is the first of interest? As a trial! Oh and look, we even have a mention of the VS sword, like Ice was a ceremonial execution sword made of VS. You are INSERTING human sacrifice in this, and using misguided maester beliefs and Andal/Ironborn lies to support what you imagine in Whitetree. And you missed my point about the King giving the slavers to the freed prisoners, his people: what Ned Stark did in the first chapter of Bran is not exactly how justice worked in the past. And if it didn't work like that at the time of the Wolf's Den, then there's no reason to believe justice worked the same way thousand years before that. The sole ones we actual have evidence for on committing human sacrifice without any justice element in sight for magic powers or to please followers are Mel, Rh'llorisst Victarion, 7 maidens on a sloop set on fire for the god of the Ironborn, the 7 of the Faith and Rh'llor Dany to hatch dragons MMD potentially
  4. I fear this is because you see it in line with real world rituals of hanging stuff in trees for gods/spirits you know didn't exist. But here we do know that spirits go into trees, that a gifted person can see (past/present and potentially future) and communicate via the trees in the present. George has given us the manner in which the Andal Faith judged guilt: by combat. He has shown us how in the later centuries since the Conquering an alternative in human trials have evolved as an alternative to the combat. And how a King of the IT or a LP judges. He has as of yet never told us how First Men judged thousands of years ago. People just assume that Rickard and Ned Stark are saying how it has been done for thousands of years, and yet here we have a story of a Stark King not being the judge, nor the executioner. 6000/4000 years ago there were rapists, treacherous plotters, murderers, raiders, thieves too. And this at a time when villagers and petty kings had experience with the powers of a greenseer. Be very careful when George uses real world modern prejudice in another world. It tends to be something he uses to put the reader onto a wrong trail of how a society works. A good example of this is Seven Times Never Kill a Man. George is doing the same thing here: but here you are Nekroll or the Steel Angel, seeing what you are predisposed to see, without second guessing your own beliefs.
  5. The guy who told it lived hundreds if not a thousand of years later; before Manderlys (who follow the Andal Faith) ended up with the Wolf's Den in their dominion. Andals and maesters talk about human sacrifice but both have an agenda to declare it as such, even if the Manderlys are grateful and loyal to the Starks. Meanwhile non-Faith following Northerners have a personal interest in making someone shit their pants and believe the worst - scare tactics. Skagos for example: if outsiders believe you're savage cannibals performing human sacrifice and stay away or meddle less because of it, why change their mind? BTW did you take note that the King did NOT judge or execute these slavers himself?
  6. Indeed there are but few "federal" laws. Just custom on what are offences warrant execution. There are several procedures though: By combat (of seven), or a trial with one or several people being the judge, and indeed no evidence. We're not in the period of the enlightenment, but the feudal middle ages.
  7. There is a point - they're relying on flawed and corruptable judges. The sole true objective judge in this society would be a greenseer.
  8. None of what we witness or hear is evidence of human sacrifice, let alone exclusively human sacrifice such as the Ironborn do. What does Bran witness? An execution or human sacrifice? It being done by a woman with a sickle in front of a tree makes a modern reader presume it is human sacrifice, as the image fits our prejudiced imagery of druidic human sacrifice. However, unlike real world druids, in this world we know there are greenseers who can see the past through the eyes of a tree and communicate in certain ways via the tree. Bran communicated with Theon in this way. Meanwhile, in the bronze age, a sickle was not just a sacrificial tool only. It was a common tool to harvest herbs and plants while foraging. It is therefore entirely possible we witness the result of an accused criminal being brought before a greenseer via weirwood, having been judged guilty by the greenseer, with the woman who is trained to communicate with the greenseer via tree executing the guilty verdict. If this is the case, then the execution is no more different than Joffrey ordering Ned Stark to be beheaded at the square of Balon. If we were to see Ned Stark's execution in front of the Sept of the Faith thousands of years later by a gifted septon, would we then not also erronously assume that Joffrey and the Faith practiced human sacrifice? Moreover, the image of the past seems to have been used to teach Bran to be careful with the power he has as greenseer - do not take a life easily as judge. We see this have its impact when Bran interacts with Theon. Bran has every reason to hate and be angry with Theon. And Theon is guilty of severe crimes - throwing an innocent septon in a well to drown for a god Theon doesn't even believe in after promising he would harm no one if Bran surrendered the castle, as well as murdering two boys and make them appear to be Bran and Rickon. Despite this, Bran responds understanding and gentle at some point via the heart tree. What about the tales of the intestines at the Wolf's Den? Well that tale actually is not about human sacrifice whatsoever, but the execution of torturers and enslavers. Slavers sailed up the White Knife and captured people of the North, and had them locked up at the Wolf's Den as they waited for slaver ships to come pick them up. The Stark King rescues these people and hands these slavers (we all agree slavers are evil, right?) to the people they abused, and tells them they are free to judge and execute them. They are executed and post mortem their intestines are hanged in the weirwood. It's no more different than Joffrey having heads put on spikes for display. What about the burned skulls inside the hollow of the weirwood at Whitetree? The context of the conversation makes clear why these skulls were burned - to avoid people from ending up as wights. We also know from the Prologue in aGoT, Varamyr's Prologue and Tormund's account on how a son of his died that people just die from the cold that the Others send or accompanies them. There is no evidence that the people whose skulls were burned died as sacrifice. We solely have evidence that some people died and that their remains were burned and placed inside the weirwood. The NW burns their dead now too. Is that human sacrifice? We have confirmation that weirwood worshiping Free Folk belief that people's spirits live on inside the tree. And so that explains why the skulls are left there. What about Craster? Craster is a shit, who leaves his sons to the open elements to the Cold Gods, not the Old Gods. There isn't even a weirwood at his keep.
  9. Ghost also attacked Jon after he attacked Mully. In fact, while Ghost acted apprehensive towards Bowen Marsh, when he left back outside, after the meeting, Ghost was more aggressive to Jon hours prior to that. I don't think Ghost's aggressiveness that day has anything to do with conspiracy, but with what he smells coming with the wind. When Jon arrives at his quarters to hear that Ghost attacked Mully, he looked to the Wall just prior to it. He notices a snow sky. In other words, the snow sky is coming from north of the Wall. Ghost acts aggressive even to Jon and the raven is franctic shouting "snow!" over and over. When Jon follows Bowen Marsh outside and notices the weather turned into a blizzard, the wind is coming from the south. Later that day neither the raven nor Ghost are acting out anymore. Ghost is docile when he aims to accompany Jon out to the Shield Hall. Ghost and the raven smelled the coming of the Others that morning, until the wind shifted and blew from the south, and the Others ended up downwind. As for Bowen Marsh, I do agree that there was conspiracy talk, but no plan yet. It's the news of Stannis's loss that trigger Bowen to act then and there.
  10. This seems to apply to Jojen's fatalistic attitude. His attitude about nothing can alter the future I see (symbolically or literally) from happening, enables him to see his manner of death (according to him). I agree that Mel is able to see attempts at her life, but not the actual outcome of them in the flames. We can also apply this on what Jojen sees as future for Bran and Rickon at the hands of Reek... he didn't actually see both boys, just that they were dressed like them. Now, if Bran and Rickon had not hidden and gotten away from Theon, it would have been Bran and Rickon actually being killed (as it was Ramsay's plan to kill the potential Stark heirs as soon as he had a chance to do so). But they hid, and Ramsay managed to convince Theon to kill two boys and pretend they were Bran and Rickon.
  11. There's cognitive empathy and affectionate empathy. Psychopaths and narcissists are capable of the first: they "know" intellectually that it will hurt, anger or pain someone else if they do a certain thing. The last is the sensation of feeling the pain, anger and hurt another person would have. Psychopaths and narcissists do not have the latter (or barely a glimmer with the latter). Linguistically we refer to it as "feeling sympathy". Because they have the first, they can be sadistic: by knowing they will hurt someone, they get enjoyment out of it. The second will bar us from inflicting pain, because the emotional response is too strong. When people say that neither disorder have empathy, they mean the latter. In contrast, someone with autism will lack the first type of empathy, but has the second one. They have difficulty foreseeing they will hurt someone with their behaviour or actions, but can feel it acutely once shown the consequences. When it comes to empathy, people also often make the mistake that because psychopaths and narcissists can feel very sorry for themselves, they must be able to have affectionate empathy. But alas, that is the sole person they can "empathize" with - themselves. Except, we cannot count that as "empathy", because the point of empathy is that you can feel sympathy for another, not just yourself. This is exemplified in Cersei by her solely having sympathy for Jaime as long as he looks like her. Her empathic range goes no further than herself and someone she identifies as an extension of herself. This is the range of empathy a narcissist can have. And there is also a misconception that empathy itself is absolute - you have it or you don't. But once you have empathy it can actually exist along a spectrum. The range depends on how much they can empathize with a stranger - those they identify as being like them (Jaime, Joffrey in Cersei's case until Jaime looks no longer her image), close family, wider family, friends, neighbors, complete strangers they only know by name. When Arya puts people on her list for raping a woman she hears off only through a story told, her empathy spectrum is the broadest available. That is the range of affectionate spectrum of someone we refer to as an "empath". Most people have affectionate empathy towards people they know. To complicate matters empathic people, including empaths, are able to override their feeling response intellectually. We can switch-it-off momentarily. It's what most of us do, when we walk passed someone asking for coin. Even when people feel for them, they will rationalize why they cannot give that person an alm - no change, can't give to everyone, etc. And it's what Arya learns to do in Braavos for example. With Cersei, I'm more inclined to see her as a malignant narcissist than a psychopath. Even disordered psychopaths are more calculated and cool-headed behind their mask than Cersei is (Roose Bolton is an example). Cersei's coolness is the mask, but inside she's nothing like it. How differs a malignant narcissist from a narcissist? Add sadism to the narcissism, and of this we have ample examples with Cersei. As for the arguments on how to deal with the checklist of psychopathy of Robert Hare: Hare did not make the list to be seen as "absolute" yes/no. It's a scale that totals to 40, with a cutoff at 30. Someone who manages to acquire 30 is regarded a psychopath. That doesn't mean a 25 or even 15 is not a harmful human being. 30 represents the 1% of population range on the attributed. 50% of the population though score between 0-4 on the test. Machiavellists and narcissists would score highly though, but beneath 30. If you know that the average of the prison population on the Hare scale test is 25, you get an inkling on 1) how many convicts are in the psychopathy range in comparison to the general population 2) don't get personally involved, because if you are a 0-4 you're going to be hurt. Anyway, empathy is a complex concept and complex to measure. It's not enough to say "that character shows no sympathy". You must ask yourself whether they could have sympathy, but chose not to have it (sign of empathic person, switching it off momentarily). Likewise it's not enough to say, "they feel sick at the sight of a mangled corpse, so must have sympathy". Emotions are a higher level process than a physical sensation only. Without processing of the sensation it cannot be called an emotion and therefore is not regarded affectionate empathy. Instead of just feeling /being sick, we end up saying, "I am disgusted". In other words, there's a linguistic filter component to the concept of emotions, to differentiate our bodily sensations and responses between pure reactive physical reaction and a more complex reaction. This is a learned/experience process. Apply that to Cersei. We know she sympathizes with herself. Rather than choosing to not have affectionate empathy for people, she chooses to mimic empathy when it suits her. She may have bodily responses to seeing the worst results to another person, showing she has the wiring to spark the sensation that could result into affectionate empathy, but she does not do the processing.
  12. We don't have to take it seriously, because Mel's belief is proven wrong in aCoK, while Jojen's contradicting belief is proven right, regardless where that belief comes from. You're missing out on the double meaning of the word "crown". It also means "head" or rather "hair". Crowned or not, Myrcella has golden hair, and therefore is golden "crowned". What she reveals to Cersei is imagery, which may be symbolic. She's not directly saying "you'll have three blonde children, who'll all die before you," (the "known"). Strictly speaking you can deny it was seen, just because we didn't have Maggy's POV. But the circumstantial evidence piles up to "seen". Trees, (dragon/green) dreams, flames, shade of the evening ... all seen, not just known. And even blood is suggested to be a vehicle to "see", indicated by Dany's two dragon dreams (involving HER blood). Contrary to science we can assume in literature that if it is confirmed in 9/10 cases that it's visual, it's also true for the 10th case. The monstrous heart is also blue, like shade of the evening. It doesn't matter whether we see them drink the stuff or not. We know that drinking it turns lips blue within months or years. As an extension several lifetimes would turn everything else blue too. (on the side: both the "Shade" and the monstrous heart and the eating of a woman lured in to be eaten is a reuse of Sandkings) As far as George's commentary goes, kings or emperors are the same thing. He said that Valyria has no kings OR emperors. If you don't care what prevented Old Valyria from having kings or emperors for thousands of years, then why are you debating over it? I know the point is that they don't have such an office. That's my point just as well. Okay, so you believe that if sorcerers saw a crowned man with a monstrous throne of thousand swords and nineteen diminishing dragon skulls with purple eyes and silver hair, they would reject the notion that he could be Valyrian. I believe that the Valyrian features of purple eyes and silver hair along with dragon remains over generations would be sufficient evidence for Valyrian dragonriders to accept this is a descendent from them, as no common man from Lys could ever attain such powers; that the ungroomed state of the man, the various diminishing dead dragon skulls, and the architecture would have several speculate and conclude it shows a future where Valyrian knowledge and power will decline, and eventually that king or emperor would be killed too. And therefore they believed that if Valyria never has a king or emperor they would avoid both the decline of their society and the kingslaying. As a result Valyria never had a king or emperor, but the Doom happened and one dragonrider family set up shop on Dragonstone, and one of their descendants decided he ought to be king of entire Westeros, then later descendants had a civil war in wich pretty much most dragons were killed, the remaining small ones died out, and eventually a mad shadow of what was once Valyrian ended up killed by a man in gold and the helmet of a lion of the rock. Your insistence that Valyrians would never believe or fear such a vision and would not act upon is already belied by the mystery of them never having had kings or emperors for thousands of years, despite it certainly being in their personalities in at least one family if not every generation, proven by Aurion proclaiming himself as such after the Doom, and the mystery that they avoided dealing with CR, even before Lannister times. But that's okay. If you want to accept it as having no kings or emperors as "it is what it is" and don't believe such a prophecy existed, that's fine. I've done so for years, until I realized Jaime in gold killing Aerys and sitting on the IT could be the missing link to Septon Barth's claims. That it did not decline, would strengthen them in the belief that having no kings and emperors and stay away from having dealings with CR was the successful strategy to avoid a prophecy about the desctruction of Valyria. They were wrong. The destruction of the Valyrian peninsula occurred, without CR's involvement. Knowledge and wisdom was lost and the remaining dragonriders went middle ages. As for the argument about their roads still existing and that they are indestructible. Well that depends on how they were made. If dragonflame is part of the making and destruction, then it's because the dragons were dead or living at Dragonstone, why those roads still exist. I disagree. They're not "protecting" the savage Valyrian king, but preventing that Valyria itself falls to the wayside in such a way until it results in such a savage madman and dead dragons diminishing in size. I didn't claim they recognized him as a Lannister. For all we know, the prophecy was seen as a vision when the Casterlys still ruled the rock. However, Jaime wore gold AND had a helmet of a lion. An entire armor, sword and helmet gilded in gold and a lion. There's only one location that can splurge with gold that much and only one mine associated with lions - Casterly Rock. The rest is your opinion with which I disagree. No they wouldn't. Jaime is golden blonde and green eyed, not silver haired with purple eyes. George said "no king or emperor", meaning "no one guy rules over all". It does matter that Aurioni proclaims himself emperor after the Doom. It shows that the inclination and desire to be "the one guy who rules over all" was always present within individuals of the Valyrian elite. Something kept these individuals from doing so before the Doom, even amongst dragonrider families who were of the top tier power. You mistook my meaning of Aemon's interactions with Mel about the prophecies. While it's true that Aemon talks about Lightbringer in relation to Mel's claims, that's not actually what I meant. I mean this conversation: Aemon brings up the prophecy himself first, and links it to the war for the dawn. Mel calls him AA come again, and Aemon never disagrees with that. Mel and Aemon may focus on different things - she on the outward looks/signs, he on the purpose (war for the dawn, wake dragons from stone), but it's clear from Aemon's interaction here, and in his words to Sam about the dragon dreams and the prophecy, that Aemon believes both prophecies are about the same person. He calls it tPtwP, she calls it AA come again. He may go into semantics about prince versus princess in relation to dragons, but he never goes into semantics about AA come again or tPtwP. It may, it may not. We have the wordings of the prophecy, albeit translated and two titles: Azor Ahai come again or The Prince that was Promised, which I believe to have been originally worded in High Valyrian as "The Dragon that was Promised". Any other mention of dragons is the line "born amidst salt and smoke to wake dragons from stone". Neither mentions that the dragon must have three heads or that there will be three dragons. I certainly don't believe any dragonrider family in Old Valyria was sure which amongst them would birth the Dragon that was Promised, before the Doom. Only when the woods witch confirms this person (or persons) would be born from the line of Aerys II and Rhaella, do the Targs have confirmation that it is their line. I also don't think Rhaegar dragged the banner into it arbitrarily. We know Rhaegar was in contact with maester Aemon and that Aemon had dragon dreams, including the red bleeding star, as well as dragons in the snow. Aemon's dragon dream is the first dragon dream we readers have with prophecy content, content that matches Rhaegar's beliefs about Aegon being the promised one. So, I suspect that Rhaegar matched dragon dream info he had from Aemon (including whatever dreams Aemon's brothers had and relayed to Rhaegar) and possibly himself to proclaim the dragon must have three heads. I think the "three heads" thing is something that comes from a Targ's dragon dreams, and of Egg's generation or later. Doesn't matter what he originally intended to write. What matters is how he ended up writing it. Dany has 2 dragon dreams only: the first in her wedding chapter, but occuring before her wedding. The dream shows first Viserys abusing her, while she is pregnant, then he disappears and she births 1 dragon. We do not know yet what the dragon looks like, but he meets her eye. If we consider this a prophetic dream about her hatching 3 dragons by the end of the novel then that's problematic. She births only 1 dragon. If we consider this a propehetic dream about Rhaego then that's problematic too. He's born dead. If we consider this a bonding dream with one of the eggs that's problematic: she dreams it before she's even gifted eggs. George writes seemingly unlrelated stuff in chapters to reflect an event occuring to Dany in that same chapter. She herself hatches into a human dragon in that chapter. Dany the Dragon is born during the wedding. Meeting her eye is a sign of reflection and identifying. On top of that, Dany proclaims over and over that she is the blood of the dragon. the second is a continuation of the first dream. The dragon is black and red, still covered in blood. Her blood! (the blood of the dragon). The full grown dragon spouts flame, which she embraces and allows to wash over her. She feels stronger the next day and discovers the black-red egg feels warm to the touch. If we consider this a bonding dream with one of the dragons inside the egg enflaming her, then there are some issues with this: the egg is warm after the dream, not before. In later warm-egg scenes, it becomes clear that the eggs take Dany's heat, not the other way around. It certainly becomes evident during the hatching event at the end of the novel, that they hatch because Dany stepped into the fire. the dragons of her eggs are not of "her blood". The dragon magic inside her blood is. even if it's the dragon inside the egg, it ain't as big and as lively as the one in the dream and incapable of giving that much heat and strength to her. So, at the very least, you must then think of it as a "dragon spirit", albeit one encased inside the egg. how come it's a continuation of the first we already have to dismiss as a bonding dream, since she didn't have the eggs during her first dream If we consider it the dragonmagic inside her own blood, herself in dragon form/totem/spiritual, that matches with what is going on mentally and psychologically in that chapter. She was depressed enough to be pre-suicidal (considering it). When people hit rock bottom, they either discover a resilience within or they break. Dany finds the resilience within. Excepting Aemon's dream, other known dragon dreams have a dragon = character. It may be so in Aemon's dream too, but we do not yet know this. When her dragonblood gets hot, her eggs (ovarian or otherwise) get heated too, and ripen, and eventually hatch. That the dragon is Dany's own dragonblood, herself, her dragon nature/spirit/totem ties the puzzle pieces the best and does not force me to wave off issues surfacing with the more conventional explanations... that is I accepted those for lack of alternative for years, but a lot of consequences and contradictions surronding these explanations have bothered me immensely. I just gave up thinking too hard on it for years. When I insert a "dragon spirit" it solves those issues. Eventually, George wrote Dany first, and every other Targaryen or backhistory he writes afterwards, including prophecies and dragon dreams with other Targs. He wrote them to fit her, not the other way around. But we can use them to discover stuff about Dany. Ultimately, Dany is the True Dragon, more so than Drogon is. As far as George telling us explicitly I know you've read part of his backlog, but somehow you failed to notice that George never explains all. Examples - This Tower of Ashes, Seven Times Never Kill a Man, Song for Lya. Some stuff he explicitly leaves a mystery for the reader to make sense of. But it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to George. It just means, he's not telling us.
  13. yes, she thinks "weakness" is a flaw in either gender, but she's also written to believe herself the son in a woman's body that Tywin would have wanted, in attempting to hurt her female lover sexually as if she was Robert. Where she has the Blue Singer tortured for mere usefulness, her hatred for Margaery and despising of Falyse and handing her over for torture goes further than simply "use and discard". There is sadistic enjoyment in her thoughts and cruelty to women, which she lacks towards men.
  14. It is not so much Cersei receiving the payback of Tyrion's crime, as much as she has internalized the mysoginy and thought ill of these women and regarded them as either whores or trash to be used and dispensed with when convenient without another thought as much as her father or brother does. She feels those women got what they had coming and never stops to think that the men in her family regard her in the exact same way as the women she considers disposable. It also adds to the reader's conflict. Modern emancipated readers do not get satisfaction of Cersei having to do a walk of shame, Tyrion fantasising of raping her, or as proposed by Sleeper being strangulated like Shae. I despise Cersei, for her complete lack of morality, even to her children, but Robert's abuse, her walk of shame and Tyrion's rape fantasy are not justice of her wrongdoing.
  • Create New...