UnmaskedLurker Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 1. By the time of the showdown, "something very important to Rhaegar" would be irrelevant if. The KG knew Aerys had called them back to KL All KG guarding Aerys were dead or incapable of performing their duties Aerys had died along with his KG and Aegon was not protected There are too many if's to list. If the ToJ was swept away by a tornado. I am not suggesting that something did not happen between Raegar leaving and the showdown. I am saying nothing was shown to have happened in that time. 2. The duty to guard the king gets thrown around quite a bit in here. It is a lovely piece of fan fiction, that goes on to explain exact details of the KG and their duties and their vows. Some even throw in the chain of command. It often includes the KG always and the KG never would. These 3 KG had the same duties they did when Rhaegar left them there. Nothing canged. If you would like to insist they must have gotten word somehow. I respect that. I am pretty sure it is likely. However, it is not in the text. What the KG knew and when they knew it, is completely speculation outside of the showdown at the ToJ. The KG learned of the deaths of Rhaegar; Aerys,and Aegon. They learned of the flight of Viserys. They knew their king was alone. They were faced with seven enemies of their king. No duty they had can make fighting the enemy of the king breaking a vow, The KG die in showdown.-- I am not saying that I hold this to be what happened. I am saying that is all I can show happened. In that scenario, the KG were still at the ToJ because something important to Rhaegar was there. The KG died at the ToJ because something important Rhaegar was there. They died fighting for their king. They died at the ToJ because something important to Rhaegar was there. Something important to Rhaegar explains only the KG's location... it does not attempt to explain their motives. 3. Unless you invent a duty to flee to the king when the KG learns the king has no KG, nobody is telling a lie. Fighting the enemies of the king is protecting the king. you can't really spin a vow to cover that. The KG did not say flee with viserys to dragonstone.. They said Kingsguard does not flee. They said it, and they did it. How could that be considered a lie? 4. If Dayne was determined not to flee, he could say it honestly. there is no falseness to it. Yes the KG must go to the king. Nothing says they can't kill as many of his enemies as they can on the way to him. The KG could make it to Dragonstone without fleeing. They could fight their way there. You keep ignoring the context of the statement--making me go back and quote it in more detail. You make it so difficult because you make me restate every single part of the relevant analysis each and every time I expand on the old analysis. The context is that Ned asked about why they did not go to Dragonstone to be with V. Dayne says KG do not flee, then or now. Fleeing essentially means running from danger for the purpose of getting away from the danger. If they go to Dragonstone to be with V because he is king, they are not fleeing. If the go to Dragonstone while the king is still on Westeros, they are fleeing. So when the say they did flee "then" they mean Aerys was still here and they had been given a duty at ToJ, so they do not flee. At that point in the conversation, Ned has already discussed that Rhaegar and Aryes (and by implication Aegon) are dead. So why would Dayne add the word "NOW." GRRM would not throw that word in at random. The point is that both Ned and Dayne know that something happened in the intervening time--namely the death of both Aerys and Aegon. So Dayne feels the need to explain why this new information that Ned is giving him (assuming Dayne is learning this at that time for the very first time--which may not be true but for purposes of this discussion, let's assume that) does not change why they will not go to Dragonstone. Dayne is clarifying that to go to Dragonstone NOW would still be fleeing. If Jon is not born at that moment, it would not be fleeing. So if Jon were not born yet, Dayne would not refer to going to Dragonstone at that moment (i.e., now) as a form of fleeing. Consider the context. Ned is asking--why are you not going to Dragonstone to be with your king? Dayne answers, if we left for Dragonstone NOW, we would be fleeing. That response only makes sense if Dayne is clarifying that V is not king. At that moment in time, V is definitely not king only if Jon has already been borne. I completely disagree with you that Dayne would consider going to Dragonstone fleeing or would reference going to Dragonstone as fleeing if V could be king at that moment. It simply cannot be considered fleeing to go to the person who might be king at that moment in time. Dayne simply would not have referred to going to Dragonstone "now" as fleeing if V was or could be king at that moment in time. But Dayne was clarifying to Ned that not only was V not king when he first went to Dragonstone when Aerys was still alive (and thus they would not go then because it would be fleeing)--they still will not go to Dragonstone NOW because it would still be fleeing (because V is definitely still not king because Jon has been borne). I don't expect you to agree, but hopefully at least you understand my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygritte Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Dayne is clarifying that to go to Dragonstone NOW would still be fleeing. If Jon is not born at that moment, it would not be fleeing. So if Jon were not born yet, Dayne would not refer to going to Dragonstone at that moment (i.e., now) as a form of fleeing. Consider the context. Ned is asking--why are you not going to Dragonstone to be with your king? Dayne answers, if we left for Dragonstone NOW, we would be fleeing. That response only makes sense if Dayne is clarifying that V is not king. At that moment in time, V is definitely not king only if Jon has already been borne. I completely disagree with you that Dayne would consider going to Dragonstone fleeing or would reference going to Dragonstone as fleeing if V could be king at that moment. It simply cannot be considered fleeing to go to the person who might be king at that moment in time. Dayne simply would not have referred to going to Dragonstone "now" as fleeing if V was or could be king at that moment in time. But Dayne was clarifying to Ned that not only was V not king when he first went to Dragonstone when Aerys was still alive (and thus they would not go then because it would be fleeing)--they still will not go to Dragonstone NOW because it would still be fleeing (because V is definitely still not king because Jon has been borne). OT: Now I'm imagining Viserys writing an angsty diary a la that LOTR parody a while back. "Still not king." :rofl: It works for his time onscreen in the books, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 She [Arya] saw her father's face along the wall. Beside him hung her lady mother, and below them her three brothers in a row. Arya mentions seeing her family, the Starks, in her dream. Odd that it is " three brothers:" Rickon, Robb and Bran, and not four, leaving out Jon, her favorite sibling. A hint that Jon's isn't Arya's brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceFire125 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 She [Arya] saw her father's face along the wall. Beside him hung her lady mother, and below them her three brothers in a row. Arya mentions seeing her family, the Starks, in her dream. Odd it is " three brothers" Rickon, Robb and Bran, and not four leaving out Jon, her favorite sibling. A hint that Jon's isn't Arya's brother. Nice find! And it had to be Arya (Lyanna incarnate) to notice it. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygritte Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I also like the "may they grow up close as brothers" prayer from ADWD. If Robb and Jon are actually brothers, you'd phrase that a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You keep ignoring the context of the statement--making me go back and quote it in more detail. You make it so difficult because you make me restate every single part of the relevant analysis each and every time I expand on the old analysis. The context is that Ned asked about why they did not go to Dragonstone to be with V. Dayne says KG do not flee, then or now. Fleeing essentially means running from danger for the purpose of getting away from the danger. If they go to Dragonstone to be with V because he is king, they are not fleeing. If the go to Dragonstone while the king is still on Westeros, they are fleeing. So when the say they did flee "then" they mean Aerys was still here and they had been given a duty at ToJ, so they do not flee. At that point in the conversation, Ned has already discussed that Rhaegar and Aryes (and by implication Aegon) are dead. So why would Dayne add the word "NOW." GRRM would not throw that word in at random. The point is that both Ned and Dayne know that something happened in the intervening time--namely the death of both Aerys and Aegon. So Dayne feels the need to explain why this new information that Ned is giving him (assuming Dayne is learning this at that time for the very first time--which may not be true but for purposes of this discussion, let's assume that) does not change why they will not go to Dragonstone. Dayne is clarifying that to go to Dragonstone NOW would still be fleeing. If Jon is not born at that moment, it would not be fleeing. So if Jon were not born yet, Dayne would not refer to going to Dragonstone at that moment (i.e., now) as a form of fleeing. Consider the context. Ned is asking--why are you not going to Dragonstone to be with your king? Dayne answers, if we left for Dragonstone NOW, we would be fleeing. That response only makes sense if Dayne is clarifying that V is not king. At that moment in time, V is definitely not king only if Jon has already been borne. I completely disagree with you that Dayne would consider going to Dragonstone fleeing or would reference going to Dragonstone as fleeing if V could be king at that moment. It simply cannot be considered fleeing to go to the person who might be king at that moment in time. Dayne simply would not have referred to going to Dragonstone "now" as fleeing if V was or could be king at that moment in time. But Dayne was clarifying to Ned that not only was V not king when he first went to Dragonstone when Aerys was still alive (and thus they would not go then because it would be fleeing)--they still will not go to Dragonstone NOW because it would still be fleeing (because V is definitely still not king because Jon has been borne). I don't expect you to agree, but hopefully at least you understand my position. You keep ignoring the context of the statement--making me go back and quote it in more detail. You make it so difficult because you make me restate every single part of the relevant analysis each and every time I expand on the old analysis..Unmasked lurker I edited my response to address your specific concerns about your relevant analysis. The context is that Ned asked about why they did not go to Dragonstone to be with V. Dayne says KG do not flee, then or now. Context is 7 armed men hostile to the king the KG had sworn to protect approach the KG and parley The leader of the hostile armed group relates the fates of the family the KG are sworn to protect suggesting the KG should surrender or retreat. The KG reject the offer The KG did not say we do not flee to Dragonstone with Viserys.... The LC said KG does not flee. It's like me saying "I do not steal" it is a pretty clear statement. If you were to come along and add someting to it, the entire meaning of what I just said is lost. for Example "Cars." "I dont steal" does not equal "I don't steal cars." That little addition turned me from an honest person in to a questionably honest person. "i dont beat my wife" =/= "I dont beat my wife on weekdays" It is the same thing here." KG does not flee=KG does not flee. Fleeing essentially means running from danger for the purpose of getting away from the danger. If they go to Dragonstone to be with V because he is king, they are not fleeing. --unmaskedlurket 7 armed men hostile to the king the KG had sworn to protect Remember when you mentioned context. How is retreat from hostile armed men to a secure location not considered fleeing? Wow that is a new low.....http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flee... your definition smelled a little funny.the crossed out portion of the text was added to the dictionary for no purpose other than to make fleeing to dragonstone...into NOT fleeing to dragonstone because the purpose of the trip would have been to protect the king.. You added 9 words to a 3 word definition to prove a point... Not one or two or three or four.. 9... your definition required you to Square the original number of words and then add them to the original number... If the go to Dragonstone while the king is still on Westeros, they are fleeing.---unmasked lurker Just because you keep using the extra 9 words in your definition of flee does not make it more acceptable... so you recall you added essential before you added 9 extra words to the dictionary definition. The essential meaning is really 1 word-- run NO it does not matter where you are running. So when the say they did flee "then" they mean Aerys was still here and they had been given a duty at ToJ, so they do not flee. At that point in the conversation, ---Unmaskedlurker I see that you should not be allowed to try to explain what the word "flee"means... this is not a slip of the keyboard. It is not a typo or an honest ooops... it just keeps pushing. Ned has already discussed that Rhaegar and Aryes (and by implication Aegon) are dead. So why would Dayne add the word "NOW." GRRM would not throw that word in at random. The point is that both Ned and Dayne know that something happened in the intervening time--namely the death of both Aerys and Aegon. So Dayne feels the need to explain why this new information that Ned is giving him (assuming Dayne is learning this at that time for the very first time--which may not be true but for purposes of this discussion, let's assume that) does not change why they will not go to Dragonstone. I am not going to directly respond to this last blurb..... i can only think of one thing... FLEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winds of Winter blow cold Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Getting a little ugly in here...has a R+L=J thread ever been locked down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Getting a little ugly in here...has a R+L=J thread ever been locked down? The first 86. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Hodor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbon Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Just stop feeding it. Even when it lacks key data or outright lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 OT: Now I'm imagining Viserys writing an angsty diary a la that LOTR parody a while back. "Still not king." :rofl: It works for his time onscreen in the books, too! Lol, he could even add "feeling mangy" out there in the Dothraki sea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 She [Arya] saw her father's face along the wall. Beside him hung her lady mother, and below them her three brothers in a row. Arya mentions seeing her family, the Starks, in her dream. Odd that it is " three brothers:" Rickon, Robb and Bran, and not four, leaving out Jon, her favorite sibling. A hint that Jon's isn't Arya's brother. That's a really nice catch! Arya would be the last Stark to not consider Jon her brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygritte Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 That's a really nice catch! Arya would be the last Stark to not consider Jon her brother. And the "plausible deniability" is that maybe she's just dreaming of dead people, or people she thinks are dead, but I think it doubles as a hint for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenFire3 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Just stop feeding it. Even when it lacks key data or outright lies. :agree: A whole version of this thread (v.75 IIRC) was 'hijacked' the same way. The ignore button is the most effective solution. Now and then ;) She [Arya] saw her father's face along the wall. Beside him hung her lady mother, and below them her three brothers in a row. Arya mentions seeing her family, the Starks, in her dream. Odd that it is " three brothers:" Rickon, Robb and Bran, and not four, leaving out Jon, her favorite sibling. A hint that Jon's isn't Arya's brother. Love it. This tie in nicely with Ned not listing Jon among his children. Unbeknownst to him, both Ned and Arya are the closest links to Lyanna in Jon's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellfoy Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 She [Arya] saw her father's face along the wall. Beside him hung her lady mother, and below them her three brothers in a row. Arya mentions seeing her family, the Starks, in her dream. Odd that it is " three brothers:" Rickon, Robb and Bran, and not four, leaving out Jon, her favorite sibling. A hint that Jon's isn't Arya's brother. Good catch ! Which chapter is that ? But if Arya is thinking/dreaming of the members of her family that she thinks are dead, it's normal that Jon is not included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 :agree: A whole version of this thread (v.75 IIRC) was 'hijacked' the same way. The ignore button is the most effective solution. Now and then ;) Now it ends :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I don't know if anyone has seen this new interview with GRRM, but its telling what motivates him. http://new.livestream.com/nifff/GeorgeRRMartinMasterclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygritte Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I don't know if anyone has seen this new interview with GRRM, but its telling what motivates him. http://new.livestream.com/nifff/GeorgeRRMartinMasterclass Crap, I'm at work, I'll have to watch it later unless there's a transcript somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Crap, I'm at work, I'll have to watch it later unless there's a transcript somewhere.I would address the bullet points, but I'm hurrying to go to work as well. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Just stop feeding it. Even when it lacks key data or outright lies. :agree: A whole version of this thread (v.75 IIRC) was 'hijacked' the same way. The ignore button is the most effective solution. Now and then ;) Agreed on both points. Newcomers take note ;) Crap, I'm at work, I'll have to watch it later unless there's a transcript somewhere. Well worth taking the time to watch later! He is really a fascinating and entertaining human being :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.