Han Snow Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Viserys noted that Drogo was a disgusting savage and Tyrion clearly disliked the thought that he should bed a girl that young. So there's that. I don't take your fantasies from you, but what I'm imagining is Portman in the arms of my 18-year-old neighbor, and that's far less pleasant for me. I never actually read Romeo and Juliet, but I think that Juliet was indeed 13... and fucking stupid to kill herself over a man, if you ask me. Really, kids that young shouldn't get into serious relationships, lol. Viserys is authority on nothing. He himself wanted Dany. Tyrion disliked the thought but still got an erection looking at a 12 y.o Sansa??? You're saying that you have no problem combining these two things? My fantasy is one of 10 different scenarios that I already posted where Jon and Arya can be together on this and that other Jon/Arya thread. (and again I do not want them to be together like that) Just because you or me or anyone else find the thought of them Yuk (to quote another user from this thread) it doesn't mean George will not go there. He was more than willing when he conceived the books. The point is that there are so many different variables still at play that it's impossible for us to know where he'll take his work and his characters. All that we can do is analyze the published material and unexpected gifts like the leaked outline. And how they may still relate. People so stuck in their views come in and clamor how the outline is completely different than the published work, but as we look at it closely we see that it is not true. The bare bones of events are still more or less there. Tyrion didn't burn Winterfell, but it still got burned. Arya did not come to the Wall herself, but her proxy Alys did...etc. Jon and Arya together was the big romance of the books according to the outline and we really should search for clues and analyze their relationship so far to see if there is a possibility for George to go there. And you are completely missing the point when you accuse the users here to be paedo supporters just because they try to do so (analyze the text). Not one user implied that Jon wants to go there right now in his life and fuck his 9 year old sister. No one. Yet when attacking people for analyzing the text this is what you and some others resort to. I was mostly sarcastic with my last post because focusing on the current age of the characters and blind accusations of people supporting peados is ridiculous. I was trying to say that age is not an issue for George, Dany was 13 when the story started and already considered an extraordinarily beautiful WOMAN, not a child. Sansa the same. And yes, Juliet was 13. One of the greatest love stories ever written had a 13 year old as the main protagonist. Romeo's age was not specified but it's implied he is older (18 -21). Greymoon Love your post!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SacredOrderOfGreenMen Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Anyone here wondered if the love could end up being one sided, cause the sibling incest is not how Starks roll? And making a decision to pursue his path as Azor Ahai (perhaps even attaining the literal sword, if it is an actual sword as Elio and Linda think) will mean never seeing her again, and that would be his Nissa Nissa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Anyone here wondered if the love could end up being one sided, cause the sibling incest is not how Starks roll? And making a decision to pursue his path as Azor Ahai (perhaps even attaining the literal sword, if it is an actual sword as Elio and Linda think) will mean never seeing her again, and that would be his Nissa Nissa? No, their love can't be one sided, George already showed that (no matter what kind of love it is) but sure, one of the possible scenarios is that Jon or Arya choose the good fight instead of pursuing their feelings. And one or the other or both may die doing so. edit: p.s. Even though I think the show will not go there no matter what the books may do, here is a season 5 Arya: http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/1426092459/Maisie-Williams.jpg She looks more mature, so there is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SacredOrderOfGreenMen Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 No, their love can't be one sided, George already showed that (no matter what kind of love it is) but sure, one of the possible scenarios is that Jon or Arya choose the good fight instead of pursuing their feelings. And one or the other or both may die doing so. Ah, I'm referring to just the incesty-side, not the platonic part. But ah, pure speculation, so ignore me. But I am 100% certain that Arya will live, along with Bran and Sansa. Their stories have been a real coming of age, "House Stark reborn", and so it would be a waste of all their character development to die. They have to live and lead their House in adulthood really for it to all mean something, especially Arya "Wolf Queen Nymeria" and Bran Stark the Rebuilder. I've got a lot of meta on it that I can link you to, if you'd like. Jon, i'm not so sure about. I hold to the Bran the Blessed parallel, but I don't see particular reason for GRRM to have been so literal with it that it requires that Bran's half-brother die to destroy the cauldron that brings back the dead (the Heart of Winter in this case), so he could very well live. If he lives, well, we're gonna need a new Wall and a new Night's Watch, now aren't we? What else is he gonna do? Anything else feels a little anti-climactic after all this "heroic sacrifice for an ungrateful realm" business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Ah, I'm referring to just the incesty-side, not the platonic part. But ah, pure speculation, so ignore me. But I am 100% certain that Arya will live, along with Bran and Sansa. Their stories have been a real coming of age, "House Stark reborn", and so it would be a waste of all their character development to die. They have to live and lead their House in adulthood really for it to all mean something, especially Arya "Wolf Queen Nymeria" and Bran Stark the Rebuilder. I've got a lot of meta on it that I can link you to, if you'd like. Jon, i'm not so sure about. I hold to the Bran the Blessed parallel, but I don't see particular reason for GRRM to have been so literal with it that it requires that Bran's half-brother die to destroy the cauldron that brings back the dead (the Heart of Winter in this case), so he could very well live. If he lives, well, we're gonna need a new Wall and a new Night's Watch, now aren't we? What else is he gonna do? Anything else feels a little anti-climactic after all this "heroic sacrifice for an ungrateful realm" business. My problem with this position you took, that you are 100% sure what is going to happen is that if you are not George himself than you have already lost it. The position, the argument around it. You can speculate but you can not know, or be certain of anything. ASOIAF is a beautiful garden with gorgeous (well, for the reader) history. And yes, there is certainly a Circle motif to it, the Ouroboros in this saga is strong. So that particular character shares the traits of this historical hero, and this one of that one and that one of this one and so on... But is the cycle suppose to be broken? The characters "are" their fathers sons and their mothers daughters but are they suppose to break the molds in which they are trapped? In a way this thread's topic can be observed from that perspective. Jon representing his father Rhaegar and Arya representing Lyanna. The pact of Ice and Fire finally coming true, a marriage between Starks and Targaryens (and they live and rule). Maybe that is the point of their potential romance. The song of Ice and Fire is their love. But no, until we have the saga finished, or at least the next book on our tables, or the end of the show (to a lesser degree, at least with the romances), we should not be certain of any outcome that We and not George have imagined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lojzelote Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It's funny how from reading the same books people get completely different impressions. I've always thought that Arya is 95% screwed, Dany 70%, Jon and Tyrion 50%, and Sansa and Bran probably safe. Anyway, I'm not going to comment on the Jon/Arya issue anymore. Personally I find the whole concept of it disgusting and nonsensical, from Arya's low age through their sibling relationship to the unlikelihood of that match due to politics, and I hope George gave up on that idea long time ago when he created/fleshed out Cersei/Jaime, which was at least honest and not de-edged by the lame excuse that they're biologically only cousins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SacredOrderOfGreenMen Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 My problem with this position you took, that you are 100% sure what is going to happen is that if you are not George himself than you have already lost it. The position, the argument around it. You can speculate but you can not know, or be certain of anything. ASOIAF is a beautiful garden with gorgeous (well, for the reader) history. And yes, there is certainly a Circle motif to it, the Ouroboros in this saga is strong. So that particular character shares the traits of this historical hero, and this one of that one and that one of this one and so on... But is the cycle suppose to be broken? The characters "are" their fathers sons and their mothers daughters but are they suppose to break the molds in which they are trapped? In a way this thread's topic can be observed from that perspective. Jon representing his father Rhaegar and Arya representing Lyanna. The pact of Ice and Fire finally coming true, a marriage between Starks and Targaryens (and they live and rule). Maybe that is the point of their potential romance. The song of Ice and Fire is their love. But no, until we have the saga finished, or at least the next book on our tables, or the end of the show (to a lesser degree, at least with the romances), we should not be certain of any outcome that We and not George have imagined. If you want to treat the idea of "100%" with that level of literalness, then the discussion would become meaningless, and we'd also be delving super off-topic here. It's also imaterial that I have typed and retyped so many times, i'd prefer if we use my prior work as a jumping board without needing to reinvent the wheel. I will send you some links and if you would like you can respond, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyBee Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I’ll write it in topics to avoid sidetracking, so...:I couldn’t be happier since the letter became public for one specific reason. For quite a long time I felt that I was mad since I was seeing things about Jon and Arya that nobody else saw and it didn’t even take a rereading for me to notice them. Although if they will or not be an endgame is debatable, at least now seems to be crystal clear that they have a good chance. The basis for a potential romances are there since the first book as it was exposed to exhaustion in this discussion.I noticed that there are basically two major arguments against the couple: age gap/pedophilia and the incestuous part which would make the possible relationship just to “gross” (How they still can read the books while having so many moral issues with this topics remains a mystery to me). Although I agree with the point that Arya at the age of 12-13 would be too young to ever engage in a sexual relationship in our society, it was also very clear to me that the books don’t follow our contemporary moral. It takes place in a medieval inspired universe and for better references regarding the definition of adulthood one should look for History Books. Many girls would be married by this age during medieval era and the highest the rank the earlier the marriage would be. For some historical examples I can list Margaret Beaufort (mother to Henry Tudor) and Dona Carlota Joaquina (queen of Portugal, consort to Don João VI of Portugal, married at the age of 10). Even in the books girls around this age are already considered woman, as many of you had pointed.As for the “incestuous” part, although I agree that the time they have spent believing to be siblings would most definitely hold them back for a while, I also understand that at the time they finally reunite they would be completely different characters. There will be a good deal of denial and resistance to the idea, but so far every woman that Jon demonstrate a romantic/sexual interest had something that would made him connect with Arya and the contrary is also true if you consider how many times Arya compared Gendry with Jon. I bet the moral issue wouldn’t last much and even if it did they could end up in a situation where the decision of a marriage wouldn’t be based in romantic feelings, but in political necessity (which I believe is much more likely to happen, especially because along with the political maneuver they would actually have an alibi to act upon their feelings and avoid any further questions about the previous nature of their relationship).Someone in this topic actually made a list with the woman of highest rank that could be a suitable to be Jon’s queen/consort, but the person marked Arya as being kind of married to Ramsay Bolton. Here I have to disagree. Arya Stark is not married, Jayne Poole is and there are characters that can confirm it, being Theon only one of them. Sansa on the other hand was a much more public persona and there’s a whole court that can confirm that she married Tyrion (if the marriage was not consummated and therefore is null it’s another matter and I have no way to say if in Westeros that would set the basis for an annulment).I truly believe that either if Jon is to claim the throne for himself or try to usurp Winterfell somehow, Arya would play a huge part in it. In the first case especially, she would be probably the most valuable bride available to anyone with royal ambitions since she is related with the Tullys, the Arryns, the Lannisters (thanks to Sansa’s marriage) and being a Stark. This is basically Lord Rickard Stark’s Southern Ambition taking shape and if Rickon got marry Shereen (for example), the Baratheons would also come along if Stannis is really dead at this point. Five major houses connected, for a country in civil war this sounds like a good way to start solving the conflicts. Remember that Dany has dragons and Unsulieds, Aegon has the Golden Company and Dorne (potentially), if Jon is to fight them for the throne he will need this connections and the internal support they can provide to stand a chance against them. For me this union is connected to the symbolism in the swords and arms quote and reinforces the cyclical element of the story.I never really believed that if they got married it would be for love. I truly believe that the romantic/sexual feeling would come after that (or realized after that). All marriages that happened for love ended up really bad in the books, but a marriage that starts out of duty might turns into a union based on love and respect (think of Ned and Cat). For me is clear that anyone aspiring for the throne has to think about succession and the sooner the better, Jon and Arya would have to be very objective and conscientious of their roles at such a point.I love the arguments about the wolves, especially regarding the mating ritual. I believe that this symbolism is just too strong to be neglected.Someone argued that Jon and Arya wouldn’t be endgame because the show never hinted that possibility. I personally believe that there are two reasons for this. First: Massie wasn’t 18 yet and nobody is willing to face legal problems because of that; second: Jon and Arya are too distant from each other and most of their feelings about each other were not vocalized. It’s very much about memories and the constant thoughts about each other, which makes it very difficult to translate to another media. Massie almost 18 now and Jon’s arc is heading to the part where he openly talks about Arya. Since last season Massie and Kit have been attending to a lot of events together, and there are several pictures of them posing near each other in a very carefree way. I’m not saying that this is actually happening, but if I were a producer dealing with a couple that could be that much controversial in my show, having them going to the same events and being photographed in an almost “couple like” way, would be a nice way to make people to get used to the idea, or at least don’t find it to shocking if they ever get to act like this in the show.Random shit about cousins’ relationships. I’m Brazilian and in my country, although opinions about the subject are rather heterogenic, we have two popular sayings about it. One is “a cousin’s love is forever” and the other one is “God created the cousins for us to not fuck our sisters/brothers”. :laugh:Forgive me for any mistakes in spelling or grammar. English is not my first language. I hope it was clear and easy to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ned's Little Girl Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I noticed that there are basically two major arguments against the couple: age gap/pedophilia and the incestuous part which would make the possible relationship just to “gross” (How they still can read the books while having so many moral issues with this topics remains a mystery to me). We can have moral issues with these topics because nobody is required to throw their moral beliefs out the window when they read novels. Readers are not blank slates. Furthermore, it's perfectly possible for a reader to acknowledge the realities that are present in a fictional work and at the same time regard those realities as icky. It's not a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyBee Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I didn't meant it as an insult, but I really find it confusing when people use these arguments to justify why this or that event shouldn't happen in the book when similar situations had already happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Turtle Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 ... Hi, welcome at the forum! Jon and Arya marrying without or before acknowledging their feelings for each other, or still in denial phase is certainly possible. One thing not discussed much around here is that Arya could have been named before Jon in Robb's will. I know he believed her dead and I would never deny it, but I think Robb could have done it as a gesture to his grieving mother, thinking that when the girl is dead it would do no harm. He never mentioned her in his speech before signing and it could be one of reasons Stoneheart is looking for her. I listed Arya as married because if Asha's marriage is binding (and according to Stannis and Asha it is) than we can't safely say Arya's isn't. Though I believe that if someone doesn't make her a widow before she returns to Westeros she would most likely take care of it herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowCat Rivers Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Re the political reasons for a relationship (marriage, in this case), not saying that it's out of the question but, that would render it insignificant --and therefore, omissible-- within the expected series length. To explain why: If we accept that the series climax will be the final stages of a war against the Others (which is a reasonable assumption, IMO) then I don't believe we are going to see much of the aftermath developements in detail: it's "a dream of Spring"... I believe that what we'll have, at most, is a "closing titles" type of narration that would roughly sketch the characters' post-series fates. So, if the above estimation is true, then the author won't be writing a relationship for the characters, he'll just leave it to his readers' imagination, to be grossed out, or content or indifferent - it wont matter: it won't be the author's. It won't have had any contribution to the characters or to the plot developement, as there won't be any more developement. From a literary perspective, it would be almost useless. Unless of course, the political struggles go along, simultaneously and interconnected to the supernatural ones - but in that case, the later would be severely downplayed, too much for it to be the climatic ending to a series such as this one has been so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Duncan The Average Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Random shit about cousins’ relationships. I’m Brazilian and in my country, although opinions about the subject are rather heterogenic, we have two popular sayings about it. One is “a cousin’s love is forever” and the other one is “God created the cousins for us to not fuck our sisters/brothers”. :laugh: :lmao: Oh, and welcome to the forums. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Turtle Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 If we accept that the series climax will be the final stages of a war against the Others (which is a reasonable assumption, IMO) then I don't believe we are going to see much of the aftermath developements in detail: it's "a dream of Spring"... I actually think that the books will end even sooner at the beginning of the fight of the Others, at the moments when a strong alliance supposed to fight them is formed, whole Westeros united and prepared to fight or when some miracle weapon is found, Wall rebuild or something like this. This fight could take generations. Though I may be very well wrong, this is based only on a feeling. Personally I do not have any strong idea which form Jon/Arya romance will take. There are clear hints that Arya will be his queen, but if it will start with romance, duty, meeting when one is wearing different face or even the wolves I do not know. Marriage actually can be related to the supernatural element of the story too, with the whole "There always must be a Stark at Winterfell" stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowCat Rivers Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I actually think that the books will end even sooner at the beginning of the fight of the Others, at the moments when a strong alliance supposed to fight them is formed, whole Westeros united and prepared to fight or when some miracle weapon is found, Wall rebuild or something like this. This fight could take generations. Though I may be very well wrong, this is based only on a feeling. In that case, the Others would feel like a red herring of sorts, giving the series an almost complete gravitation towards the political aspect: the narrative climax would be the hero becoming king, not the hero saving the realm. That, ironically, would put the cart before the horse, as the author said via Davos. ETA - but I agree with the hints part, obviously :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 The grand narrative was already explained by Osha in AGoT, when she said that Robb was marching the wrong way. People should have united against the common threat but Wot5K happened. George promised us the Second Dance. So, I think we will see that Dany and fAegon will consume whatever survived the Wot5K. A dragon or two will be killed in the civil wars while things get worse and worse in the North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lojzelote Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I promised I won't post about Jonrya on here anymore... and I'm not going to, but I have a question regarding the direwolves: perhaps someone could point me to a thread discussing the roles of the direwolves in the pack? Because I'm puzzled by the claim that Ghost is an alpha, while in fact he was always presented as the one set apart, who was driven away by the others or crawled away on his own accord, i.e., the lone wolf (who probably dies... most likely due to his stupid master getting himself killed... so that idiot can return to own body and get into touch with his other side... maybe). Also, I've always thought there was something more to Ghost than the other direwolves... he had open eyes since the beginning, he contacted Jon telepatically the first time they met, he found the obsidian, he betrayed Jon's location to his friends at the end of AGoT, he's always silent (as if he was keeping secrets),... it's kinda disquieting, as if he was aware of more than an animal should, more than instincts... I've once read a theory that he's Bloodraven's vessel, which would be creepy, if true. So I never really viewed him as one of them. I think he's sort of an outsider, not because he's lesser, but because he's different. More self-aware than the rest. :dunno: (Also have you seen this? I hope George will donates them enough to spoil them rotten. They're sooooo damn precious. :wub: ) I think we can safely say that the War for the Dawn is in. George has referred to it as the third act of the series, hasn't he? It would make little sense to leave it out after blueballing as with it for seven freaking books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Turtle Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 In that case, the Others would feel like a red herring of sorts, giving the series an almost complete gravitation towards the political aspect: the narrative climax would be the hero becoming king, not the hero saving the realm. That, ironically, would put the cart before the horse, as the author said via Davos. ETA - but I agree with the hints part, obviously :) Dunno, if it ends in the moment when every important character acknowledges that Others are threat n.1 and joins the fight. Because I'm puzzled by the claim that Ghost is an alpha, while in fact he was always presented as the one set apart, who was driven away by the others or crawled away on his own accord, i.e., the lone wolf (who probably dies... most likely due to his stupid master getting himself killed... so that idiot can return to own body and get into touch with his other side... maybe). Also, I've always thought there was something more to Ghost than the other direwolves... he had open eyes since the beginning, he contacted Jon telepatically the first time they met, he found the obsidian, he betrayed Jon's location to his friends at the end of AGoT, he's always silent (as if he was keeping secrets),... it's kinda disquieting, as if he was aware of more than an animal should, more than instincts... I've once read a theory that he's Bloodraven's vessel, which would be creepy, if true. So I never really viewed him as one of them. I think he's sort of an outsider, not because he's lesser, but because he's different. More self-aware than the rest. :dunno: I think that Bloodraven could be warging Ghost from time to mime. As for being alfa, personally I do not think he is, yet, but Nymeria as maybe the only one seems to follow him, and he could became leader if he starts a new pack. As for threads, Mladen's has been already listed. (Personally I disagree with a lot of what is written there) and I found this http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/112135-which-direwolf-is-the-most-powerful/ and this http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/88175-any-theories-regarding-jons-direwolf/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyBee Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't really believe that the political part of the plot will be ignored during the Others War, but certainly it won't be the focus of the narrative. A political marriage could still take place as a precaution to latter events (specially because of the need to secure the succession). I believe that the construction of the relationship will be very significant and we will get to see them acting upon their feelings, but there will be a good few chapters dedicated to denial, very much like happened with Jon and Ygritte. In that case, a political marriage would play an interesting part by given them an excuse to ease their consciences.I understand what you said about Asha's marriage, but they are not the same thing (now is the lawyer me talking). What happened with Asha was a marriage by proxy in which her legal responsible (most important male relative that she has) gives her in marriage. Euron is the one with total authority to decide about every member of his family especially those considerate as incapable and this is not questioned in any moment, mostly because woman are seen as such. Euron represents Asha's family wish. In the case of FArya, there isn't a Stark family anymore to say that the union was something they wished or agreed to happen, there is only a girl they say is Arya Stark. This is exactly why they need Theon so much. He is not her family, he can't say that the marriage was the Starks's wish, but he can say that the girl is Arya Stark, therefore "Arya" could answer for herself. Jayne Poole couldn't answer in Arya's behalf, nor Ramsay would have married a girl who was not Arya Stark (or at least one that couldn't pretend to be). I hope that you can understand my point. The legal concepts seem to be clear in my mind, but I'm not always able to expose them in a coherent way.When IceTurtle talk about the possibility of Arya having some kind of preference over Jon in Robb's will, I agree that this is possible. The point is that Robb would be aware of the fact that as a women she would face difficulties in being accepted as a military leader and ruler. She would Queen In The North/Lady of Winterfell but many would question her position as Warden. This role would have to be fulfilled buy a man, one that Robb could trust, creating something very much like an alpha couple dynamics. Arya would be able to rule, but the warfare would be Jon's role to avoid any kind of insubordination. That would even be an obstacle to any man Arya might take as husband to extend his influence in the North. The guy would always have to face Jon standing behind her to guarantee her position. The closest thing to this that happened in British History is Mary Tudor x Philip of Spain. She was queen during a very turbulent moment in her country and Philip represented all the military support of Spain behind her.Thanks all of you to welcome me in this forum. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 The game does not stop for the apocalypse. The game does not stop for any reason. And if mankind perishes it will be picked up by cockroaches. I have very little doubt in my mind that the Others will have willing collaborators, through both ambition and fear, some will try to keep their tails out of it, some will fight over the best way to fight the Others, some will lump wargs, northmen and wildlings along with the Others and fight everyone and even those who are fighting the other will keep half an eye on gaining an edge for when the whole affair ends. The Others are probably scheming against one another over who gets the freshest wights, or who has the nicest icicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.