Mistakes/Contradictions in the books?

[Raisin' Bran]

Just now, Lost Melnibonean said:

Every time I do that, when I try to post another comment quoting another post, I am stuck with the post I exited out of. 

I wondered if my solution was a little too basic for you.  Sorry to waste your time.

[Blackfyre Bastard]

14 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Every time I do that, when I try to post another comment quoting another post, I am stuck with the post I exited out of. 

Select the whole text and press "delete."

[RumHam]

2 hours ago, Blackfyre Bastard said:

Select the whole text and press "delete."

Just to expand on this, to select the quote I have to click just above the top left corner, there's a little box with a + in it. Click that then hit delete. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

3 hours ago, Raisin' Bran said:

I wondered if my solution was a little too basic for you.  Sorry to waste your time.

No, it was the same way I started. Thanks. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

Hey RumHam, that worked

[Walda]

Quote

The three Braavosi ships would bring the fleet at Eastwatch up to eleven, including the Ibbenese whaler that Cotter Pyke had commandeered on Jon’s order, a trading galley out of Pentos similarly impressed, and three battered Lysene warships, remnants of Salladhor Saan’s former fleet driven back north by the autumn storms. All three of Saan’s ships had been in dire need of refitting, but by now the work should be complete.(ADwD, Ch.44 Jon IX)

OK. So 11 ships

1 Braavosi cog (cf. ADwD,Ch.44 Jon IX),

1 Braavosi galleas (cf. ADwD,Ch.44 Jon IX) ,

1 Braavosi galley (cf. ADwD,Ch.44 Jon IX) ,

1 Ibbenese whaler,

1 Pentoshi trading galley,

1st Lysene warship (Goodheart? cf. ADwD, Ch.45 The Blind Girl),

2nd Lysene warship,(Elephant? cf. ADwD, Ch.45 The Blind Girl)  

3rd Lysene warship,

1st Nightswatch two deck war galley, Blackbird (cf. AFfC, Ch.15 Samwell II) 

2nd Nightswatch war galley, Talon (cf. AFfC, Ch.15 Samwell II)

3rd Nightswatch war galley Stormcrow (cf. AFfC, Ch.15 Samwell II)

but:

Quote

Calm seas today. Eleven ships set sail for Hardhome on the morning tide. Three Braavosi, four Lyseni, four of ours. Two of the Lyseni barely seaworthy. We may drown more wildlings than we save. Your command. Twenty ravens aboard, and Maester Harmune. Will send reports. I command from Talon, Tattersalt second on Blackbird, Ser Glendon holds Eastwatch.(ADwD, Ch.49 Jon X)

They have gained a Lyseni vessel. Have they lost the Pentoshi or the Ibbinese vessel?

I'm hoping this is a deliberate contradiction that Winds of Winter will exploit, rather than a careless mistake.

[Walda]

On 04/03/2016 at 11:17 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Describing a married woman as a "girl" feels odd. 

Perhaps she was a girl before she was a brewers wife?

[Walda]

Quote

Vayon Poole had arranged for Sansa and Arya to sail on the Wind Witch out of Braavos, three days hence.

(AGoT, Ch.45 Eddard XII)

 

Quote

“Please,” she said, “what ship is this?”
“She’s the Wind Witch, out of Myr,” the man said.

(AGoT, Ch.65 Arya V)

 

[Nevets]

Tommen's age is described as being nine by Sansa at her wedding feast in ASOS, but he is later described is being eight by Jaime at Tywin's funeral in AFFC.  I don't know if this is an inconsistency between characters or a mistake by the author.  I think eight is the correct age

Also, Podrick's age is variously described as being twelve, by Tyrion in ACOK (I think), and as ten by Brienne in AFFC, about a year later.  I think this is a deliberate inconsistency since Brienne admits to being bad at estimating children's ages.  I think his age is twelve.

[Lost Melnibonean]

“Osha,” Bran asked as they crossed the yard. “Do you know the way north? To the Wall and … and even past?” 

“The way’s easy. Look for the Ice Dragon, and chase the blue star in the rider’s eye.” She backed through a door and started up the winding steps.

When they lost their way, as happened once or twice, they need only wait for a clear cold night when the clouds did not intrude, and look up in the sky for the Ice Dragon. The blue star in the dragon’s eye pointed the way north, as Osha told him once.

A half moon was sliding in and out amongst thin high clouds, and Davos could see familiar stars. There was the Galley, sailing west; there the Crone’s Lantern, four bright stars that enclosed a golden haze. The clouds hid most of the Ice Dragon, all but the bright blue eye that marked due north.

[Lord Wraith]

Anyone else notice the 4th Kettleblack brother, Oswald?

Quote

"There's your poisoner," suggested Ser Oswald Kettleblack with a sly grin. "Too holy by half, that old man. Never liked the look o' him, myself." He laughed. - ASOS

Quote

Oswald Kettleblack was the first to laugh. Boros and Meryn joined in, then Cersei, Ser Loras, and more lords and ladies than he could count. The sudden gale of mirth made the rafters ring and shook the Iron Throne. "It's true," Shae protested. "My giant of Lannister." The laughter swelled twice as loud. Their mouths were twisted in merriment, their bellies shook. Some laughed so hard that snot flew from their nostrils. - ASOS

Perhaps a shoutout to this mistake in Dance.

Quote

Penny shook her head. "She never … it was a man who came to us, in Pentos. Osmund. No, Oswald. Something like that. Oppo met with him, not me. Oppo made all of our arrangements. My brother always knew what to do, where we should go next."

 

[evita mgfs]

“YOU SAW HOW YOUNG HE WAS”

From the Prologue in AGoT

Pronoun Shift, Dangling Modifier, and Skewed Logic

 

An illustration of Martin’s shifting from third- to second-person-point-of-view appears in a sentence that he opens with a phrase containing a dangling modifier.

 

Martin’s final shift is frustrating because the usually perspicuous Martin composes a confusing, illogical passage wherein pronoun usage errors are the compelling offenses.

 

Martin writes:

 

“Royce’s body lay face down in the snow, one arm out flung. The thick sable cloak had been slashed in a dozen places. Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was. A boy” (10).

 

The introductory participial phrase “lying dead like that” functions as an adjective and technically should modify the subject of the main clause [YOU saw how young he was], which is YOU.  Martin’s poor wording in modification is an oversight an editor should have caught; that is, unless Martin means more in his subtext.

 

“YOU”, or the reader(s), is/are NOT “lying dead”.  Ser Royce is the unfortunate chap lying dead.  The error could have been corrected easily with a little wordsmithing as follows:

 

“Lying dead like that, he looked young, like a boy”.

 

The next issue with the same sentence is the pronoun THAT in “Lying dead like that”.  The antecedent of “that” is unclear.  Martin narrows the scope with a few options:

 

A.   “Royce’s body lay face down in the snow, one arm out flung”.

 

B.    “The thick sable cloak had been slashed in a dozen places”.

 

C.    Both A and B

 

With Royce’s face down, Will cannot feasibly assess Royce’s countenance to determine that he “looked young, like a boy”.  After all, the face is the aspect people usually scrutinize when gauging the age of another.  So, if not Will’s face, the pronoun that may refer to Royce’s final repose and/or to Royce’s shredded sable cloak. However, neither of these options communicate that Royce “looked young, like a boy” when “lying dead”.

 

Will might mean that Royce’s spent corpse beneath his shredded cloak makes Royce look young, “like a boy” in contrast to Royce’s formidable stature astride his warhorse, where he towers over Will and Gared.  Thus, the once intensely driven ranging commander succumbs to the great leveler of all men, death.

 

Despite his name, his expensive wardrobe, his castle-forged longsword, his moleskin gloves, his ring mail, and his impressive warhorse, Royce is laid low by an enemy he hardly challenges in combat.

 

If Martin’s pronoun shift, dangling modifier, and skewed logic serve higher purposes, then perhaps the author wants “the readers” to note the “boy” who once wears the handsome features of Ser “Way More” Royce, who presents himself as antagonistic, vain, insensitive, and unreasonable, traits that aged Royce beyond his eighteen years. 

 

Readers sometimes forget, so Martin generously reminds them, just as Will is reminded of “the boy” in Royce. Moments ago, the knight engaged a White Walker in one-on-one combat as honorably as any Sworn Brother might have.

 

To emphasize Royce’s cyclopean views, Martin writes:   “A shard from his [Royce’s] sword transfixed the blind white pupil of his left eye” (11).  Royce’s narrow mindedness is evident as the commander is “blind” to reason; he belittles seasoned rangers and ridicules their wise counsel, yet he is a boy, a youth whose faults cannot be excused.  Martin creates characters just as, and even more flawed, than Royce, young people whose circumstances empower them before they have been adequately prepared to make good judgements, to lead others, and to respect fear. 

 

[evita mgfs]

Here’s another ill-worded passage – or not!

 

PASSAGE UNDER EXAMINATION/ANALYSIS:

 

“Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood.  “I let him loose.  He doesn’t like chains.”  He licked at his fingers” (AGoT 734).

“HE” is a vague reference.  There are two views of the performer of the action “licked” in the last sentence.  Is it Shaggydog who licks Rickon’s fingers? Or Rickon who licks his own fingers?

 

Grammatically, the passage contains prose narrative interrupted by a direct quote, a separate element with words set apart by opened and closed quotes.  See the example: 

 

“Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood.  “I let him loose.  He doesn’t like chains.”  He licked at his fingers” (734).  

 

The antecedent of HE is the subject of the “first” sentence:  Rickon.  “Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “Rickon Speaks”.  “He licked at his fingers”.  HE must refer to Rickon for three reasons:  it makes sense because “Shaggydog’s muzzle” cannot LICK at his fingers.  Second, “he” is a subjective case pronoun that stands in for a noun in a sentence. Third, Shaggydog has no fingers.

 

The ANTECEDENT for HE should be in the prose narrative that precedes the direct quote

[Walda]

On 29/03/2016 at 4:28 AM, evita mgfs said:

“YOU SAW HOW YOUNG HE WAS”

From the Prologue in AGoT

Pronoun Shift, Dangling Modifier, and Skewed Logic

 

An illustration of Martin’s shifting from third- to second-person-point-of-view appears in a sentence that he opens with a phrase containing a dangling modifier.

 

Martin’s final shift is frustrating because the usually perspicuous Martin composes a confusing, illogical passage wherein pronoun usage errors are the compelling offenses.

 

Martin writes:

 

“Royce’s body lay face down in the snow, one arm out flung. The thick sable cloak had been slashed in a dozen places. Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was. A boy” (10).

 

The introductory participial phrase “lying dead like that” functions as an adjective and technically should modify the subject of the main clause [YOU saw how young he was], which is YOU.  Martin’s poor wording in modification is an oversight an editor should have caught; that is, unless Martin means more in his subtext.

 

“YOU”, or the reader(s), is/are NOT “lying dead”.  Ser Royce is the unfortunate chap lying dead.  The error could have been corrected easily with a little wordsmithing as follows:

 

“Lying dead like that, he looked young, like a boy”.

 

The next issue with the same sentence is the pronoun THAT in “Lying dead like that”. </snip>

While the sentence does mark a change from third to second person, there is no ambiguity about who is lying dead. "Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was"

'You' is clearly (and grammatically correctly) 'seeing',  not 'lying dead'. 'Like that' modifies 'lying dead' and makes it clear that the subject [eta: of that clause] is 'he', not 'you'. GRRM uses parallelism in the structure of the first sentence, to hint at how the reader should interpret the pronouns and modifier in the third sentence. We know from the topic sentence that the body belongs to 'Royce', and 'like that' refers to the way his body is lying, 'with one arm outflung'.

The shift to colloquial language in the third paragraph indicates that we (the readers) are now not only looking through Will's eyes at the scene, but are also 'overhearing' Will's thoughts to himself. "You" in this instance is not a third person narrator addressing the reader, it is a first person narrator talking to himself, addressing himself in the second person.

Style manuals often recommend using 'one' rather than 'you' when referring to a generalized person in formal prose. When the intention is to address the reader directly, the style guides are divided. Some prefer 'you' because of the direct, active voice. Others regard anything other than 'one' as non-standard, and many suggest re-writing the sentence without the problematical pronoun. (as you demonstrated - “Lying dead like that, he looked young, like a boy”. ) 

In this case, however, Will is not writing an official report. Will is an illiterate man, thinking his thoughts to himself as he observes the scene. Will can't 'see' outside his own world, so 'you' is not you the reader. He is not speaking out loud to some sentient being in his own world either (for example, Gared, or a white walker). nor is he 'telepathically' addressing some in-world 'you' that exists outside his own head (For example, the way Tyrion does:- "You bloody bastard, you think Jaime’s good as dead, so I’m all you have left." (AGoT, Ch.69 Tyrion IX)).  He is expressing his thoughts to himself. and it is natural and in character that he does this in colloquial, direct language. Hence the editors let the sentence stand.

Will's use of the pronoun 'you' while talking to himself over a dead body also subtly reminds us, the readers, of how he is now all alone in a hostile environment, making himself seem a crowd in his own head.

Will's use of the generalized 'you' is in stark contrast to Ser Waymar, who uses the pronoun only to refer directly to the man he is currently interrogating. Ser Waymar's use of the word is correct, but it is not only communicating to the reader that he is well educated.

Ser Waymar's repeated use of 'you' in his interrogations gives an accusatory impression (which btw is one of the reasons style guides advise writers to be careful with their use of the generalised you.) Ser Waymar sets himself up in the powerful role of the inquisitor, and GRRM hints that Waymar is doing that because he is not only arrogant and entitled, but also inexperienced and secretly unsure of his authority, a little over-anxious to exert it, that  even here, more than a week out from the Wall, in the haunted forest, the need to demonstrate leadership and competence on this mission to his superior back at Castle Black is still uppermost in his thoughts. He thinks his men will not find out his ignorance, his uncertainty, his fears, his vulnerability, if he lards his constant queries with 'you'.

His use of 'you' also hints to the reader that Ser Waymar has little inner monologue, is not inclined to reflect, empathise, or imagine. He is intelligent and well educated, can analyse and deduce, trouble-shoot and problem-solve, but he is not apt to daydream or ruminate. Gared uses to generalized 'you' extensively to describe the effects of the cold on people in general, and to share what 'they' claim it is like to die of it. This uneducated, non-standard use of language is one of the things that show the reader that he and Will have shared sympathies, empathy, superstition, and experience.

Gared and Will have instincts, sensitivities, that Waymar lacks. Waymar mockingly refers to Gared's suggestion that the Wildlings died of cold as 'eloquence', one sign among the many that, logical and rational as he is, he is insensitive, with his too-loud voice, devoid of the instincts that might have saved his life.

The word 'you' is one readers tend to take personally, even when it is not being used to refer to them. It is involving, manipulative (one of the reasons why the second person is rarely used extensively - even a paragraph of "first you shiver and your teeth chatter and you stamp your feet and dream" gives the readers a sensation that they are being told how to feel and what to do.) In the prologue of Game of Thrones, it sets the reader up to empathise with Will, and Gared. The first 'you' that isn't one of Waymar's abusive, insulting questions, the 'You could taste it' signals that we are not just observing the world through Will's eyes, we are inhabiting his body, tasting what he tastes, feeling what he feels, sensing what he senses. 

The possession of Waymar's sable cloak is another way GRRM subtly shows us Will's frame of mind. The first five times Will notes it is 'his' sable cloak, but this changes abruptly when the Other appears. "He threw the long sable cloak back over his shoulders, to free his arms for battle" - the change of possession of the cloak from 'his' to the more neutral 'the' shows that, unconsciously, Will already knows the outcome of this duel. Dead bodies don't have possessions. There is also a faint hint  of  envy or avarice, both in the initial emphasis on 'his' ownership of that magnificent coat 'soft as sin'  and in the rapid change to the neutral state of possession, as if Will was mentally preparing to take it,  transitioning ownership from 'his -' to 'a -' to 'my -' cloak, before physically touching it. In the end Will doesn't take the cloak, or give it another thought, we don't know for sure that he ever got so far as to imagine taking ownership of it, still the hint is there, in the possessive pronoun and the attention Will paid to the cloak.

Your second 'ill worded passage'  also has the third sentence with a parallel structure to the first. Yes, there is always a danger of ambiguity with a sentence where the subject and object are both represented by the same pronoun (ie. "He licked his fingers"), but you teased out the correct meaning quite well in your last post, and analysed it nicely.

I would only add that rules like "The ANTECEDENT for HE should be in the prose narrative that precedes the direct quote " are more a guide to style than less violable rules of grammar.

It belongs with 'rules' like "Always use the active voice" and "never bury the lead". It is a helpful heuristic for developing a clear, strong. easy to read prose style, but there is plenty of prose that breaks these rules, and some of it is the highest form of prose in the English language. (For examples, look at any novel by James Joyce or Jane Austen, but not George Orwell - he had a prose style Strunk and White would wish on everyone). 

I'm not sure I would classify either of these as a contradiction or ambiguity, even though they have the power to confuse a less attentive reader. As you have shown, a close re-read. a few minutes considering all the possible interpretations, soon reveals  that only one can stand up to the scrutiny.

Rickon can't lick at Shaggydog's fingers, because Shaggydog has no fingers, Will isn't judging Ser Waymar's youth from his countenance, as he is face down, nor from his clothes, but he can tell from the position of his body. Both here and earlier, when Will describes the Wildling camp to Waymar, we learn that Will automatically, accurately, takes detailed mental note of the posture, attitude, orientation of any body he comes across, living or dead. This habit that demonstrates his competence as a tracker, and shows us the instincts he is bristling with are not only the fear and superstition of an uneducated starveling.

  There is no dangling modifier - 'he' is the subject of the sentence, not you, and 'you' does not refer to you the reader, it is the narrator talking to himself. 

These are not contradictions or mistakes in the same way as 'Oswald' is. In Storm of Swords, it is clear 'Oswald' is a misnomer for Ser Osmund Kettleblack of the Kings Guard, because in Ch.67 Jaime VIII, at a meeting where only the Kingsguard  are present, Osmund arrives, Osmund gives a lazy shrug, 'Oswald' cracks a joke, Osmund grins, Osmund tells Jaime where he has served, and Osmund swaggers out.

In Dance with Dragons, Penny cannot exactly recall the name of Oswell Kettleblack, Ser Osmund's father, but she knows it was he, not Cersei, that approached Oppo about the wedding gig, and that they were in Pentos, not Braavos at the time. As @Lord Wraith points out , the reference to 'Oswald' in Ch.33 Tyrion VIII is a deliberate utilisation of his earlier mistake on GRRM's part, and not really a mistake at all.

[Raisin' Bran]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 7:16 PM, Walda said:

paraphrased [Winds Witch out of Lys or Myr], Walda was not directly quoted

Vanyon Poole made arrangements, may have made a mistake

The man who answered Arya probably was mistaken or just didn't know, besides what did he care about a filthy orphan on the streets asking about a ship

[evita mgfs]

4 hours ago, Walda said:

While the sentence does mark a change from third to second person, there is no ambiguity about who is lying dead. "Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was"

'You' is clearly (and grammatically correctly) 'seeing',  not 'lying dead'. 'Like that' modifies 'lying dead' and makes it clear that the subject is 'him', not 'you'. GRRM uses parallelism in the structure of the first sentence, to hint at how the reader should interpret the pronouns and modifier in the third sentence. We know from the topic sentence that the body belongs to 'Royce', and 'like that' refers to the way his body is lying, 'with one arm outflung'.

The shift to colloquial language in the third paragraph indicates that we (the readers) are now not only looking through Will's eyes at the scene, but are also 'overhearing' Will's thoughts to himself. "You" in this instance is not a third person narrator addressing the reader, it is a first person narrator talking to himself, addressing himself in the second person.

Style manuals often recommend using 'one' rather than 'you' when referring to a generalized person in formal prose. When the intention is to address the reader directly, the style guides are divided. Some prefer 'you' because of the direct, active voice. Others regard anything other than 'one' as non-standard, and many suggest re-writing the sentence without the problematical pronoun. (as you demonstrated - “Lying dead like that, he looked young, like a boy”. ) 

In this case, however, Will is not writing an official report. Will is an illiterate man, thinking his thoughts to himself as he observes the scene. Will can't 'see' outside his own world, so 'you' is not you the reader. He is not speaking out loud to some sentient being in his own world either (for example, Gared, or a white walker). nor is he 'telepathically' addressing some in-world 'you' that exists outside his own head (For example, the way Tyrion does:- "You bloody bastard, you think Jaime’s good as dead, so I’m all you have left." (AGoT, Ch.69 Tyrion IX)

 

).  He is expressing his thoughts to himself. and it is natural and in character that he does this in colloquial, direct language. Hence the editors let the sentence stand.

Will's use of the pronoun 'you' while talking to himself over a dead body also subtly reminds us, the readers, of how he is now all alone in a hostile environment, making himself seem a crowd in his own head.

Will's use of the generalized 'you' is in stark contrast to Ser Weymar, who uses the pronoun only to refer directly to the man he is currently interrogating. Ser Weymar's use of the word is correct, but it is not only communicating to the reader that he is well educated.

Ser Weymar's repeated use of 'you' in his interrogations gives an accusatory impression (which btw is one of the reasons style guides advise writers to be careful with their use of the generalised you.) Ser Weymar sets himself up in the powerful role of the inquisitor, and hints that he is doing that because he is not only arrogant and entitled, but also inexperienced and secretly unsure of his authority, a little over-anxious to exert it, and even here, more than a week out from the Wall, in the haunted forest, the need to demonstrate leadership and competence on this mission to his superior back at Castle Black is still uppermost in his thoughts. He thinks his men will not find out his ignorance, his uncertainty, his fears, his vulnerability, if he lards his constant queries with 'you'.

His use of 'you' also hints to the reader that Ser Weymar has little inner monologue, is not inclined to reflect, empathise, or imagine. He is intelligent and well educated, can analyse and deduce, trouble-shoot and problem-solve, but he is not apt to daydream or ruminate. Garad uses to generalized 'you' extensively to describe the effects of the cold on people in general, and to share what 'they' claim it is like to die of it. This uneducated, non-standard use of language is one of the things that show the reader that he and Will have shared sympathies, empathy, superstition, and experience.

Gared and Will have instincts, sensitivities, that Waymar lacks. Waymar mockingly refers to Gared's suggestion that the Wildlings died of cold as 'eloquence', one sign among the many that, logical and rational as he is, he is insensitive, with his too-loud voice, devoid of the instincts that might have saved his life.

The word 'you' is one readers tend to take personally, even when it is not being used to refer to them. It is involving, manipulative (one of the reasons why the second person is rarely used extensively - even a paragraph of "first you shiver and your teeth chatter and you stamp your feet and dream" gives the reader a sensation that they are being told how to feel and what to do.) In the prologue of Game of Thrones, it sets the reader up to empathise with Will, and Gared. The first 'you' that isn't one of Waymar's abusive, insulting questions, the 'You could taste it' signals that we are not just observing the world through Will's eyes, we are inhabiting his body, tasting what he tastes, feeling what he feels, sensing what he senses. 

The possession of Waymar's sable cloak is another way GRRM subtely shows us Will's frame of mind. The first five times Will notes it is 'his' sable cloak, but this changes abruptly when the Other appears. "He threw the long sable cloak back over his shoulders, to free his arms for battle" - the change of possession of the cloak from 'his' to the more neutral 'the' shows that, unconsciously, Will already knows the outcome of this duel. Dead bodies don't have possessions. There is also a faint hint  of  envy or avarice, both in the initial emphasis on 'his' ownership of that magnificent coat 'soft as sin'  and in the rapid change to the neutral state of possession, as if Will was mentally preparing to take it,  transitioning ownership from 'his -' to 'a -' to 'my -' cloak, before physically touching it. In the end Will doesn't take the cloak, or give it another thought, we don't know for sure that he ever got so far as to imagine taking ownership of it, still the hint is there, in the possessive pronoun and the attention Will paid to the cloak.

Your second 'ill worded passage'  also has the third sentence with a parallel structure to the first. Yes, there is always a danger of ambiguity with a sentence where the subject and object are both represented by the same pronoun (ie. "He licked his fingers"), but you teased out the correct meaning quite well in your last post, and analysed it nicely.

I would only add that rules like "The ANTECEDENT for HE should be in the prose narrative that precedes the direct quote " are more a guide to style than less violable rules of grammar.

It belongs with 'rules' like "Always use the active voice" and "never bury the lead". It is a helpful heuristic for developing a clear, strong. easy to read prose style, but there is plenty of prose that breaks these rules, and some of it is the highest form of prose in the English language. (For examples, look at any novel by James Joyce or Jane Austen, but not George Orwell - he had a prose style Strunk and White would wish on everyone). 

I'm not sure I would classify either of these as a contradiction or ambiguity, even though they have the power to confuse a less attentive reader. As you have shown, a close re-read. a few minutes considering all the possible interpretations, soon reveals  that only one can stand up to the scrutiny.

Rickon can't lick at Shaggydog's fingers, because Shaggydog has no fingers, Will isn't judging Ser Waymar's youth from his countenance, as he is face down, nor from his clothes, but he can tell from the position of his body. Both here and earlier, when Will describes the Wildling camp to Waymar, we learn that Will automatically, accurately, takes detailed mental note of the posture, attitude, orientation of any body he comes across, living or dead. This habit that demonstrates his competence as a tracker, and shows us the instincts he is bristling with are not only the fear and superstition of an uneducated starveling.

  There is no dangling modifier - 'he' is the subject of the sentence, not you, and 'you' does not refer to you the reader, it is the narrator talking to himself. 

These are not contradictions or mistakes in the same way as 'Oswald' is. In Storm of Swords, it is clear 'Oswald' is a misnomer for Ser Osmund Kettleblack of the Kings Guard, because in Ch.67 Jaime VIII, at a meeting where only the Kingsguard  are present, Osmund arrives, Osmund gives a lazy shrug, 'Oswald' cracks a joke, Osmund grins, Osmund tells Jaime where he has served, and Osmund swaggers out.

In Dance with Dragons, Penny cannot exactly recall the name of Oswell Kettleblack, Ser Osmund's father, but she knows it was he, not Cersei, that approached Oppo about the wedding gig, and that they were in Pentos, not Braavos at the time. As @Lord Wraith points out , the reference to 'Oswald' in Ch.33 Tyrion VIII is a deliberate utilisation of his earlier mistake on GRRM's part, and not really a mistake at all.

Thank you for replying to my contribution to this thread.  Your interpretations of my observations are well taken, even though I cannot agree with your evaluation of what is acceptable usage.

I debated not answering, but then I deemed my silence might suggest that I conceded to your points.

If English is your second language, then your grammar education may allow for the second person you as colloquial. 

For what it’s worth, I addressed some of your statements and authenticated my points with evidences from celebrated writing sources.

Then, I am done with this thread.  I leave you with the words of a Martin character:

“Just so.  Opening your eyes is all that is needing.  The heart lies and the head plays tricks with us, but the eyes see true.  Look with your eyes.  Hear with your ears.  Taste with your mouth.  Smell with your nose.  Feel with your skin.  Then comes the thinking, afterward, and in that way knowing the truth” (AGoT 532).

 

While the sentence does mark a change from third to second person, there is no ambiguity about whom is lying dead. "Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was".

·        I am clear as to what Martin means, even if he manipulates the language to suit his purposes.

·        Perhaps it will be clearer if I eliminated the modifier “like that” and the subordinate clause “how young he was”:

"Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was".

“A dangling modifier is a word or phrase that modifies a word not clearly stated in the sentence. A modifier describes, clarifies, or gives more detail about a concept.

Having finished the assignment, Jill turned on the TV.

"Having finished" states an action but does not name the doer of that action. In English sentences, the doer must be the subject of the main clause that follows. In this sentence, it is Jill. She seems logically to be the one doing the action ("having finished"), and this sentence therefore does not have a dangling modifier.

The following sentence has an incorrect usage:

Having finished the assignment, the TV was turned on.

"Having finished" is a participle expressing action, but the doer is not the TV set (the subject of the main clause): TV sets don't finish assignments. Since the doer of the action expressed in the participle has not been clearly stated, the participial phrase is said to be a dangling modifier.  [https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/597/1/].

'You' is clearly (and grammatically correctly) 'seeing',  not 'lying dead'. 'Like that' modifies 'lying dead' and makes it clear that the subject is 'him', not 'you'. GRRM uses parallelism in the structure of the first sentence, to hint at how the reader should interpret the pronouns and modifier in the third sentence. We know from the topic sentence that the body belongs to 'Royce', and 'like that' refers to the way his body is lying, 'with one arm outflung'.

·        “HIM” is an objective case pronoun, and therefore cannot be the SUBJECT of a sentence.  Him danced in the snow.

·        Martin does not use parallel structure in any of the sentences comprising the paragraph in question.  In order for parallelism, a coordinator is necessary.

“Parallel structure means using the same pattern of words to show that two or more ideas have the same level of importance. This can happen at the word, phrase, or clause level. The usual way to join parallel structures is with the use of coordinating conjunctions such as "and" or "or."  [https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/623/1/].

 

The shift to colloquial language in the third paragraph indicates that we (the readers) are now not only looking through Will's eyes at the scene, but are also 'overhearing' Will's thoughts to himself. "You" in this instance is not a third person narrator addressing the reader, it is a first person narrator talking to himself, addressing himself in the second person.

·        Martin distinguishes his characters’ inner thoughts and feelings by employing italics.

Style manuals often recommend using 'one' rather than 'you' when referring to a generalized person in formal prose. When the intention is to address the reader directly, the style guides are divided. Some prefer 'you' because of the direct, active voice. Others regard anything other than 'one' as non-standard, and many suggest re-writing the sentence without the problematical pronoun. (as you demonstrated - “Lying dead like that, he looked young, like a boy”. ) 

·        No, style books DO NOT recommend the use of “one” as it is awkward.

In this case, however, Will is not writing an official report. Will is an illiterate man, thinking his thoughts to himself as he observes the scene. Will can't 'see' outside his own world, so 'you' is not you the reader. He is not speaking out loud to some sentient being in his own world either (for example, Gared, or a white walker). nor is he 'telepathically' addressing some in-world 'you' that exists outside his own head (For example, the way Tyrion does:- "You bloody bastard, you think Jaime’s good as dead, so I’m all you have left." (AGoT, Ch.69 Tyrion IX)

).  He is expressing his thoughts to himself. and it is natural and in character that he does this in colloquial, direct language. Hence the editors let the sentence stand.

·       This doesn’t even make sense.  Martin is the writer, not Will.  You cannot confuse first person POV storytelling with third person.

Will's use of the pronoun 'you' while talking to himself over a dead body also subtly reminds us, the readers, of how he is now all alone in a hostile environment, making himself seem a crowd in his own head.

·       Martin is the writer, not Will.

Will's use of the generalized 'you' is in stark contrast to Ser Weymar, who uses the pronoun only to refer directly to the man he is currently interrogating. Ser Weymar's use of the word is correct, but it is not only communicating to the reader that he is well educated.

Ser Weymar's repeated use of 'you' in his interrogations gives an accusatory impression (which btw is one of the reasons style guides advise writers to be careful with their use of the generalised you.) Ser Weymar sets himself up in the powerful role of the inquisitor, and hints that he is doing that because he is not only arrogant and entitled, but also inexperienced and secretly unsure of his authority, a little over-anxious to exert it, and even here, more than a week out from the Wall, in the haunted forest, the need to demonstrate leadership and competence on this mission to his superior back at Castle Black is still uppermost in his thoughts. He thinks his men will not find out his ignorance, his uncertainty, his fears, his vulnerability, if he lards his constant queries with 'you'.

His use of 'you' also hints to the reader that Ser Weymar has little inner monologue, is not inclined to reflect, empathise, or imagine. He is intelligent and well educated, can analyse and deduce, trouble-shoot and problem-solve, but he is not apt to daydream or ruminate. Garad uses to generalized 'you' extensively to describe the effects of the cold on people in general, and to share what 'they' claim it is like to die of it. This uneducated, non-standard use of language is one of the things that show the reader that he and Will have shared sympathies, empathy, superstition, and experience.

Gared and Will have instincts, sensitivities, that Waymar lacks. Waymar mockingly refers to Gared's suggestion that the Wildlings died of cold as 'eloquence', one sign among the many that, logical and rational as he is, he is insensitive, with his too-loud voice, devoid of the instincts that might have saved his life.

The word 'you' is one readers tend to take personally, even when it is not being used to refer to them. It is involving, manipulative (one of the reasons why the second person is rarely used extensively - even a paragraph of "first you shiver and your teeth chatter and you stamp your feet and dream" gives the reader a sensation that they are being told how to feel and what to do.) In the prologue of Game of Thrones, it sets the reader up to empathize with Will, and Gared. The first 'you' that isn't one of Waymar's abusive, insulting questions, the 'You could taste it' signals that we are not just observing the world through Will's eyes, we are inhabiting his body, tasting what he tastes, feeling what he feels, sensing what he senses. 

The possession of Waymar's sable cloak is another way GRRM subtly shows us Will's frame of mind. The first five times Will notes it is 'his' sable cloak, but this changes abruptly when the Other appears. "He threw the long sable cloak back over his shoulders, to free his arms for battle" - the change of possession of the cloak from 'his' to the more neutral 'the' shows that, unconsciously, Will already knows the outcome of this duel. Dead bodies don't have possessions. There is also a faint hint  of  envy or avarice, both in the initial emphasis on 'his' ownership of that magnificent coat 'soft as sin'  and in the rapid change to the neutral state of possession, as if Will was mentally preparing to take it,  transitioning ownership from 'his -' to 'a -' to 'my -' cloak, before physically touching it. In the end Will doesn't take the cloak, or give it another thought, we don't know for sure that he ever got so far as to imagine taking ownership of it, still the hint is there, in the possessive pronoun and the attention Will paid to the cloak.

Your second 'ill worded passage'  also has the third sentence with a parallel structure to the first. Yes, there is always a danger of ambiguity with a sentence where the subject and object are both represented by the same pronoun (ie. "He licked his fingers"), but you teased out the correct meaning quite well in your last post, and analysed it nicely.

·        You need to refresh yourself on the meaning of parallel structure.  You are throwing out terms to sound as if you know about what you are writing, and you obviously don’t.

I would only add that rules like "The ANTECEDENT for HE should be in the prose narrative that precedes the direct quote" are more a guide to style than less violable rules of grammar.

It belongs with 'rules' like "Always use the active voice" and "never bury the lead". It is a helpful heuristic for developing a clear, strong. easy to read prose style, but there is plenty of prose that breaks these rules, and some of it is the highest form of prose in the English language. (For examples, look at any novel by James Joyce or Jane Austen, but not George Orwell - he had a prose style Strunk and White would wish on everyone). 

·        You don’t want to go there – Joyce or Austen.  I studied under the foremost American scholar in Joyce who wrote the Cliffs Notes for Ulysses and Finnigan’s Wake, Dr. Edward Kopper [Google him].  Have you even read Joyce?  I traveled to Ireland three times to better study him.  I know his works even better than I know Martin’s.

I'm not sure I would classify either of these as a contradiction or ambiguity, even though they have the power to confuse a less attentive reader. As you have shown, a close re-read. a few minutes considering all the possible interpretations, soon reveals  that only one can stand up to the scrutiny.

·        Are you suggesting that I am a “less attentive reader”?

Rickon can't lick at Shaggydog's fingers, because Shaggydog has no fingers, Will isn't judging Ser Waymar's youth from his countenance, as he is face down, nor from his clothes, but he can tell from the position of his body. Both here and earlier, when Will describes the Wildling camp to Waymar, we learn that Will automatically, accurately, takes detailed mental note of the posture, attitude, orientation of anybody he comes across, living or dead. This habit that demonstrates his competence as a tracker, and shows us the instincts he is bristling with are not only the fear and superstition of an uneducated starveling.

  There is no dangling modifier - 'he' is the subject of the sentence, not you, and 'you' does not refer to you the reader, it is the narrator talking to himself. 

·       Find a source, any source, to prove that “you” does not address the reader.

These are not contradictions or mistakes in the same way as 'Oswald' is. In Storm of Swords, it is clear 'Oswald' is a misnomer for Ser Osmund Kettleblack of the Kings Guard, because in Ch.67 Jaime VIII, at a meeting where only the Kingsguard  are present, Osmund arrives, Osmund gives a lazy shrug, 'Oswald' cracks a joke, Osmund grins, Osmund tells Jaime where he has served, and Osmund swaggers out.

In Dance with Dragons, Penny cannot exactly recall the name of Oswell Kettleblack, Ser Osmund's father, but she knows it was he, not Cersei, that approached Oppo about the wedding gig, and that they were in Pentos, not Braavos at the time. As@Lord Wraith points out , the reference to 'Oswald' in Ch.33 Tyrion VIII is a deliberate utilisation of his earlier mistake on GRRM's part, and not really a mistake at all.

 

What follows is a brief lesson on POV narration that may further clarify what I have already said. 

Martin’s Pronoun Problems in his “Limited” Third-Person-Point-of-View Prose Narrative

In his first “Prologue” from A Game of Thrones, the first novel of his A Song of Ice and Fire Series, author George R. R. Martin demonstrates  the “limited” third-person-point-of-view narration,  a method of storytelling in which the narrator knows only the thoughts and feelings of a single character who reveals other characters only externally.  As an observer, reporter, and participant, Night’s Watch ranger “Will” is the prologue narrator.  He establishes conflict, mood, setting, style, and much more.

Will’s perspective is “limited”, which disallows him from accessing the thoughts and feelings of others.  Hence, Will is not “omniscient”.  

Authors, in general, rely on pronouns to replace nouns in a sentence, which prevents tiresome repetition of the same word, especially in the same sentence.  The downside of pronouns is that they are governed by particular rules that writers should master to avoid obscure, ambiguous prose. 

So, when Martin commits to narrating in third-person, he must avoid using first- and second-person pronouns, except in [1] quoted material or dialogue, [2] letters or raven scrolls, and [3] italicized monologues, inner voices, dreams, and [4] songs and prayers [which Martin uses in later POVs]. 

English has three "persons" or points of view. Each requires correct pronoun selection to meet grammatical standards that readers and writers recognize in prose and in poetry.  A list follows:

FIRST PERSON:   THE SPEAKER

I, me, my, mine, we, us, our, ours

SECOND PERSON:  THE PERSON SPOKEN TO

you, your, yours

THIRD PERSON: THE PERSON OR THINGS SPOKEN ABOUT

he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their

The fundamentals of writing include, but are not limited to, acceptable usage of grammar and mechanics, consistent and therefore recognizable to the reading public in general. Maintaining consistent point-of-view is a competency skill expected in writing. Affirming third-person-point-of-view pronouns and ensuring their correct usage, the author contributes to the novel’s unity, clarity, and coherence.

On five occasions in the “Prologue”, Martin shifts points-of-view, from third person pronouns to second person pronouns [Examples to follow].

Seasoned Martin readers discover errors NOT habitually made by the author in the scope of I&F Series thus far.  Their suspicions lead to speculation on whether the oversights are indeed errors OR instead “ON-Purpose(s)”.  Deliberate pronoun shifts may suggest that Martin wants to make a connection with his audience by focusing on the readers.   He invites his readers to look deeper into the subtext of the passage in question and to speculate on the meaning behind his intentions.

The complexities of Martin’s content are awe-inspiring, featuring material readers may enjoy on different levels of thinking, interpreting, and analyzing.  Because of Martin’s captivating characters, exotic locations, and riveting action, first-time readers may overlook the subtleties that invite those scholarly minds to read again and again between the lines, applying critical approaches of analyses in studying Martin’s Ice and Fire Series novels, especially AGoT.  

 

[Joy Hill]

On 29 mars 2016 at 2:40 AM, Nevets said:

Tommen's age is described as being nine by Sansa at her wedding feast in ASOS, but he is later described is being eight by Jaime at Tywin's funeral in AFFC.  I don't know if this is an inconsistency between characters or a mistake by the author.  I think eight is the correct age

 

At the end of ASOS, Jaime think Tommen is "still shy of nine". In AFFC, Loras says "His grace is almost nine.". So I suppose Sansa described a boy who is eight going on nine as "nine". 

The age difference between Myrcella and Tommen is a bit odd. At the beginning of AGOT, Catelyn says that Tommen is seven, and Jon describes Myrcella as "not quite eight" (not impossible, of course, but I don't think I know any siblings who are not at least a full year apart). In AFFC, Tommen either has yet to reach his ninth birthday or turns nine at some point in the second half of AFFC/ADWD. But Arys Oakheart describes Myrcella as "not quite eleven". So it seems the age difference has increased.

Another inconsistency is Arya's age. In AGOT she says herself that she's nine, as does Ned. However, in ASOS, when she speaks with Ned Dayne, she thinks "I killed a boy when I was eight" (the boy she stabbed at the end of AGOT). Of course, she might simply not remember how old she was exactly. . . 

[Nittanian]

The AFFC and ADWD appendices and AFFC The Kraken's Daughter state that Sybelle is Robett's wife.

Quote

The winds were against us, and I had captives to concern me. Robett Glover's wife and children.

ADWD The King's Prize mentions Sybelle as Galbart's wife, however.

Quote

Even with Galbart Glover's wife, the pious Lady Sybelle, he had been correct and courteous but plainly uncomfortable.

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

4 hours ago, Nittanian said:

The AFFC and ADWD appendices and AFFC The Kraken's Daughter state that Sybelle is Robett's wife.

ADWD The King's Prize mentions Sybelle as Galbart's wife, however.

 

Doesn’t Robett refer to them as his wife and kids?

[Nittanian]

1 minute ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Doesn’t Robett refer to them as his wife and kids?

I'm not sure if Robett talks about them, but they're definitely his family.

Quote

Galbart and Robett Glover had left Deepwood in the hands of Robett's wife, but it was their steward who came to Winterfell. (ACOK Bran II)

 

Quote

"There's a daughter as well," Galbart Glover reminded him. "The one who holds Deepwood Motte, and Robett's wife and child." (ASOS Catelyn V)