Stannis definitely dead says Martin

[Stannis is the man....nis]

I don't think it's a given at all that he will win. Yes the Bolton camp is fighting each other and there's treachery all over the place , but stannis' camp is hardly unified, and is starving and freezing to death at the same time. 

Plus even if Stannis wins the initial encounters, it seems highly unlikely that he could ever manage to lay siege to winterfell and take it under those circumstances.

If the theories are true about the night lamp and Wyman's betrayal then it's simply Wyman and maybe some "Freys" come back after the battle and after a victory feast open the gate when the enemy is drunk and asleep kill them. Kinda like those Greek guys with that horse

[Stag_legion]

If the theories are true about the night lamp and Wyman's betrayal then it's simply Wyman and maybe some "Freys" come back after the battle and after a victory feast open the gate when the enemy is drunk and asleep kill them. Kinda like those Greek guys with that horse

I agree, some form of Trojan horse trick is very likely. Although its possible that Roose may flee winterfell for the dreadfort before that and ramsey's the one who gets killed at winterfell.

[Hippocras]

My problem isn't with the suggestion that stannis wrote the pink letter, I see that as a possibility though not very likely. My problem was with the out there idea that the pink letter had some coded message for melisandre to burn shireen. This is directly contradicted in text when stannis tells massey to fight on for shireen until the bloody end. So either stannis is an insane flip flopper who is bent on destroyingthe future of his family or stannis is not involved in shireen getting burned.

 

D&D only confirmed that shireen would burn, not that Stannis would consent to it. Everything in the books suggest that stannis wouldn't allow that ever! Melisandre cares about prophecy and battling the great other over stannis' bloodline. It would make sense for her to sacrifice shireen in a dire situation, but not stannis. Stannis cares more about the survival of his dynasty than melisandre's prophecies, hence why he suggests to massey that he might die in battle in spite of melisandre's grad prophecies about him being the savior. 

There would be absolutely no point for Stannis to send anything like the pink letter if he were not trying to send a message to have a particular desired effect. And if he is in trouble, serious trouble, both he and Mel would see burning Shireen for her king's blood as a desperate,  but "justified" measure.

[Stag_legion]

There would be absolutely no point for Stannis to send anything like the pink letter if he were not trying to send a message to have a particular desired effect. And if he is in trouble, serious trouble, both he and Mel would see burning Shireen for her king's blood as a desperate,  but "justified" measure.

the obvious reason he would send the letter would be to get jon snow and the wildlings to march south and reinforce his troops. you overlook the obvious for an explanation that makes zero sense. What exactly would stannis gain from burning shireen but the destruction of his house?

[Hippocras]

the obvious reason he would send the letter would be to get jon snow and the wildlings to march south and reinforce his troops. you overlook the obvious for an explanation that makes zero sense. What exactly would stannis gain from burning shireen but the destruction of his house?

I am not overlooking anything. It is you that is being narrow-minded. 

The pink letter said that Stannis was dead. So if Stannis had anything to do with it, he either knew he was probably about to die, or he faked his death. Either way, Mel would certainly see the situation as desperate enough to justify burning Shireen to revive him. It is not Shireen who is her AA, it is Stannis. She believes he is the champion of the light, and Shireen is just a tool that is available to advance the cause.

So yes, the pink letter aimed to provoke a march south. That doesn't change that Jon and the wildlings were not the only "audience" for that letter. So was Mel, and it said her champion of the light was dead.

[Stag_legion]

I am not overlooking anything. It is you that is being narrow-minded. 

The pink letter said that Stannis was dead. So if Stannis had anything to do with it, he either knew he was probably about to die, or he faked his death. Either way, Mel would certainly see the situation as desperate enough to justify burning Shireen to revive him. It is not Shireen who is her AA, it is Stannis. She believes he is the champion of the light, and Shireen is just a tool that is available to advance the cause.

So yes, the pink letter aimed to provoke a march south. That doesn't change that Jon and the wildlings were not the only "audience" for that letter. So was Mel, and it said her champion of the light was dead.

Melisandre might burn shireen as a result of thinking stannis is dead, but that would not have been stannis' intention obviously, why else would he say the exact opposite to massey?

You keep ignoring what stannis told massey, while its actually the most relevant passage in text for this subject.

 

[Hippocras]

Melisandre might burn shireen as a result of thinking stannis is dead, but that would not have been stannis' intention obviously, why else would he say the exact opposite to massey?

You keep ignoring what stannis told massey, while its actually the most relevant passage in text for this subject.

 

I am not ignoring what Stannis told Massey.

I am thinking of it differently than you.

First of all, it would really help this discussion if you read my initial post correctly, as in, a list of possibilities to consider, and by no means an exhaustive list. For me to be "ignoring" something, I would have to be pushing a single theory or idea, which I have, at no point, been doing. Then maybe you would not feel the need to be agressive.

So now that we are speculating with an attitude of collaboration and an open mind ( I hope) let's consider that what Stannis told Massey was what Massey needed to hear. Whether Stannis was seriously considering signaling Mel to burn Shireen or not, Massey had a specific mission to bring back sellswords and would not look favourably on the burning of Shireen (a lot like Davos being sent away in the show). If burning Shireen was supposed to advance Stannis's cause then of course Stannis would assume that he would prevail as a result of the burning, and would then later need sellswords. So faking or implying his imminent death to Mel would provoke the burning, but the assumption would be that he would live on or be revived, making Massey's mission essential to his cause. And, Massey would be far less likely to fulfill his mission if he heard Stannis was dead or knew about the burning of Shireen.

 

[Marcus Agrippa]

I am not ignoring what Stannis told Massey.

I am thinking of it differently than you.

First of all, it would really help this discussion if you read my initial post correctly, as in, a list of possibilities to consider, and by no means an exhaustive list. For me to be "ignoring" something, I would have to be pushing a single theory or idea, which I have, at no point, been doing. Then maybe you would not feel the need to be agressive.

So now that we are speculating with an attitude of collaboration and an open mind ( I hope) let's consider that what Stannis told Massey was what Massey needed to hear. Whether Stannis was seriously considering signaling Mel to burn Shireen or not, Massey had a specific mission to bring back sellswords and would not look favourably on the burning of Shireen (a lot like Davos being sent away in the show). If burning Shireen was supposed to advance Stannis's cause then of course Stannis would assume that he would prevail as a result of the burning, and would then later need sellswords. So faking or implying his imminent death to Mel would provoke the burning, but the assumption would be that he would live on or be revived, making Massey's mission essential to his cause. And, Massey would be far less likely to fulfill his mission if he heard Stannis was dead or knew about the burning of Shireen.

 

I think you're overreaching, by a lot. It's not as terrible as the corn code, but this still is trying to fuse book and show logic. Jon snow just got Stannis's story. Whether you want to see it that way or not, but dabid did this in troy, he cut other heroes stories for the character he saw as the hero. It's common place in his writing. 

[Hippocras]

I think you're overreaching, by a lot. It's not as terrible as the corn code, but this still is trying to fuse book and show logic. Jon snow just got Stannis's story. Whether you want to see it that way or not, but dabid did this in troy, he cut other heroes stories for the character he saw as the hero. It's common place in his writing. 

Look, this thread is about Stannis being dead in the show and not in the books. It is implicit to that discussion to speculate on how those two realities lead to the same end point.... which they do. The books and show are headed in the same general direction along a different path. So OF COURSE I am trying to figure out how show and books correspond. That's the whole point.

Facts: 

1. Stannis will die eventually. I even think it is likely that Brienne will kill him: if not her than Loras. There is a LOT to set up Stannis dying because of what he did to Renly, and those two are the ones who care. It was even part of Brienne and Cat's vows to each other.

2. Stannis is going to give his consent to burn Shireen, whether he is present at the time or not. It will happen differently, but the burning is not a show invention. This has been confirmed.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Look, this thread is about Stannis being dead in the show and not in the books. It is implicit to that discussion to speculate on how those two realities lead to the same end point.... which they do. The books and show are headed in the same general direction along a different path. So OF COURSE I am trying to figure out how show and books correspond. That's the whole point.

Facts: 

1. Stannis will die eventually. I even think it is likely that Brienne will kill him: if not her than Loras. There is a LOT to set up Stannis dying because of what he did to Renly, and those two are the ones who care. It was even part of Brienne and Cat's vows to each other.

2. Stannis is going to give his consent to burn Shireen, whether he is present at the time or not. It will happen differently, but the burning is not a show invention. This has been confirmed.

Oh, I agree with the first, there was no way Jon could ever take the throne with Stannis alive. No possible way. As much as I hate the dirty barbarian and his heroes Journey, I acknowledge that he will be King in the end.

The second wasn't particular, if you watch the interview all it says is that shireen will be burned, It doesn't say by who or what. unless there is some sort of new one that I missed, my point stands that it is a show invention. I don't love or hate Stannis, he's the only character major character martin has that is... original without trying to sound pretentious. I suppose depending on what book littlefinger goes and does in the end could make LF new, but he is doomed to die I believe. Arya is just a darker form of the girl who becomes the warrior, Jon is just a darker and deeper Aragon- My point is that Stannis is the only character that had any question marks surrounding him. His death has made this story generic. The next events will happen sort of like this, Jon becomes imporant to the political climate, Jon moves in on the north, Jon uses whats left of Stannis's resources and fights on to capture the north then moves against the white walkers. Daenerys invades, Daenerys wins a battle against the martell/tyrell alliance, the lannisters at that point should be ejected from KL but it still could be the Lannister Tyrell alliance- eventually daenerys meets northern/vale/riverlands resistence- whether this results in a battle or not will be interesting, I imagine that it won't matter in the end, she'll move north with her dragons, and the final battle will take place either at winterfell or the wall. Daenerys dies or marrys jon. The tv show is on the fanasty rails now. Stannis was the only thing keeping things interesting.

 

[Hippocras]

Oh, I agree with the first, there was no way Jon could ever take the throne with Stannis alive. No possible way. As much as I hate the dirty barbarian and his heroes Journey, I acknowledge that he will be King in the end.

The second wasn't particular, if you watch the interview all it says is that shireen will be burned, It doesn't say by who or what. unless there is some sort of new one that I missed, my point stands that it is a show invention.

Step back a bit.

Objectively, if you were GRRM, writing a story that tries to really get a great deal of depth and complexity in, what would be the point of burning Shireen if Stannis had nothing to do with it? I am pretty sure the whole point is that we think Stannis is BOTH a sort of hero in a way, and also a villain, who killed his own brother, and then his own daughter for the sake of his ambition.

And if you object to it being called ambition, think hard. Yes, he was lawfully Robert's heir because Joffrey was not legitimate. However there is no such thing as a "rightful" ruler of people who do not WANT to be ruled by that person. It is abundantly clear that almost  noone in the kingdoms except maybe Davos actually WANTS Stannis to be king. So it goes back to the question of where power comes from, and what the basis of legitimate rule is. 

[Hippocras]

cont'd

So Stannis's story is very much about the choices he makes because of his ambition, because he thinks it is his right to rule (which it actually is not because the right to rule is granted by the people who would be ruled). We see him going to greater and greater extremes as his situation gets increasingly desperate.

Burning Shireen is the natural conclusion of his path. He is not a hero. Killing Renly is foreshadowing that he will also eventually go to the extreme of killing his own daughter.

[Stag_legion]

cont'd

So Stannis's story is very much about the choices he makes because of his ambition, because he thinks it is his right to rule (which it actually is not because the right to rule is granted by the people who would be ruled). We see him going to greater and greater extremes as his situation gets increasingly desperate.

Burning Shireen is the natural conclusion of his path. He is not a hero. Killing Renly is foreshadowing that he will also eventually go to the extreme of killing his own daughter.

Actually through out the book its shown that stannis is able to gain loyal followers, just not as much as his brothers (northern houses and the remainder of his troops from blackwater). which is in part because of his personality but more so because of the ambition of other great lords, who want more than what stannis is willing to give them.

 

Stannis' killing renly doesn't even register on the list of evil deeds in the series. And stannis is already paid the price for Renly with his blackwater defeat. I don't think GRRM is as bent on making stannis pay for the Renly kill as stannis haters are. In fact I reckon GRRM sees the whole Renly assassination situation as a morally grey matter.

 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Actually through out the book its shown that stannis is able to gain loyal followers, just not as much as his brothers (northern houses and the remainder of his troops from blackwater). which is in part because of his personality but more so because of the ambition of other great lords, who want more than what stannis is willing to give them.

 

Stannis' killing renly doesn't even register on the list of evil deeds in the series. And stannis is already paid the price for Renly with his blackwater defeat. I don't think GRRM is as bent on making stannis pay for the Renly kill as stannis haters are. In fact I reckon GRRM sees the whole Renly assassination situation as a morally grey matter.

An by Stannis haters you mean D&D right?

[Valhalla Morghulis]

cont'd

So Stannis's story is very much about the choices he makes because of his ambition, because he thinks it is his right to rule (which it actually is not because the right to rule is granted by the people who would be ruled). We see him going to greater and greater extremes as his situation gets increasingly desperate.

Burning Shireen is the natural conclusion of his path. He is not a hero. Killing Renly is foreshadowing that he will also eventually go to the extreme of killing his own daughter.

I think he is not driven just by ambition and a feeling that he has the right to rule, which he does as in the Plantagenet mirroring world of Westeros, Primogeniture determined the succession even tho it was challenged many times, as opposed to the Anglo Saxon pre-Norman system of electing a King or Ruler; but more that Stannis feels more bound by a sense of duty to be the only man who can rule Westeros and save them from disaster and the Others.

This was so well portrayed by Dillane, who I have said before is  the finest casting choice in the whole ensemble, and therefore reveals the regard and not disdain in which DD hold the complex character. The speech he gives about holding Storm's End and even acquiescing to his younger brother because it was the King's will and therefore his duty was masterful.

[Stag_legion]

I think he is not driven just by ambition and a feeling that he has the right to rule, which he does as in the Plantagenet mirroring world of Westeros, Primogeniture determined the succession even tho it was challenged many times, as opposed to the Anglo Saxon pre-Norman system of electing a King or Ruler; but more that Stannis feels more bound by a sense of duty to be the only man who can rule Westeros and save them from disaster and the Others.

This was so well portrayed by Dillane, who I have said before is  the finest casting choice in the whole ensemble, and therefore reveals the regard and not disdain in which DD hold the complex character. The speech he gives about holding Storm's End and even acquiescing to his younger brother because it was the King's will and therefore his duty was masterful.

That had more to do with Dillane's great performance than D&D. doesn't change the fact that double D wanted to sideline stannis in favor of other characters.

[Hippocras]

I think he is not driven just by ambition and a feeling that he has the right to rule, which he does as in the Plantagenet mirroring world of Westeros, Primogeniture determined the succession even tho it was challenged many times, as opposed to the Anglo Saxon pre-Norman system of electing a King or Ruler; but more that Stannis feels more bound by a sense of duty to be the only man who can rule Westeros and save them from disaster and the Others.

This was so well portrayed by Dillane, who I have said before is  the finest casting choice in the whole ensemble, and therefore reveals the regard and not disdain in which DD hold the complex character. The speech he gives about holding Storm's End and even acquiescing to his younger brother because it was the King's will and therefore his duty was masterful.

Well I am pretty sure you can't count the Others this way, because he  didn't know anything about them until very late in the series and certainly was not working with the goal of defeating them until very late. So it is hardly his primary motive for wanting to rule.

He was, to his credit, the only one vying for the Iron Throne who recognized the problem at the Wall and acted. Saying he was acting out of ambition does not take away from the fact that his help came just in time to the Wall.

As for the claim that he was gaining followers....um....no. The Renly followers who joined him did so with extreme reluctance. If they were fans they would have fought for him in the first place. The Northerners who were aligned with him when we last saw him were doing so only because he was taking on the Boltons, and many of those families had their bases covered elsewhere as well. You could hardly call them enthusiastic supporters. What they want is a Stark King in the North.

[Hippocras]

cont'd

anyway, agreed that Stannis does what he does in part out of a sense of duty, but it is a misplaced sense. Ned supported Stannis because he believed it was the law and therefore right, and Stannis is somewhat similar there. However when he failed to gain support, that also calls into question the legitimacy of that sense of duty. It is never a duty to conquer, and if people don't want you to have power, then fighting for supremacy IS about conquering, not duty.

[Hippocras]

That had more to do with Dillane's great performance than D&D. doesn't change the fact that double D wanted to sideline stannis in favor of other characters.

How do you know what D&D wanted? Personal hotline?

 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

How do you know what D&D wanted? Personal hotline?

 

It's called the after episode interviews were statements like like "monster" and "lacks feeling for the common humanity" were used to describe him by D&D