Stannis definitely dead says Martin

[Hippocras]

Know him personally do you?  To be so certain you must do.  Either that or you have blind faith.

I know what he has, himself, directly said, in his own words etc. etc.

These are the things I wrote in the post you quote but seem to have failed to read. So said Martin. 

Do you think there is a second GRRM out there and the one speaking for himself in interviews and such is not actually him?

[Ser Gareth]

I know what he has, himself, directly said, in his own words etc. etc.

These are the things I wrote in the post you quote but seem to have failed to read. So said Martin. 

Do you think there is a second GRRM out there and the one speaking for himself in interviews and such is not actually him?

As have I.  And I have read him contradict himself.  So as I wrote I take everything he says or writes on his blog with a pinch of salt because much of it simply doesn't end up being true.

And does he lie?  I'd say yes.  Most (all?) people do, including to themselves.

Finally there really is no need to be condescending.  I personally enjoyed your comment about me failing to read considering you completely ignored the points in another post I made about GRRM clearly changing his mind on a regular basis.  What may be true today is not true tomorrow.

Anyway as you clearly don't know him and I clearly don't believe in clairvoyants I think it's incredibly arrogant of you to simply state on a forum that someone is wrong in the manner you did.  I can now see that it is merely your opinion and perception that you take what he says as the gospel truth which leads us to the circular discussion as I already stated I do not believe what he says.  So I will now bow out of this discussion with you.

[Lord Friendzone]

whether the effect will be positive or negative  we can't say certain ....I believe in George when he says those things....but one can't help but afraid when he ponders how he thought of new twist which show can't do or say some of the backlashes show gets may force him to change what he first intended ... But let's hope and lpray that's not the case because then iam afraid it will lead to more delay for books ...

It is very much in the air on how these changes will affect his writing. How much of a the show he'll incorporate into the books. He'll might do some twists he didn't originally intended to do. But take for example Jon's parentage as it was mentioned here. I think is just too essential to the story that it has to be the same. Some things just has to be the same, but we are very much in the dark and concern are legitimate. On one hand I can't agree with what Ser Gareth said, but on the other hand George might wait additional time to see how show goes and then include this to his own work. In the end things are not going to be entirely different and character will pretty much end up where they should. George is after all still at least a consultant and who know he might write some episode in the future. 

[Valhalla Morghulis]

Regarding Stannis' fate and role in the saga - Stannis' sword is called Lightbringer. The bringer of light, the bringer of the dawn, the Morningstar... is Lucifer, the fallen Angel.

[Hippocras]

Regarding Stannis' fate and role in the saga - Stannis' sword is called Lightbringer. The bringer of light, the bringer of the dawn, the Morningstar... is Lucifer, the fallen Angel.

Stannis's sword is an illusion created by Melisandre in order to inspire his followers. She fully acknowledges her use of illusions and tricks in her POV and in the show.

The Lucifer comparison is interesting but there are other hisorical and mythological models who apply as much or more.

As for Lightbringer, the real sword relevant to the present time (as opposed to the myth of AA) has yet to materialize. It is certainly not Stannis's sword.

[Hippocras]

As have I.  And I have read him contradict himself.  So as I wrote I take everything he says or writes on his blog with a pinch of salt because much of it simply doesn't end up being true.

And does he lie?  I'd say yes.  Most (all?) people do, including to themselves.

Finally there really is no need to be condescending.  I personally enjoyed your comment about me failing to read considering you completely ignored the points in another post I made about GRRM clearly changing his mind on a regular basis.  What may be true today is not true tomorrow.

Anyway as you clearly don't know him and I clearly don't believe in clairvoyants I think it's incredibly arrogant of you to simply state on a forum that someone is wrong in the manner you did.  I can now see that it is merely your opinion and perception that you take what he says as the gospel truth which leads us to the circular discussion as I already stated I do not believe what he says.  So I will now bow out of this discussion with you.

He has not contradicted himself on this matter at all. What I see you doing is using "read between the lines" logic to discount his actual words and invent a version for youself that supports your fears, likes and dislikes.

GRRM does a lot of work to set up his broad stoylines well in advance. Once the seeds are there in the published material, the "harvest" is just a matter of time and working out the detals.

[Hippocras]

We're not talking about financing a rebelliion.  We're talking about finding one person in Essos who would look after them and a way to funnel some amount of money to them so, maybe, like, Viserys doesn't go nutso.  Doran's wife was from Essos.  Dorne has more ties to Essos.  Oberyn was in Essos.  But, I'm supposed to believe the master plotter couldn't come up with a way to funnel some money to the two Targs?  No.  I don't buy it.  It's bad plotting by the author.  He's not immune to it even if most of what he does is well set up and has some kind of plot logic.

I wrote an extensive reply to this yesterday, but it seems to have not posted correctly. Sigh.

Basically, I don't see why you think the Targaryen exhiles being poor is such a problem. Varys makes it pretty clear in his speech that he thinks being poor, hungry, hunted at some point is an essential part of the education of a good leader. Surely there is room for Doran Martell to hold some philosophy on the matter other than "supporting the Targaryen exhiles means ensuring they live like royals". 

Why should Doran care if they had to sell the crown? If they had to beg? They were alive, and they found "friends" to stay with. If anything, having to sell their stuff sends the signal to those who might notice, such as the Iron Bank, that the exhiles were not being financed, and therefore there was no brewing rebellion to worry about. The fact is, while Robert was alive and strong, Doran did not want to encourage a rebellion to happen before it had a chance of succeeding.

 

[Valhalla Morghulis]

Stannis's sword is an illusion created by Melisandre in order to inspire his followers. She fully acknowledges her use of illusions and tricks in her POV and in the show.

The Lucifer comparison is interesting but there are other hisorical and mythological models who apply as much or more.

As for Lightbringer, the real sword relevant to the present time (as opposed to the myth of AA) has yet to materialize. It is certainly not Stannis's sword.

That is true, as even Davos always knew, the sword is not the true Light bringer but I thought it an interesting parallel, esp considering Stannis' actions in the last season and probable actions in the next book.

[Hippocras]

Relevant to a point i was making earlier on this thread regarding Stannis:

 

 

Noone has a right to rule over people who do not want to follow them. Stannis did not do what he did out of duty. The "right" to be king is a fiction.

[ben.twining]

Noone has a right to rule over people who do not want to follow them. Stannis did not do what he did out of duty. The "right" to be king is a fiction.

I concur. But you get that this is based on the feudal period, right?

[emoji3]

[Hippocras]

2 hours ago, ben.twining said:

I concur. But you get that this is based on the feudal period, right?

It is, yes. But the very fact that noone rallied behind Stannis, and instead chose Renly if they wanted to defy the Lannisters proves that this fiction of the right to rule is exactly what GRRM  wanted to expose via Stannis as a character.

[Stag_legion]

35 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

35 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

It is, yes. But the very fact that noone rallied behind Stannis, and instead chose Renly if they wanted to defy the Lannisters proves that this fiction of the right to rule is exactly what GRRM  wanted to expose via Stannis as a character.

It is, yes. But the very fact that noone rallied behind Stannis, and instead chose Renly if they wanted to defy the Lannisters proves that this fiction of the right to rule is exactly what GRRM  wanted to expose via Stannis as a character.

Being King in westeros is not about popularity, its about birthright and the balance of power. It was not GRRM's intention to say that Renly was justified to grab power because he was popular, if anything the books intentionally paint Renly's popularity as nothing more than celebrity worship, meaning its not based on anything real Renly's done rather on the image he projects, and its as superficial as can be.

 

Furthermore Renly gaining more men than Stannis was inevitable considering Rely was the lord stormlands and was close friends with Tyrells and wanted to play favorites. Even if stannis was as charismatic and popular as Renly he would still have had fewer men as he only directly controlled the islands around the narrow sea and a few crownlanders. Stannis gained few supporters because none were left, the feudal lords could careless how stannis'  personality is, they make decisions based on what they can gain by any alliance.

 

Smallfolk would also be fine with stannis, they don't care who the king is as long as they are fed. after all there are a few instances of stannis' name being shouted in kingslanding. And lets not forget Antler men before battle of BW.

[Hippocras]

Just now, Stag_legion said:

You misunderstand. Being King in westeros is not about popularity, its about birthright and the balance of power. It was not GRRM's intention to say that Renly was justified to grab power because he was popular, if anything the books intentionally paint Renly's popularity as nothing more than celebrity worship, meaning its not based on anything real Renly's done rather on the image he projects, and its all shallow as can be.

 

Furthermore Renly gaining more men than Stannis was inevitable considering Rely was the lord stormlands and was close friends with Tyrells and wanted to play favorites. Even if stannis was as charismatic and popular as Renly he would still have had fewer men as he only directly controlled the islands around the narrow sea and a few crownlanders. Stannis gained few supporters because none were left, the feudal lords could careless how stannis'  personality is, they make decisions based on what they can gain by any alliance.

 

Smallfolk would also be fine with stannis, they don't care who the king is as long as they are fed. after all there are a few instances of stannis' name being shouted in kingslanding. And lets not forget Antler men before battle of BW.

No, I don't misunderstand.

This is fiction, with deliberate perspectives on lfe and politics worked in to the plot.

If exploring the fiction of the right to rule were NOT GRRM's goal, then we would never have had Renly as a character. We would never have had that contrast set up between one brother whose "right" to be king came from the law and nothing more, and another whose "right" to be king came from his very substantial popular support. GRRM would have simply had Stannis attack everyone else. Renly's impact on the story was minor if you discount his importance as a foil to Stannis. 

No, the conflict betwen Renly and Stannis is key to understanding what Stannis's motivation is (ambition) and isn't (duty to the people he wants to lead but who clearly do mot want him) and the fact that he will try to win by any means (murdering his own brother).

[Stag_legion]

4 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

No, I don't misunderstand.

This is fiction, with deliberate perspectives on lfe and politics worked in to the plot.

If exploring the fiction of the right to rule were NOT GRRM's goal, then we would never have had Renly as a character. We would never have had that contrast set up between one brother whose "right" to be king came from the law and nothing more, and another whose "right" to be king came from his very substantial popular support. GRRM would have simply had Stannis attack everyone else. Renly's impact on the story was minor if you discount his importance as a foil to Stannis. 

No, the conflict betwen Renly and Stannis is key to understanding what Stannis's motivation is (ambition) and isn't (duty to the people he wants to lead but who clearly do mot want him) and the fact that he will try to win by any means (murdering his own brother).

The conflict between stannis and Renly deals with lots of themes, but pure populism determining the right to rule is not one of them. And in GRRM's own interviews relating to stannis' character he does think that stannis' main motivation for the throne is duty.

 

And lets be real, No one has the right to rule other people, and being popular doesn't change that. But in the context of westerosi society the right to role comes from mutual duty and responsibility between subjects and overlords, and their respective birthrights. Populism has never really determined who was to be King.

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Stag_legion said:

The conflict between stannis and Renly deals with lots of themes, but pure populism determining the right to rule is not one of them. And in GRRM's own interviews relating to stannis' character he does think that stannis' main motivation for the throne is duty.

 

And lets be real, No one has the right to rule other people, and being popular doesn't change that. But in the context of westerosi society the right to role comes from mutual duty and responsibility between subjects and overlords, and their respective birthrights. Populism has never really determined who was to be King.

no, populism doesn't determine it either. If that were the idea of it, Renly would have won.

The point is, neither brother wins. Not the one backed by legalistic considerations, nor the one backed by a large majority of people. Temporarily, the ones who already held power continued to do so... hegemony and all. But they will eventually lose as well. ALL aspects of power and where it comes from (and does not) are at play.

Ned backed Stannis out of duty. But Stannis did not murder his brother out of duty...he did it purely because he could not win any other way...which should have told him something.

[Marcus Agrippa]

12 hours ago, Hippocras said:

no, populism doesn't determine it either. If that were the idea of it, Renly would have won.

The point is, neither brother wins. Not the one backed by legalistic considerations, nor the one backed by a large majority of people. Temporarily, the ones who already held power continued to do so... hegemony and all. But they will eventually lose as well. ALL aspects of power and where it comes from (and does not) are at play.

Ned backed Stannis out of duty. But Stannis did not murder his brother out of duty...he did it purely because he could not win any other way...which should have told him something.

I wonder if you remotely understand anything coming out of the book- if you're arguing the show, then sure, have at it. Show Stannis is a dumbed down idiot, he is equivalent to pierce (community), Johny from entourage, and Joey from friends. They should of just wrote him out. It's utterly distasteful what they did to Stannis. They turned one of the maybe three non-archetypal characters Martin developed into a helpless child. Man, I still feel insaning amounts of rage at this. That's how bad the Baratheon storyline was botched.

[Hippocras]

8 hours ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

I wonder if you remotely understand anything coming out of the book- if you're arguing the show, then sure, have at it. Show Stannis is a dumbed down idiot, he is equivalent to pierce (community), Johny from entourage, and Joey from friends. They should of just wrote him out. It's utterly distasteful what they did to Stannis. They turned one of the maybe three non-archetypal characters Martin developed into a helpless child. Man, I still feel insaning amounts of rage at this. That's how bad the Baratheon storyline was botched.

I apparently understand a lot more than you. 

[Kris Brass]

I still feel a little flustered that Stannis was outwitted by the Boltons, whom betrayed Robb Stark.  I feel that they have served their purpose as enemies to the focus characters and should die in the coming Season.  It sucks that Stannis has bitten the bust -he was actually a great character, but his story has been told.

[Hippocras]

47 minutes ago, Kris Brass said:

I still feel a little flustered that Stannis was outwitted by the Boltons, whom betrayed Robb Stark.  I feel that they have served their purpose as enemies to the focus characters and should die in the coming Season.  It sucks that Stannis has bitten the bust -he was actually a great character, but his story has been told.

Yes, I personally wish that he had lost in a way more obviously connected to his lack of support. I mean, yes, the sellswords did abandon him. But I would have prefered if it had been Northerners who abandoned him.