Small Questions v. 10105

[Blackwater Revenant]

42 minutes ago, Pride of Driftmark said:

I think it has a meaning. The Series' Title is indicative of the difference between songs, or stories, and reality. Singers are essentially liars, romanticizing the horror rather than acknowledging it. For example, "The Dance of the Dragons" is a name made up by singers to cover the true brutality of a massive Civil War over a minor succession dispute. 

 

Agreed, great point!

As Archmaester Gyldayn put it: 'The Dance of the Dragons is the flowery name bestowed upon the savage internecine struggle for the Iron Throne...No doubt the the phrase originated with some singer. "The Dying of the Dragons" would altogether be more fitting...'

[Lost Melnibonean]

2 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Is Steelshanks Walton a nobleman? I assume that normally captains of major houses would have to be one, but we know almost nothing about houses sworn to house Bolton.

I would guess he's from a minor noble house. 

[Kandrax]

If a lord dies without trueborn children, who would inherit him his bastard or his wife?

[Lost Melnibonean]

13 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

If a lord dies without trueborn children, who would inherit him his bastard or his wife?

Wars are fought over that kind of thing. The liege lord and even the king would probably decide the issue. 

[HexMachina]

42 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

If a lord dies without trueborn children, who would inherit him his bastard or his wife?

 

27 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Wars are fought over that kind of thing. The liege lord and even the king would probably decide the issue. 

See also the Hornwood succession for evidence of the complicated nature of this problem

[Kandrax]

40 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Wars are fought over that kind of thing. The liege lord and even the king would probably decide the issue. 

 

10 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

 

See also the Hornwood succession for evidence of the complicated nature of this problem

Thanks for both answers.

[Kandrax]

I will ask again how can a theory earn its own page on Wiki?

[HexMachina]

1 minute ago, Kandrax said:

I will ask again how can a theory earn its own page on Wiki?

The wiki is edited by fans; I know @Rhaenys_Targaryen Is one of them who checks Small Questions. I would ask them or maybe the designated wiki thread - 

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

8 hours ago, Kandrax said:

I will ask again how can a theory earn its own page on Wiki?

 

8 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

The wiki is edited by fans; I know @Rhaenys_Targaryen Is one of them who checks Small Questions. I would ask them or maybe the designated wiki thread - 

 

I have asked your question in the wiki thread, so hopefully we soon know more!

In any case, the theory policy states that a theory can be removed if it is "speculative and lacking any evidence to support arguments."

Hope this helps!

[Kandrax]

Did GRRM really says that no character is wholly good or evil?

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

Did GRRM really says that no character is wholly good or evil?

In short, yes, because that is how we are in real life, and that is much more interesting than a character that is wholly good from start to finish (as well as "bad"). GRRM spins this tale in a myriad of ways:

• Afterward we got some books signed at the nearby bookstore. I asked Martin "Did you intend for Jaime Lannister to be such a complex character from the beginning, or is that one of the things that grew in the telling?" He said that he likes exploring grey characters and always intended for Jaime to be complex, but some details grew in the telling. 10zlaine told him she likes his blog.

• He also answered some questions, and had some interesting things to say. He repeatedly emphasized that he prefers to write grey characters, because in real life people are complex; no one is pure evil or pure good. Fiction tends to divide people into heroes who do no wrong and villains who go home and kick their dogs and beat their wives, but that reality is much different. He cited a soldier who heroically saves his friends' lives, but then goes home and beats his wife. Which is he, hero or villain? Martin said both and that neither act cancels out the other.

• So he said that he likes to paint characters in shades of grey (recurring theme of the weekend, yay! so refreshing from these damn didactic TV show runners... anyway....). And that even what seem like the most horrific people have other sides, aren't pure caricatures of evil, that even Hitler had his nice moments. And he wanted to explore what might cause that kind of villainy, because no one just wakes up and says "I want to be evil today," and that Jaime didn't start out evil--that he actually was a very idealistic young man who was disillusioned by life, and that there was always much more to his killing of Arys than just "evil."

  Since he was going on so much about Jaime as "exploration of evil" (and I certainly don't think Jaime is evil anymore!) I kind of tried to ask "Do you think he's changed?" to get him to talk about Jaime's redemption arc, so he said something like he wanted to explore the concept of forgiveness and whether it's ever possible to be forgiven for doing such horrible things, and that his goal was to ask the question, not give an answer. >>>Link for these three http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1405

• ((And I must confess, I love grey characters, and those who can be interperted in many different ways. Both as a reader and a writer, I want complexity and subtlety in my fiction)) http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/945/

• Q: Another element I liked about the series was the moral relativism of many of the characters. Too many Fantasies rely on the shorthand of truly evil villains in the absolute moral sense, but your characters, while they might commit terrible acts, generally do so either from short-sighted self-interest or because they truly believe they are acting for the best. Was this a deliberate decision, or is it just more interesting to write this way?

  GRRM: Both. I have always found grey characters more interesting than those who are pure black and white. I have no qualms with the way that Tolkien handled Sauron, but in some ways The Lord of the Rings set an unfortunate example for the writers who were to follow. I did not want to write another version of the War Between Good and Evil, where the antagonist is called the Foul King or the Demon Lord or Prince Rotten, and his minions are slavering subhumans dressed all in black (I dressed my Night's Watch, who are basically good guys, all in black in part to undermine that annoying convention). Before you can fight the war between good and evil, you need to determine which is which, and that's not always as easy as some Fantasists would have you believe. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427

However, all of this said, and after reading several of his past stories that all have a "Ramsay" or "Euron" or "fire follower", he does like to include expendable antagonists that are there just to cause trouble, and then die. Over and over again. It is fun to track

[Kandrax]

8 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

In short, yes, because that is how we are in real life, and that is much more interesting than a character that is wholly good from start to finish (as well as "bad"). GRRM spins this tale in a myriad of ways:

• Afterward we got some books signed at the nearby bookstore. I asked Martin "Did you intend for Jaime Lannister to be such a complex character from the beginning, or is that one of the things that grew in the telling?" He said that he likes exploring grey characters and always intended for Jaime to be complex, but some details grew in the telling. 10zlaine told him she likes his blog.

• He also answered some questions, and had some interesting things to say. He repeatedly emphasized that he prefers to write grey characters, because in real life people are complex; no one is pure evil or pure good. Fiction tends to divide people into heroes who do no wrong and villains who go home and kick their dogs and beat their wives, but that reality is much different. He cited a soldier who heroically saves his friends' lives, but then goes home and beats his wife. Which is he, hero or villain? Martin said both and that neither act cancels out the other.

• So he said that he likes to paint characters in shades of grey (recurring theme of the weekend, yay! so refreshing from these damn didactic TV show runners... anyway....). And that even what seem like the most horrific people have other sides, aren't pure caricatures of evil, that even Hitler had his nice moments. And he wanted to explore what might cause that kind of villainy, because no one just wakes up and says "I want to be evil today," and that Jaime didn't start out evil--that he actually was a very idealistic young man who was disillusioned by life, and that there was always much more to his killing of Arys than just "evil."

  Since he was going on so much about Jaime as "exploration of evil" (and I certainly don't think Jaime is evil anymore!) I kind of tried to ask "Do you think he's changed?" to get him to talk about Jaime's redemption arc, so he said something like he wanted to explore the concept of forgiveness and whether it's ever possible to be forgiven for doing such horrible things, and that his goal was to ask the question, not give an answer. >>>Link for these three http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1405

• ((And I must confess, I love grey characters, and those who can be interperted in many different ways. Both as a reader and a writer, I want complexity and subtlety in my fiction)) http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/945/

• Q: Another element I liked about the series was the moral relativism of many of the characters. Too many Fantasies rely on the shorthand of truly evil villains in the absolute moral sense, but your characters, while they might commit terrible acts, generally do so either from short-sighted self-interest or because they truly believe they are acting for the best. Was this a deliberate decision, or is it just more interesting to write this way?

  GRRM: Both. I have always found grey characters more interesting than those who are pure black and white. I have no qualms with the way that Tolkien handled Sauron, but in some ways The Lord of the Rings set an unfortunate example for the writers who were to follow. I did not want to write another version of the War Between Good and Evil, where the antagonist is called the Foul King or the Demon Lord or Prince Rotten, and his minions are slavering subhumans dressed all in black (I dressed my Night's Watch, who are basically good guys, all in black in part to undermine that annoying convention). Before you can fight the war between good and evil, you need to determine which is which, and that's not always as easy as some Fantasists would have you believe. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427

However, all of this said, and after reading several of his past stories that all have a "Ramsay" or "Euron" or "fire follower", he does like to include expendable antagonists that are there just to cause trouble, and then die. Over and over again. It is fun to track

Thanks for answer. I was suprised given that you can hardly call Ramsay, Gregor, Joffrey, Rorge, Craster, Amory, Euron, Vargo, etc. grey characters.

[Lady Dacey]

3 hours ago, Kandrax said:

Thanks for answer. I was suprised given that you can hardly call Ramsay, Gregor, Joffrey, Rorge, Craster, Amory, Euron, Vargo, etc. grey characters.

You could argue that it's a case of "grey and black" morality:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality

But I think it comes down to POV. If Theon or Jaime didn't have a POV they'd be looked upon as "pure monsters" as well. I'm not saying that Ramsey or Gregor have redeeming qualities, it's just that we never know much about motives and background of the mostrous characters, which is necessary for them to be what they are. POV's make us empathize with the character and GRRM doesn't want us to empathize with those guys. Euron is as sadistic as it gets, but I bet you if he had a POV there would be readers praising how "intelligent" or "cunning" he is (a disturbing thought)

[Kandrax]

8 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

You could argue that it's a case of "grey and black" morality:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality

But I think it comes down to POV. If Theon or Jaime didn't have a POV they'd be looked upon as "pure monsters" as well. I'm not saying that Ramsey or Gregor have redeeming qualities, it's just that we never know much about motives and background of the mostrous characters, which is necessary for them to be what they are. POV's make us empathize with the character and GRRM doesn't want us to empathize with those guys. Euron is as sadistic as it gets, but I bet you if he had a POV there would be readers praising how "intelligent" or "cunning" he is (a disturbing thought)

Character doesn't have to be POV to not be completely black. For example Tywin was horrible man yet he geniunely loved Joanna. Chett was also pov, yet he is completely unsymphatetic.

[Ckram]

On 20/01/2018 at 8:22 AM, Ninclow said:

Westeros/Seven Kingdoms are inspired from medieval Europe, and in medieval Europe, at least the High- to late middle ages, people could enter a church and claim sanctuary. Is there a similar arrangement in septs. like the Great Sept of Baelor or the Starry Sept in Oldtown?

The generalized disrespect for Septs during WoFK speaks for itself.

But we must also consider that real life sanctuaries relied on Catholic Church position as perhaps the most powerful institution in Europe during the Middle Ages, while the Faith of the Seven was completely dependent on the Iron Throne from Jaehaerys I to Cersei.

Therefore, I believe that to claim sanctuary wouldn't work in ASOIAF.

On 20/01/2018 at 4:01 PM, PrettyPig said:

Is there anyone else besides Richard Lonmouth, Myles Mooton, and Gregor Clegane Rhaegar is said to have personally knighted ?

The scriptures speak of no one else.

On 21/01/2018 at 5:34 PM, Loose Bolt said:

Is Steelshanks Walton a nobleman? I assume that normally captains of major houses would have to be one, but we know almost nothing about houses sworn to house Bolton.

I could find no mention of any house sworn in to Bolton House. However, I think that if Walton was a nobleman, the books' appendixes would have indicated it. 

So I guess we can assume that Steelshanks is as much a nobleman as Vylarr is.

[Lady Dacey]

11 hours ago, Kandrax said:

Character doesn't have to be POV to not be completely black. For example Tywin was horrible man yet he geniunely loved Joanna. Chett was also pov, yet he is completely unsymphatetic.

 I agree, a character doesn't need to have a POV to be complex. What I'm saying is that no character with a POV could ever be completely monstrous. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

I've got a super annoying question; 

Is there a chance Oldstones is part of Blackwood lands? (I'm leaning toward no, but the maps also don't contain all the castles)

[Corvo the Crow]

Who owned the Karstark lands before them? In the novels it is implied that the rebellious lord was a Bolton but in TWOIAF we learn that Bolton lands never extended beyond the Last River. Was it Umbers or some other lord?

[The Wondering Wolf]

7 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Who owned the Karstark lands before them? In the novels it is implied that the rebellious lord was a Bolton but in TWOIAF we learn that Bolton lands never extended beyond the Last River. Was it Umbers or some other lord?

It was speculated among the readers that those lands belonged to a lord who joined the Boltons in rebellion. Acording to that theory Harlon and Karlon were brothers, and while Harlon was besieging the Dreadfort, Karlon put down the rebellous lord north of the Bolton lands.

[The Sunland Lord]

On 1/24/2018 at 10:46 AM, Lady Dacey said:

What I'm saying is that no character with a POV could ever be completely monstrous. 

Cersei? She is the Westerosi Harley Quinn.