Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Agent 326

The Tyrell Conspiracy

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I'm in the middle of my third reading of ASOS and yes, Grey WInd's reactions are a hideous foreshadowing to what's afoot.

As for the Purple Wedding- I'm up in the air. I was taken off-guard by the solution of the Whodoneit about Bran.

So many posters had come up with resolutions to that question which are more satisfying (to my mind) than the one GRRM wrote.

This makes me wonder if we're not over-egging the pudding here.

Did you get closure on the Bran question? I have a suspicion that Littlefinger instigated it in Joffrey's mind and Joffrey took it from there, but I can't prove it (unlike the PW, which is proven beyond any and all doubt).

What solution did you finally arrive at?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Did you get closure on the Bran question? I have a suspicion that Littlefinger instigated it in Joffrey's mind and Joffrey took it from there, but I can't prove it (unlike the PW, which is proven beyond any and all doubt).

What solution did you finally arrive at?

 

Closure? No. 

But the solution to the question of attempted murder of Bran has been confirmed, as far as I know, by GRRM. I could be wrong there.

Not for the first time.

In any case, I was still pondering possibilities when I read the solution. 

With two books to go in the saga, I myself wouldn't bet on any resolution to any mystery.

But then, I'm still on my third reading of ASoIaF and marvelling at how much I've missed the first two times :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And he wasn't just out in the bay, but so far out that they couldn't even see land anymore. Why risk losing Sansa when all it would take is a few hundred yards offshore, a quick pick-up and off they go.

Yes, exactly.

Quote

Exactly, right there in the story, just like the time discrepancy between the two poisonings, the impossible logistics for the chalice, the utter lack of motivation for killing Joffrey, the dire need to kill Tyrion...

Exactly, none of those things are right there in the story.  Catelyn is alarmed by Grey Wind's behaviour and urges Robb to send the Westerlings away, even if she doesn't know what it means; Catelyn is confused by the discrepancy between different accounts of where Robert Arryn was supposed to be fostered, etc.  None of the things you list are actually signalled as being part of the story, they're nitpicking (particularly in the case of the motivations; we're given a motivation for the Tyrells, and there is never the slightest indication of their having a motivation to kill Tyrion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Invalid Date at 2:01 AM, Prof. Cecily said:

Closure? No. 

But the solution to the question of attempted murder of Bran has been confirmed, as far as I know, by GRRM. I could be wrong there.

Not for the first time.

In any case, I was still pondering possibilities when I read the solution. 

With two books to go in the saga, I myself wouldn't bet on any resolution to any mystery.

But then, I'm still on my third reading of ASoIaF and marvelling at how much I've missed the first two times :unsure:

Really? What confirmation was that? I'm curious now. It can't be that bit about SOS "resolved" the question of Bran and the dagger. That was classic Martin double-speak. Sure, it resolved the question of who sent the catspaw, but it left the question of why completely unanswered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Invalid Date at 9:57 AM, Colonel Green said:

Yes, exactly.

Exactly, none of those things are right there in the story.  Catelyn is alarmed by Grey Wind's behaviour and urges Robb to send the Westerlings away, even if she doesn't know what it means; Catelyn is confused by the discrepancy between different accounts of where Robert Arryn was supposed to be fostered, etc.  None of the things you list are actually signalled as being part of the story, they're nitpicking (particularly in the case of the motivations; we're given a motivation for the Tyrells, and there is never the slightest indication of their having a motivation to kill Tyrion).

Well, again, my question is back to you. If he could just grab her quickly and split, why does he wait all night long? I've given you my answer, I'm still waiting for yours.

And now you compound the problem with your theory even more by, once again, having a well established character like Littlefinger acting completely out of character by not taking the simple precaution of knowing what's happening in the RK at the crucial point of the most dangerous operation he's ever committed.

Yes, the growling, the concern, the confusion -- all right there in the story.

And what else is right there in the story?: the second-by-second accounts of the two wildly divergent poisonings, the impossible-to-predict placement of the chalice, the entire War of the 5K that redrew the map on the continent. You argue that vague foreshadowings are proof of a theory that you can clearly see in hindsight, but actual facts that disprove what you believe is just "nitpicking."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Well, again, my question is back to you. If he could just grab her quickly and split, why does he wait all night long? I've given you my answer, I'm still waiting for yours.

He couldn't grab her quickly and split, because he didn't want to take his ship that close to King's Landing when he's been meticulously keeping out of sight.

Quote

And now you compound the problem with your theory even more by, once again, having a well established character like Littlefinger acting completely out of character by not taking the simple precaution of knowing what's happening in the RK at the crucial point of the most dangerous operation he's ever committed.

Littlefinger's plans routinely involve major gambles, but regardless, if you assume that Littlefinger was willing to take his boat close enough to the city to receive some kind of message (even though there's no hints at all that any such message exists in the text), then there's no reason for him not to wait and pick up Sansa too.  In any event, from his location, if he doesn't get word by a certain point he can withdraw to safety with ease.

Quote

And what else is right there in the story?: the second-by-second accounts of the two wildly divergent poisonings, the impossible-to-predict placement of the chalice, the entire War of the 5K that redrew the map on the continent. You argue that vague foreshadowings are proof of a theory that you can clearly see in hindsight, but actual facts that disprove what you believe is just "nitpicking."

The "wildly divergent poisonings" are a prime example of nitpicking.

The things you talk about are not "in the text" in the manner of the other foreshadowings because there's no textual indication they're meant to be considered suspicious or unusual.  It's wholly your own imposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Really? What confirmation was that? I'm curious now. It can't be that bit about SOS "resolved" the question of Bran and the dagger. That was classic Martin double-speak. Sure, it resolved the question of who sent the catspaw, but it left the question of why completely unanswered.

I can see your point- several explanations have been offered in the text itself, but we may never really know why the assassination was ordered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love reading about the Tyrells, but as I continue to re-read the books and look at different analyses of them, I'm seeing them as essentially a family of snakes. 

I once saw someone describe how the Tyrells and Lannisters are on opposite ends of the spectrum, with the Tyrells being raised to work as a team, and the Lannisters being raised to compete against each other. The Tyrells seem to be very much in sync with one another, much more so than even the Starks or Tullys. There's this feeling that they don't keep any secrets from one another (except for dear Loras, who was seemingly left out of the loop about Joff's assassination). They scheme and manipulate behind the guise of romantic chivalry; I'm inclined to agree with Dontos that they're pretty much "Lannisters with flowers." They abandoned Sansa the second they knew they weren't going to be able to get anything out of her anymore, framed Tyrion and possibly Sansa for murder (although to be fair, GRRM did say that they had thought that Joffrey's death would be passed off as choking) and Olenna pretty much handed Sansa off to a predator afterwards. 

This only makes them even more fun to read about, of course. I love what they contribute to the story, but I have very little respect for them. The only Tyrell I find likable is Garlan, and even he is another cog in the machine. Unlike in the show, I don't think the Tyrells are a matriarchy. Mace clearly seems to be the one calling the shots.

I think the ultimate goal is for House Tyrell to be the most powerful House in Westeros. They want to control Tommen the way lords tried to control Aegon III, only unlike Aegon, there's no Viserys II to swoop in and free Tommen from their grasp. They underestimated Cersei's determination, however, and Cersei's scheming, along with the oncoming invasion of multiple Targaryens, will be their doom. I don't think their House will be completely decimated, but I think the Tyrells will end the series the weakest they've been since Aegon's Conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2017 at 11:43 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

I love reading about the Tyrells, but as I continue to re-read the books and look at different analyses of them, I'm seeing them as essentially a family of snakes. 

I once saw someone describe how the Tyrells and Lannisters are on opposite ends of the spectrum, with the Tyrells being raised to work as a team, and the Lannisters being raised to compete against each other. The Tyrells seem to be very much in sync with one another, much more so than even the Starks or Tullys. There's this feeling that they don't keep any secrets from one another (except for dear Loras, who was seemingly left out of the loop about Joff's assassination). They scheme and manipulate behind the guise of romantic chivalry; I'm inclined to agree with Dontos that they're pretty much "Lannisters with flowers." They abandoned Sansa the second they knew they weren't going to be able to get anything out of her anymore, framed Tyrion and possibly Sansa for murder (although to be fair, GRRM did say that they had thought that Joffrey's death would be passed off as choking) and Olenna pretty much handed Sansa off to a predator afterwards. 

This only makes them even more fun to read about, of course. I love what they contribute to the story, but I have very little respect for them. The only Tyrell I find likable is Garlan, and even he is another cog in the machine. Unlike in the show, I don't think the Tyrells are a matriarchy. Mace clearly seems to be the one calling the shots.

I think the ultimate goal is for House Tyrell to be the most powerful House in Westeros. They want to control Tommen the way lords tried to control Aegon III, only unlike Aegon, there's no Viserys II to swoop in and free Tommen from their grasp. They underestimated Cersei's determination, however, and Cersei's scheming, along with the oncoming invasion of multiple Targaryens, will be their doom. I don't think their House will be completely decimated, but I think the Tyrells will end the series the weakest they've been since Aegon's Conquest.

Yes, Garlan! One of my favourite Tyrells.

I found the little mystery of Renly's Ghost to be a subtle means of GRRM to show us how to take supernatural events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much agree with the analysis of the Tyrells; I would only add that while Mace is the one calling the shots, Olenna is the one manipulating the trigger and the target :-)

 

- As to "wildly divergent poisonings":

both victims choke within no more than two minutes. That's not "wildly divergent", that's fucking almost the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Invalid Date at 5:04 PM, Colonel Green said:

He couldn't grab her quickly and split, because he didn't want to take his ship that close to King's Landing when he's been meticulously keeping out of sight.

Littlefinger's plans routinely involve major gambles, but regardless, if you assume that Littlefinger was willing to take his boat close enough to the city to receive some kind of message (even though there's no hints at all that any such message exists in the text), then there's no reason for him not to wait and pick up Sansa too.  In any event, from his location, if he doesn't get word by a certain point he can withdraw to safety with ease.

The "wildly divergent poisonings" are a prime example of nitpicking.

The things you talk about are not "in the text" in the manner of the other foreshadowings because there's no textual indication they're meant to be considered suspicious or unusual.  It's wholly your own imposition.

lol, it's the middle of the night and he thinks he has to keep so far out that he can't even see the lights from shore? How on earth is anyone supposed to see him from 100 yards away, let alone three miles? Once again, I ask you: where in the text do you get the idea that Littlefinger is this paranoid? And how do you square this with the same man who, as you say, has plans that "routinely involve major gambles"?

As I said, he is perfectly fine coming in close to shore before the poisoning, and afterwards he is perfectly fine as long as he doesn't have Sansa, thus the delay.

And it's laughable that you complain about no text when your entire theory relies on a endless string of assumptions that have absolutely no text to back them up. And even in cases where your contentions are directly refuted by the text, you claim that this is merely proof of their veracity. Martin has to keep something under the surface, otherwise the truth would be so obvious that it wouldn't be worth the bother.

And if it's foreshadowing you want, I'll see your wolf-growl and raise you with: "It's, kof, the pie, noth -- kof, pie." Straight from the victim's own lips.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Invalid Date at 5:11 PM, Prof. Cecily said:

I can see your point- several explanations have been offered in the text itself, but we may never really know why the assassination was ordered.

Oh, I bet we will. There are still two books to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Yes, and mayhaps three! :D

I think one of the reasons why TWOW is taking so long is because after writing for several years, George realized that he was almost at his page limit, then he spent several months trying to make it all fit before realizing he couldn't. Now he's doing rewrites, trying to figure out which parts should go in this book while struggling with the five stages of grief over the fact that there will be eight books instead of seven :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think one of the reasons why TWOW is taking so long is because after writing for several years, George realized that he was almost at his page limit, then he spent several months trying to make it all fit before realizing he couldn't. Now he's doing rewrites, trying to figure out which parts should go in this book while struggling with the five stages of grief over the fact that there will be eight books instead of seven :wacko:

Perhaps true, but the other reason is that Martin is a very meticulous and detail-oriented writer. He's not one who fails to notice that his more concentrated poison worked slower on the younger, more vulnerable victim, or that the plot to poison said victim relied on a lengthy sequence of completely random, unpredictable events.

However, he is one to establish a carefully crafted sub-textual motivation for certain characters to want to kill another certain character, and then cleverly disguise it with layer upon layer of subterfuge using the reader's own mores and biases to lead them to a false conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Invalid Date at 9:12 PM, Ygrain said:

Definitely not - this is the classical example of a sword and the hand which wields it; which one is guilty of killing? The person who organized the poisoning is as guilty as the one who actually put the poison in the chalice.

I'm sorry I have taken so long to respond, but you raised so many disparate issues that I have decided I can only take them on one at a time. First I will provide my response for this statement.

Again you seem to think you are offering an idea that is edgy or unique. It is not. The belief that all members of a conspiracy have some level of guilt has been dealt with in the novels already. Remember when Jon Arryn was poisoned? Remember how Ned believed that Jaime and Cersei was responsible? Remember how Ned looked for the poisoner so that he could prove that Jaime and Cersei were behind it? Remember how finding out that the Lysa was the poisoner changed how we viewed that whole episode? I'm sure you do. This will stand true for this poisoning also. Once the poisoner has been revealed, understanding will be had.
Now, let's briefly discuss why the unknown poisoner's co-conspirators would not be considered the poisoner. First we will compare a poisoner to a bank robber. Each of these individuals are similar in that they don't actually need to enter into a conspiracy with anyone in order to commit their crime. The poisoner can form the plan, obtain the poison and administer the poison without including anyone else in their plans. Similarly, a bank robber can decide to take a gun and go rob a bank without consulting anyone. On the other hand, none of the people in a conspiracy with these individuals can successfully reach their goals without them. If a bank robber has entered into a conspiracy with two other people (one to be the look out and one to be the get-away driver), and then the bank robber chickens out, the other conspirators are guilty of nothing more than loitering. Similarly, if the poisoner backs out, the conspirators are guilty only of really, really wanting another person dead. Thus, both the poisoner and bank robber perform a unique role within the conspiracy that can't be attributed to others in the conspiracy willy-nilly.
As to the relative guilt of each individual within the conspiracy, that can only be determined once all the information is know about the crime. Although the crime only comes into being if the bank robber actually robs the bank, if someone is holding the bank robber's child hostage, more of the guilt would fall on those who forced the individual into robbing the bank. Basically, if the bank robber or poisoner is forced, coerced or manipulated into performing their action, then they would be less guilty. How much less can only be determined once the whole story is known. What I am proposing is that Sansa was manipulated into putting the poison in the chalice by being told it was a magic that would make Joffrey send her home. Sansa is certainly angry with Dontos afterwards for claiming it was “magic”.
Next I will tackle the conversation between Olenna, Marge and Sansa and explain why that conversation proves Olenna was not involved in the conspiracy at the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×