Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On August 15, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Lurid Jester said:

Personally i hate the idea of Tyrion being a secret Targ.  

I like the poetry of Tyrion being the one child of Tywin most deserving of his support, but being the one who gets nothing but his contempt. 

Also, I hate the idea of Tywin having a legitimate reason for how badly he treated Tyrion. 

You've fallen into the author's trap: there can be no legitimate reason for how badly Tywin treated Tyrion. It does not matter that, or even whether, Aerys cuckolded Tywin. To hold a child to account for the acts of his parents from before his own birth is a gross injustice, an inhuman crime. It is part of Martin's brutal lessons about how terrible people can be to each other.

The child is innocent. Always.

When a new lion king takes over a pride previously held by another, he will often enough track down all the cubs his lionesses had given their previous king and kill them.  And woe unto the lesser lion who tries to cuckold the king in secret.

But men are not lions, women are not lionesses, and Man is not a pride. We're better than that.

At least, we're supposed to be. That's what Martin is saying here.

Tywin is a monster, no less so if he's right that Tyrion is the Mad King's son. Indeed, he is even more of a monster, for their can be no justification for his treatment of Tyrion. Tyrion is innocent of all evil here. The evil is Tywin's and Tywin's alone. 

We are human beings. We are not savages.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

[mutual of Omaha content clipped...]

I didn't mean that I thought it was legitimate or in any way approved of Tywin's behavior.  

I want Tywin to be 100% wrong about Tyrion.  Making Tyrion the product of an adulterous relationship his mother had with Aerys would justify, in Tywin's eyes, some of the treatment he's been forced to endure.  

We know that Tywin wished he could prove that Tywin wasn't his son, but he couldn't. That suspicion though (because clearly Tywin's seed wouldn't produce the imp!) definitely fueled his disgust. 

So again, I want Tyrion to be 100% Tywin's son as a final kick in Tywin's balls.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 15, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Lord Lyman said:

That doesn't make him a Targaryen. Besides, there is no other evidence in the show to suggest it.

"No evidence in the show"?

  • Consider Tywin's dressing-down of Tyrion in the third season: he said he can't prove that Tyrion is not his son, but he would never let him inherit Casterly Rock.
  • Later Tywin answered Tyrion's question about when Tywin had ever done anything for the family instead of for himself, Tywin told him on the day that he was born, when he stayed his hand from murder and brought Tyrion up "as his own son" out of his love for Joanna.
  • Why was Tyrion the first man of Westeros whom Drogon revealed himself to, back on the Rhoyne? 
  • Why did the red priestess in Mereen suddenly turn to peer so intently at little hooded Tyrion when he sarcastically tell told Varys that they'd come to meet the "saviour" the red priestess had just mentioned?
  • Why didn't the dragons eat him? How could his talking to them calm them? Was it because he told them of his childhood dream of having a dragon of his own? Why did he want that? Why did they care?

There's plenty of foreshadowing in the show.

Some people can waste twenty years denying the staggering evidence that Jon is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna. Some people can spend just a few seasons.

But it's all the same: it doesn't matter what they want. Martin's interlocking game is something he's planned forever, and the show has been showing all the same clues, rather heavy handedly to be perfectly honest, leading to how the three-headed dragon reborn has been there all along.

You'll see. It isn't worth arguing about, or ranting about, or pretending isn't there.

You'll see.

 

 

 

Edited by CrypticWeirwood
omitted word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

You'll see. It isn't worth arguing about, or ranting about, or pretending isn't there.

You'll see.

You might as well be a character in a horror movie saying "I'll be right back".

By all means, load the gun that someone will shoot back at you if it turns out you're wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

"No evidence in the show"?

  • Consider Tywin's dressing-down of Tyrion in the third season: he said he can't prove that Tyrion is not his son, but he would never let him inherit Casterly Rock.
  • Later Tywin answered Tyrion's question about when Tywin had ever done anything for the family instead of for himself, Tywin told him on the day that he was born, when he stayed his hand from murder and brought Tyrion up "as his own son" out of his love for Joanna.
  • Why was Tyrion the first man of Westeros whom Drogon revealed himself to, back on the Rhoyne? 
  • Why did the red priestess in Mereen suddenly turn to peer so intently at little hooded Tyrion when he sarcastically tell told Varys that they'd come to meet the "saviour" the red priestess had just mentioned?
  • Why didn't the dragons eat him? How could his talking to them calm them? Was it because he told them of his childhood dream of having a dragon of his own? Why did he want that? Why did they care?

There's plenty of foreshadowing in the show.

Some people can waste twenty years denying the staggering evidence that Jon is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna. Some people can spend just a few seasons.

But it's all the same: it doesn't matter what they want. Martin's interlocking game is something he's planned forever, and the show has been showing all the same clues, rather heavy handedly to be perfectly honest, leading to how the three-headed dragon reborn has been there all along.

You'll see. It isn't worth arguing about, or ranting about, or pretending isn't there.

You'll see.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say there's no evidence. The above poster probably meant to say there's no definitive evidence. There are plenty of clues suggesting Targaryen parentage for Tyrion, which is why it's a favorite fan theory. Not that fans don't come up with the wildest theories on the flimsiest evidence. But not usually with ones this popular. 

Many of your examples can be explained away by the fact that--on the show at least--since poor Ned got dead, Dany, Jon, and Tyrion have been the main characters, and main characters need to be important and have something to do. That's debatable, I realize. Cersei has risen since Season Five to the ranks of main-main character, and in the same period Tyrion has fallen apart as a character. But he's still a show favorite, and they still give him things to do.

Why not have him release the dragons? Our show's got dragons and a dwarf. High time dragons and a dwarf share a scene. 

Those Tywin bits can more easily be interpreted as him not wanting to think of a dwarf as his son. It's embarrassing. (To him.)

You don't need to be a Targaryen to have a rapport with dragons, by the way. You just need dragon blood. 

As for the Jon Targaryen clues, they were way more heavy-handed than the Tyrion as Targaryen clues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Illiterati said:

Samwell, avenge his kin? :huh:

kin means family.

14 hours ago, Anarres said:

And reject his vows to the Night's Watch? Is there any precedent for this in the books? Other than Jon's resurrection we saw in the tv show, of course.

The nightswathc is not very respected in the south so i doubt many would try to stop  him.

12 hours ago, darmody said:

Sam is a sworn brother of the Night's Watch. Unless he comes back from the dead like Jon, he's not inheriting anything. 

- Drown him like theon was drowned, then revive him.

- If Jon left why cant the rest leave? How can jon prove he was dead? Jon leaving destroyed the nightswatch vows in the same way jaime killing aerys destroyed the meaning of the kingsguard vows.

From the wiki

Drowning and resurrection feature prominently in the prayers and rituals of the Drowned God religion. Sacrificial drowning is the traditional method of execution for the ironmen,[4][5]but it is also considered a holy act, and the most faithful have no fear of it. Newborns are "drowned" shortly after birth, being submerged into or anointed with saltwater. This is done as part of rites of the god, committing their bodies to the sea, so when they die they may find the Drowned God's halls. Both the method of execution and the newborn rite are referred to as being "given to the Drowned God".[6][1]

During the anointment ritual, the priest has a person kneel. Using his skin of sea water, he pours a stream of it upon the person's head. As he does this he intones:

Priest: Let <person> your servant be born again from the sea, as you were. Bless him with salt, bless him with stone, bless him with steel.
Response: What is dead may never die.
Priest: What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger.[2]
Quote

Then again, I'm not sure the Night's Watch will exist in a couple of episodes. Or if it even exists now, after Jon sent Tormund to Eastwatch and he bragged that his Wildling bunch were the Night's Watch.

In any case, Sam has a sister that can inherit. 

Yes he has a sister, talla. I just think that the producers want to kill of the tarlys inorder to get a favorite(samwell) into a good position. Since sam is a friend of jons.

Edited by norwaywolf123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, norwaywolf123 said:

- Drown him like theon was drowned, then revive him.

- If Jon left why cant the rest leave? How can jon prove he was dead? Jon leaving destroyed the nightswatch vows in the same way jaime killing aerys destroyed the meaning of the kingsguard vows.

 

I don't clearly remember Theon's ceremony, but I do remember Urine's. The ceremony was symbolic. Urine was temporarily unconscious and drowned in the sense that he stopped breathing. But he was not dead. I'm not sure why you bother bringing this up. 

Jon was dead in every sense. No more respiration, no circulation, no brain activity. The rest can't leave because they weren't dead; only he was. I don't know the Night's Watch's system for determining when one of its members is dead. Probably a Maester declares it. They didn't have one of those around at the time, but they didn't really need one. It was obvious. Many people witnessed him stone cold, including the current Lord Commander. 

If it had been a ruse, some kind of secret plot between Jon and the Red Witch, say, to use a secret potion or something to make it look like he was dead when he actually wasn't--after he was actually stabbed multiple times and thought to be dead by his attackers--clever them. It worked. But we know that's not the case. 

It's possible for human beings to come back from the dead, technically, considering legal death is brain death and brain death doesn't have to be permanent, though usually it is. So the Night's Watch vows aren't airtight. There's a loophole. Jon's death and resurrection weren't like that. That doesn't happen in reality. It was actual magic.

Jon's still technically exploiting a loophole, but he's doing so honestly. He really did die and thus fulfilled his vow. 

Edited by darmody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Jon leaving destroyed the nightswatch vows in the same way jaime killing aerys destroyed the meaning of the kingsguard vows

No. Jaime broke his vow, pure and simple. Jon fulfilled his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Starkistbeforethedawn said:

I see all the topics in the Episode 6 section have been removed due to the leaks. This forum is utterly pathetic sometimes. 

Not sure you're in support of people posting leak spoilers, or if you're against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

Not sure you're in support of people posting leak spoilers, or if you're against it.

I'm vehemently against the idea as i detest spoilers of all kinds (even a 'previously on' segment in shows irk me), but i see no reason in banning conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Starkistbeforethedawn said:

I'm vehemently against the idea as i detest spoilers of all kinds (even a 'previously on' segment in shows irk me), but i see no reason in banning conversation.

K, cool. Thought that was it but not sure.  In a forum like this though, probably just safer to nuke those conversations.  But maybe they just hid/locked them and will unlock on Sunday.  

Maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lurid Jester said:

K, cool. Thought that was it but not sure.  In a forum like this though, probably just safer to nuke those conversations.  But maybe they just hid/locked them and will unlock on Sunday.  

Maybe?

Actually, there were no reveals in the threads at the point I read them.  Just some folks saying they had watched it.  Either it went south after that, or the mods are being pre-emptive, which is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia lists episode 6 as Death is the Enemy, yet IMDB has no title , at this late date there is on name?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×