The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

[Tyrion1991]

55 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And that’s so much worse than saying, “I am the blood of the dragon”. Since dragons are like cute little creatures, and totally vegetarian. 

Talk about being hypocritical.

 

Which is pointed out at multiple occasions by multiple characters throughout the series. “Viserys is the shadow of a snake”. 

The hypocritical element is that the Starks aren’t criticised for doing the exact same thing. They simply do that stoic long face and it handwaves any moral criticism. They chose a wolf as their sigil as a statement of power and to inspire fear in their enemies. It’s a threat and a petty one at that. Again, George isn’t critiquing what people are doing, he’s critiquing how they do it. Put on a stoic slapped arse face and dye your hair black and you’re excused of anything. That sentiment pervades the novels.

Even then, dragons haven’t been alive for decades and were far too rare. Wolves are real creatures that were hunted to near extinction in Europe precisely for this reason. A pervasive threat. They were vermin, pests and dangerous animals. Every positive aspect of a wolf you can find in a dog. The only reason people think wolves are cool is because they like the threat and the danger so want to associate themselves with that. It is no different than having a dragon banner to imply how powerful and dangerous you are.

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Which is pointed out at multiple occasions by multiple characters throughout the series. “Viserys is the shadow of a snake”. 

Who said anything about Viserys?

A Game of Thrones - Daenerys II

They rode out together as the stars came out, leaving the khalasar and the grass palaces behind. Khal Drogo spoke no word to her, but drove his stallion at a hard trot through the gathering dusk. The tiny silver bells in his long braid rang softly as he rode. "I am the blood of the dragon," she whispered aloud as she followed, trying to keep her courage up. "I am the blood of the dragon. I am the blood of the dragon." The dragon was never afraid.

ps: plenty more where that came from. 

[Tyrion1991]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Who said anything about Viserys?

A Game of Thrones - Daenerys II

They rode out together as the stars came out, leaving the khalasar and the grass palaces behind. Khal Drogo spoke no word to her, but drove his stallion at a hard trot through the gathering dusk. The tiny silver bells in his long braid rang softly as he rode. "I am the blood of the dragon," she whispered aloud as she followed, trying to keep her courage up. "I am the blood of the dragon. I am the blood of the dragon." The dragon was never afraid.

ps: plenty more where that came from. 

 

Because Daenerys earns the right to call herself that. If you miraculously emerge out of a fire with three dragons from stone you’re allowed to be dramatic. It would be insincere and false modesty if you didn’t. 

Besides, Dany is criticised for that and certainly criticised generally by characters in the series. It is addressed and we as the audience are left to make up our own minds about that. That’s posing an open question to the reader.

Rob, Bran and Jon are not criticsed or mocked for that kind of pretence. The authors voice is very loud on this point. He wants to advocate this stoic man of reason and this noble savagery without irony or a question mark hovering over it. There isn’t some hidden meta 4D chess criticism of House Stark in the text.

 

 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Wolves eat people, Stags do not. Wanting to associate yourself with an animal that is considered vermin and hunted down by your own peasants is not a good thing. Whereas stag genuinely is the noble creature of the forest. People who want to associate themselves with Wolves is because they admire the violent and threatening aspects of the creature. It’s just as sinister as valuing a flayed man. It says we’re the killers in the night who are coming for you. 

 

So do dragons, lions, bears, krakens... I dare you to approach a stag and after that let me know how it went.

As i told you, besides being majestic, the stags are proud, stubborn, rarely get along and constantly fight amongst each other.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 They aren’t taken seriously at all. You have multiple characters including Ned, Tyrion, Cat, Sandor, Ser Loras and the Mountains  intended to satirise or critique the notion of Andal warrior culture. No such criticism happens of the Northern way of war or its endless pretensions. Puritanism is pretentious.

 

They are, there is a reason why almost all the greatest warriors we encounter are southerns, i can only think of the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark,  Theon Stark and Artos Stark.  I can think of twenty just in the current time.

There is little to none difference between the summer knights and the summer boys, both imply the same, the naivette of the summer faxing the extreme cruelty of life, ie Winter.

Martin does criticize the Knighthood however but iirc, didn't the First Men in the Reach the ones who created it??

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 House Arryns army hasn’t left the Vale and it’s on the margins. We barely see them between Tyrion’s trial and Sansa being taken there. Later, maybe George will have them join the ranks of the good Andals who like kissing Northern boots.

 

Man, we are in the Vale, even in lore they are not trashtalked. I mean, before Oberyn was even introduced, we¡ve already heard one or two stereotypes about the Dornish.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Because the Tully’s submit to Stark overlordship. They then allow him to quarter 20,000 barbarians in the river lands and hold the nation hostage. Which is all done so this mafia family can keep their lands and titles. To George a good Andal is one who recognises how Northmen are morally superior Uber men and submit to them. That’s the only qualifier George uses and he plays down any negative aspects of them selling out like this. The Frey’s could easily have accused the Tully’s of selling out and allowing a godless foreign army to bleed the Riverlands dry (Rob has to pay and feed his army from a impoverished country). They don’t because George didn’t want them to have valid believable reasons for killing Rob. It’s not a tragedy if Rob is just another warlord and the Northerners guilty of war crimes.

 

The Tully are tied to them and they need the Starks to win the war against the Lannisters, btw isn't Westeros a giant mafia being the King the boss of bosses?? Why are you upset with only the Starks being mafia??

You're using double standards here.

[kissdbyfire]

Right. I think there’s nothing left to explore. You have a very peculiar interpretation of the text. And I’m not talking about right or wrong, just really odd IMO. You deliberately ignore some things while hanging onto others and dismiss things out of hand just b/c they don’t align w/ your views. And that’s fine, it’s just kind of sad b/c in a way you are severely limiting the enjoyment you could be getting out of the story. I frankly don’t even understand how you’ve reached certain conclusions, but to each their own.  

[Tyrion1991]

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

So do dragons, lions, bears, krakens... I dare you to approach a stag and after that let me know how it went.

As i told you, besides being majestic, the stags are proud, stubborn, rarely get along and constantly fight amongst each other.

 

 

They are, there is a reason why almost all the greatest warriors we encounter are southerns, i can only think of the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark,  Theon Stark and Artos Stark.  I can think of twenty just in the current time.

There is little to none difference between the summer knights and the summer boys, both imply the same, the naivette of the summer faxing the extreme cruelty of life, ie Winter.

Martin does criticize the Knighthood however but iirc, didn't the First Men in the Reach the ones who created it??

 

 

 

Man, we are in the Vale, even in lore they are not trashtalked. I mean, before Oberyn was even introduced, we¡ve already heard one or two stereotypes about the Dornish.

 

 

The Tully are tied to them and they need the Starks to win the war against the Lannisters, btw isn't Westeros a giant mafia being the King the boss of bosses?? Why are you upset with only the Starks being mafia??

You're using double standards here.

 

Because all those factions are derided at one point or another. The Starks and the North are not. If the Starks were not being put on a pedestal and being treated differently to the other factions then I wouldn’t have an issue.

That’s quite a lot of guys. Plus you have Dacey Mormont, all the She Bears, you have Reeds who are basically swamp elves. You have the Karstark army being introduced as this disciplined machine. Bolton is implied to be a major threat to Stannis and the Ironborn. The fact Rob wins is in part ascribed to the fighting capacity of the Northern soldier. The insinuation is that these are like the Historical Swiss Pikemen, a nationalist, hardy folk who fight hard and come out involved too over soft green knights.

Knights are a southern thing. In the World of Ice n Fire George makes a big deal about how the North eschews soft tournaments and instead have big melee brawls instead. Again, he’s constantly playing up and emphasising this Uber man identity. He even says in interviews that the Northern houses are all given harsh names to signify how they are all hard men. To him there’s nothing to criticise and he’s playing this up to appeal to his preconceptions of a cool warrior culture.

What did you think the whole thing was with Bron easily killing Vardas Egan in the duel? The scruffy mercenary and the hard man defeats the Noble because he fights dirty. It’s a fight that’s loaded with metaphors. Never mind that in a duel the knight would probably wrestle the little man to ground and gut him; or just poke him once then let him bleed out before cutting his throat. People wouldn’t wear armour if it disadvantaged you like that. I think Shadveristy did a video where he mentioned about all that being in fighting manuals of the Middle Ages. What George depicts is a stupid way of making war when opposed to the practical man of reason. But yeah, the Bron duel is a broadside to the idea the Knights of the Vale are an impressive force.

George should address the issues of quartering 20,000 armed scum on campaign without the money or food to support them for years. You can’t handwave issues like that and then condemn Stannis for not making adequate provisions in the North or Dany for having mouths with feet. That is a double standard. Not addressing that massively changes the context of the Northern intervention and the Tully’s kowtowing to them. Apparently the Northern army have a 100 percent reduction in upkeep and immunity to attrition from disease. Guess it’s not very heroic if half his men die of cholera.

The Starks are never criticised for being feudal lords. That’s the problem, it’s a central point about whether they are actually good people. This is a society that is worse than the Ancien Regime the French overthrow in the 18th century. It’s a vilified way of organising society that men five centuries dead mocked and called the Dark Ages. You cannot be a good person and be party to that. Putting on a stoic face and having raven hair doesn’t make you a good person. George is sidestepping the real problem with Westeros and putting all the blame on personalities or incest babies. By not criticising the Starks he is implying they are the solution to Westeros’s problems.

[frenin]

19 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because all those factions are derided at one point or another. The Starks and the North are not. If the Starks were not being put on a pedestal and being treated differently to the other factions then I wouldn’t have an issue.

 

They aren't only you think they are.

 

20 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 That’s quite a lot of guys. Plus you have Dacey Mormont, all the She Bears, you have Reeds who are basically swamp elves. You have the Karstark army being introduced as this disciplined machine. Bolton is implied to be a major threat to Stannis and the Ironborn. The fact Rob wins is in part ascribed to the fighting capacity of the Northern soldier. The insinuation is that these are like the Historical Swiss Pikemen, a nationalist, hardy folk who fight hard and come out involved too over soft green knights.

 Knights are a southern thing. In the World of Ice n Fire George makes a big deal about how the North eschews soft tournaments and instead have big melee brawls instead. Again, he’s constantly playing up and emphasising this Uber man identity. He even says in interviews that the Northern houses are all given harsh names to signify how they are all hard men. To him there’s nothing to criticise and he’s playing this up to appeal to his preconceptions of a cool warrior culture.

 

No, they are not. I forgot about the She bears but that's it, the Reeds are dwarfs swamp who only can play at home,  the Karstark army is any better than any southern army, Bolton is a major threat to Stannis because he's the  current Warden of the North and he's currently guarding Winterfell, not by his skills as a warrior or commander.  Robb wins because both him and the Blackfish are superb tacicians.

But let's see about great Warriors and tactics in the outbreak of the Wot5k and i'm just saying those who comes to my mind right now, Oberyn, the Sand Snakes, Darkstar, Loras, Garlan, Baelor Brightsmile, Jaime, the Clrgane Brothers, Tywin, Kevan, Emmon Cuy, Robar Royce, Arys Oakheart, Mandoon More, Corbray, Yohn Royce, Addam Marbrand, Barry B, Strongboar Jason Mallisterr, Beric Dondarrion etc etc etc.

 

Martin does not have an opinion of tournaments and in fact, only Ned trashtalks them, even Brandon was a knight, Lyanna was most likely the kotlt, he expresses that they are different,  you're the one transforming different into better.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 What did you think the whole thing was with Bron easily killing Vardas Egan in the duel? The scruffy mercenary and the hard man defeats the Noble because he fights dirty. It’s a fight that’s loaded with metaphors. Never mind that in a duel the knight would probably wrestle the little man to ground and gut him; or just poke him once then let him bleed out before cutting his throat. People wouldn’t wear armour if it disadvantaged you like that. I think Shadveristy did a video where he mentioned about all that being in fighting manuals of the Middle Ages. What George depicts is a stupid way of making war when opposed to the practical man of reason. But yeah, the Bron duel is a broadside to the idea the Knights of the Vale are an impressive force.

 

You're grasping straws here because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

There is little to no difference between the duel with Egen and the one with Byrch,  Martin makes a point that honorability in battle is death,  the same point he'd later make with Brienne.

 

Quote

"A piglet is a piglet. It is different with a man. When I was a squire young as you, I had a friend who was strong and quick and agile, a champion in the yard. We all knew that one day he would be a splendid knight. Then war came to the Stepstones. I saw my friend drive his foeman to his knees and knock the axe from his hand, but when he might have finished he held back for half a heartbeat. In battle half a heartbeat is a lifetime. The man slipped out his dirk and found a chink in my friend's armor. His strength, his speed, his valor, all his hard-won skill . . . it was worth less than a mummer's fart, because he flinched from killing. Remember that, girl."

 

 

41 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 George should address the issues of quartering 20,000 armed scum on campaign without the money or food to support them for years. You can’t handwave issues like that and then condemn Stannis for not making adequate provisions in the North or Dany for having mouths with feet. That is a double standard. Not addressing that massively changes the context of the Northern intervention and the Tully’s kowtowing to them. Apparently the Northern army have a 100 percent reduction in upkeep and immunity to attrition from disease. Guess it’s not very heroic if half his men die of cholera.

 

Have you not read how the northmen fare in the riverlands and how the rivermen came to see them?? I did, i leave you at that.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 The Starks are never criticised for being feudal lords. That’s the problem, it’s a central point about whether they are actually good people. This is a society that is worse than the Ancien Regime the French overthrow in the 18th century. It’s a vilified way of organising society that men five centuries dead mocked and called the Dark Ages. You cannot be a good person and be party to that. Putting on a stoic face and having raven hair doesn’t make you a good person. George is sidestepping the real problem with Westeros and putting all the blame on personalities or incest babies. By not criticising the Starks he is implying they are the solution to Westeros’s problems.

 

And by you criticising the Starks you're addressing the problem?? Why the Starks and not the Martells?? Or any other house fir that matter.

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

even Brandon was a knight

Where did you get that from?

ETA: I agree w/ everything else you said btw.

[Tyrion1991]

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

They aren't only you think they are.

 

 

No, they are not. I forgot about the She bears but that's it, the Reeds are dwarfs swamp who only can play at home,  the Karstark army is any better than any southern army, Bolton is a major threat to Stannis because he's the  current Warden of the North and he's currently guarding Winterfell, not by his skills as a warrior or commander.  Robb wins because both him and the Blackfish are superb tacicians.

But let's see about great Warriors and tactics in the outbreak of the Wot5k and i'm just saying those who comes to my mind right now, Oberyn, the Sand Snakes, Darkstar, Loras, Garlan, Baelor Brightsmile, Jaime, the Clrgane Brothers, Tywin, Kevan, Emmon Cuy, Robar Royce, Arys Oakheart, Mandoon More, Corbray, Yohn Royce, Addam Marbrand, Barry B, Strongboar Jason Mallisterr, Beric Dondarrion etc etc etc.

 

Martin does not have an opinion of tournaments and in fact, only Ned trashtalks them, even Brandon was a knight, Lyanna was most likely the kotlt, he expresses that they are different,  you're the one transforming different into better.

 

 

 

You're grasping straws here because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

There is little to no difference between the duel with Egen and the one with Byrch,  Martin makes a point that honorability in battle is death,  the same point he'd later make with Brienne.

 

 

 

Have you not read how the northmen fare in the riverlands and how the rivermen came to see them?? I did, i leave you at that.

 

 

 

And by you criticising the Starks you're addressing the problem?? Why the Starks and not the Martells?? Or any other house fir that matter.

 

When is there any criticism of the Northern way of war? Of the North? When is there a criticism of the Starks? 

For example, the North has a low population and is very poor. They shouldn’t be able to absorb losses and should have to continuously punch above their weight. Which isn’t sustainable in the long run and should make the army a glass cannon. Same problem Sweden has in the Great Northern War because they lacked the manpower and they can’t easily replace losses of trained men. It’s the absence of these critiques which is grating. Instead we get this stab in the back nonsense. Oh the Northern army was never defeated in the field and if it hadn’t been for treason then Rob would have been victorious. His own should have killed him before he even got to the Twins with how that war was going.

Whereas George is going to town on the Knights and Men at Arms of the South as being a quaint method of fighting. They’re playing at war, the Knights of Summer and not the equal of hardy Northern soldiers. He is saying they are better than everybody else. George isn’t a fool, he’s wants to avoid them appearing arrogant and believing their own hype; so he has southern characters do the hype for them. It’s the southerners who are self critical and satirising themselves whilst holding up the Northern army as this world conquering host that wins battle after battle. That way they can be modest and powerful. 

George does trash talk them. That’s why he has the Tourney of the Hand be a fiasco with people dying and the long being an ass. Ned is very much a mouthpiece for the author when he criticises Knights. These are not neutral acts. There is a huge amount of moralising and condescension in what’s being written about. Which is fine. But it’s hypocritical to then say in World of Ice and Fire how awesome it is that in the North they have this man on man action in these melees where they’re all getting lathered in mud and breaking each other. A melee is not different than a tournament. It’s exactly the same macho competition that makes a game out of killing. But we don’t see moral condemnation or satire of this because George does not ever satirise the North or anything associated with it.

George is using modern concepts of what honour would look like, which have more in common with the gentlemanly duels of the 18th century. A real medieval knight would have cut Bron up like a pig and strung his tarred corpse up in a gibbet; which would be considered perfectly honourable. 

They win every battle where they are not grossly outnumbered or stabbed in the back. No other army has that effectiveness in the series. The Riverlords remain loyal even after Robs death and are all like “the North will rise again”. Which is setting up them rejoining. The Freys are depicted as sub human troglodyte creatures. Again, this is not a grey or nuanced storyline. The author really is backing the white horse here.

Because the Martells know what they are and they accept it. George doesn’t try to argue the Martels are the solution to Westeros problems like the Starks. He lays out their problems, their manpower issues, the weaknesses and foibles of their character. There’s a nuance that is not present with anything to do with the North and the Starks. He never says or implies that Dorne is perfect. People talk about why it’s a bad idea for Dorne to go to war yet it’s never once discussed about being a bad idea to make the North independent. Not once.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Where did you get that from?

ETA: I agree w/ everything else you said btw.

Just a little jump i admit, since i can't see how could he enter in touneys without being a knight.

 

27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

When is there any criticism of the Northern way of war? Of the North? When is there a criticism of the Starks? 

 

I speak at the top of my mind but the Rivermen came to see the Northmen as no different than the Lannisters,  i know they are more but tbh  the idea of looking for quotes about the gruesome of war is not very appealing to me right know, i'll leave that to you.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 For example, the North has a low population and is very poor. They shouldn’t be able to absorb losses and should have to continuously punch above their weight. Which isn’t sustainable in the long run and should make the army a glass cannon. Same problem Sweden has in the Great Northern War because they lacked the manpower and they can’t easily replace losses of trained men. It’s the absence of these critiques which is grating. Instead we get this stab in the back nonsense. Oh the Northern army was never defeated in the field and if it hadn’t been for treason then Rob would have been victorious. His own should have killed him before he even got to the Twins with how that war was going.

 

This is basic maths, the North can field at top, 3500-45000 men,  only 19500 men marched with Robb in the South,  that means that despite the heavy losses,  the North can levy more men. Even then, Robb keep playing with the cards he holds.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Whereas George is going to town on the Knights and Men at Arms of the South as being a quaint method of fighting. They’re playing at war, the Knights of Summer and not the equal of hardy Northern soldiers. He is saying they are better than everybody else. George isn’t a fool, he’s wants to avoid them appearing arrogant and believing their own hype; so he has southern characters do the hype for them. It’s the southerners who are self critical and satirising themselves whilst holding up the Northern army as this world conquering host that wins battle after battle. That way they can be modest and powerful. 

 

You don't want to listen but i'll repeat it until you do.

SUMMER KNIGHTS=SUMMER BOYS

There is literally no difference between the Karstark brothers who  beg for the honor of guarding Robb with Loras or Renly's guard, nor is Robb and his northern army evoking any type of arian master race epic poem, Robb and his crusade is the same as that of his hero the Young Dragon. Is so obvious that is tiresome to talk about it.

 

42 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 George does trash talk them. That’s why he has the Tourney of the Hand be a fiasco with people dying and the long being an ass. Ned is very much a mouthpiece for the author when he criticises Knights. These are not neutral acts. There is a huge amount of moralising and condescension in what’s being written about. Which is fine. But it’s hypocritical to then say in World of Ice and Fire how awesome it is that in the North they have this man on man action in these melees where they’re all getting lathered in mud and breaking each other. A melee is not different than a tournament. It’s exactly the same macho competition that makes a game out of killing. But we don’t see moral condemnation or satire of this because George does not ever satirise the North or anything associated with it.

 

Ned trash talk them*.

Ned is not a mouthpiece for the author, Ned is another character with his own biases, you're the one that decides taking Ned's words as Martin's words.  Why Ned's and not Jaime's or Barristan's?? 

 

 

45 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 George is using modern concepts of what honour would look like, which have more in common with the gentlemanly duels of the 18th century. A real medieval knight would have cut Bron up like a pig and strung his tarred corpse up in a gibbet; which would be considered perfectly honourable. 

 

Ofc he is, it's his story, he gets to write however he wants it, in his world, honor is that.

People tend to confuse,  basing an idea in an rl fact with them having to be the same...

 

 

48 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 They win every battle where they are not grossly outnumbered or stabbed in the back. No other army has that effectiveness in the series.(1) The Riverlords remain loyal even after Robs death and are all like “the North will rise again”.(2) Which is setting up them rejoining.(3) The Freys are depicted as sub human troglodyte creatures.(4) Again, this is not a grey or nuanced storyline. The author really is backing the white horse here.(5)

 

 

1.  Just as the Young Dragon.
2. Ofc they remain loyal, the Lannisters have fucked them hard, Robb was a charismatic leader and the Red Wedding.
3. Don't know how, without Rickon magically aging up, the Riverlords are not coming back.
4. Now, c'mon, exaggerating much??
5. Nah, it's just that you don't really like the Starks. (Don't really know what happen with stags, targs and starks haters but they do hate them lmao)

 

 

53 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Because the Martells know what they are and they accept it. George doesn’t try to argue the Martels are the solution to Westeros problems like the Starks. He lays out their problems, their manpower issues, the weaknesses and foibles of their character. There’s a nuance that is not present with anything to do with the North and the Starks. He never says or implies that Dorne is perfect. People talk about why it’s a bad idea for Dorne to go to war yet it’s never once discussed about being a bad idea to make the North independent. Not once.

The Starks aren't the solution either, nor is he trying to sell us that, we know about the Stark problems soon after Ned's dies, Robb is not ready to take the lead even when he's brilliant and that ends up costing the Starks everything, we know about their manpower problem, the Starks have a quite decent army but the North size and distances makes it almost impossible to gather it and they absurdily enough don't have navy and foible of character?? Hello?? All the Starks but Robb and Rickon are povs, how can't we see their foibles??

Warring and being independent are quite different things and the independence was made in the spur of the moment and in the Lannister's second direst moment.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, frenin said:

Just a little jump i admit, since i can't see how could he enter in touneys without being a knight.

While traditionally tourneys are a knightly thing, there is no such rule. With this in mind, and talking specifically about the Tourney at Harrenhal, it makes sense for the rules to be as lax as they can, if we believe that Rhaegar wanted as many lords present as possible. 

“The lord or king who was staging the event would usually choose the format of the tournament in the broadest sense, and then appoint a "master of the games" to run the event and make all the "fine print" decisions.

<snip>

As to your questions regarding the participation or non-participation of sellswords, squires, freeriders and the like, again, I don't see that as the difference as being chronological so much as geographic. The Reach is the heart of the chivalric tradition in the Seven Kingdoms, the place where knighthood is most universally esteemed, and therefore the place where the master of the games is most likely to devise and apply stringent rules. In Dorne and Storm's End and the riverlands and the Vale, things are perhaps a little less strict, and north of the Neck where the old gods still reign and knights are rare, they make up their own rules as they go along.

<snip>

The personalities of the sponsoring lords and their master-at-arms are another factor. Robert Baratheon was not a great respector of old traditions, and he would hardly have wanted a "knight's only" tournament to honor Ned, who was not a knight. Lord Ashford of Ashford, on the other hand, was trying to curry favor with Baelor Breakspear, the preeminent tourney knight of his time.

 

 

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

While traditionally tourneys are a knightly thing, there is no such rule. With this in mind, and talking specifically about the Tourney at Harrenhal, it makes sense for the rules to be as lax as they can, if we believe that Rhaegar wanted as many lords present as possible. 

“The lord or king who was staging the event would usually choose the format of the tournament in the broadest sense, and then appoint a "master of the games" to run the event and make all the "fine print" decisions.

<snip>

As to your questions regarding the participation or non-participation of sellswords, squires, freeriders and the like, again, I don't see that as the difference as being chronological so much as geographic. The Reach is the heart of the chivalric tradition in the Seven Kingdoms, the place where knighthood is most universally esteemed, and therefore the place where the master of the games is most likely to devise and apply stringent rules. In Dorne and Storm's End and the riverlands and the Vale, things are perhaps a little less strict, and north of the Neck where the old gods still reign and knights are rare, they make up their own rules as they go along.

<snip>

The personalities of the sponsoring lords and their master-at-arms are another factor. Robert Baratheon was not a great respector of old traditions, and he would hardly have wanted a "knight's only" tournament to honor Ned, who was not a knight. Lord Ashford of Ashford, on the other hand, was trying to curry favor with Baelor Breakspear, the preeminent tourney knight of his time.

 

 

But weren't joust "knights only"??

[kissdbyfire]

29 minutes ago, frenin said:

But weren't joust "knights only"??

I’m not sure whether you mean in general or specifically at Harrenhal... but either way, as Martin says, it’s up to the king/lord/host and the “master of the games” to establish who can or can not enter. Off the top of my head, we have one good example in Sandor Clegane, who isn’t a knight but enters the Hand’s Tourney in AGoT. 

[Tyrion1991]

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

Just a little jump i admit, since i can't see how could he enter in touneys without being a knight.

 

I speak at the top of my mind but the Rivermen came to see the Northmen as no different than the Lannisters,  i know they are more but tbh  the idea of looking for quotes about the gruesome of war is not very appealing to me right know, i'll leave that to you.

 

 

This is basic maths, the North can field at top, 3500-45000 men,  only 19500 men marched with Robb in the South,  that means that despite the heavy losses,  the North can levy more men. Even then, Robb keep playing with the cards he holds.

 

 

You don't want to listen but i'll repeat it until you do.

SUMMER KNIGHTS=SUMMER BOYS

There is literally no difference between the Karstark brothers who  beg for the honor of guarding Robb with Loras or Renly's guard, nor is Robb and his northern army evoking any type of arian master race epic poem, Robb and his crusade is the same as that of his hero the Young Dragon. Is so obvious that is tiresome to talk about it.

 

Ned trash talk them*.

Ned is not a mouthpiece for the author, Ned is another character with his own biases, you're the one that decides taking Ned's words as Martin's words.  Why Ned's and not Jaime's or Barristan's?? 

 

 

Ofc he is, it's his story, he gets to write however he wants it, in his world, honor is that.

People tend to confuse,  basing an idea in an rl fact with them having to be the same...

 

 

 

1.  Just as the Young Dragon.
2. Ofc they remain loyal, the Lannisters have fucked them hard, Robb was a charismatic leader and the Red Wedding.
3. Don't know how, without Rickon magically aging up, the Riverlords are not coming back.
4. Now, c'mon, exaggerating much??
5. Nah, it's just that you don't really like the Starks. (Don't really know what happen with stags, targs and starks haters but they do hate them lmao)

 

 

The Starks aren't the solution either, nor is he trying to sell us that, we know about the Stark problems soon after Ned's dies, Robb is not ready to take the lead even when he's brilliant and that ends up costing the Starks everything, we know about their manpower problem, the Starks have a quite decent army but the North size and distances makes it almost impossible to gather it and they absurdily enough don't have navy and foible of character?? Hello?? All the Starks but Robb and Rickon are povs, how can't we see their foibles??

Warring and being independent are quite different things and the independence was made in the spur of the moment and in the Lannister's second direst moment.

 

I recall it being mentioned that Rob Stark kept his men in order. Which is a handwave. Only the rogue elements who refuse the light of Stark wisdom are shown doing anything questionable. All of which falls far short of the impact any pre modern army would have on the countryside. There is a reason the Duke of Wellington called his men the scum of the earth. If the iron duke in the 19th century had issues with his men going on a rampage I don’t think an illiterate thug will. For example when the army of the Spanish Netherlands wasn’t paid it sacked the city of Antwerp and the same happened in Italy with the sack of Rome. Rob should have had similar issues if he’s from an ostensibly poor country trying to I field a massive army hundreds of miles from home. There should be a trail of devastation caused by the Northern army. George massively plays this down.

Youre making an inference. Contrast that with Dorans frank and real discussion of his manpower situation. This is good because it relays the risks and creates conflict. You don’t get this with the North. What you get is the North will rise again and the expectation that Jon is gonna clap his hands and fifty thousand plate armoured men will appear from thin air. At the end this will be a time for Wolves and that means a military that will dictate the future of Westeros.

Thats an inference. George doesn’t mock the KarStark brothers for that the same way he mocks the rainbow Guard. Yes there’s a comparison with the Young Dragon but frankly he achieves more than the young dragon and his end is romanticised. Rob Stark is a martyr. 

They are all mouthpieces for the author. All of them have great admiration or grudging respect for Northern military power and have very little bad to say about the Starks. Even Jamie comes to help their Tully allies and comes around to scraping to them. Clearly setting up him joining their camp and begging for forgiveness for all the bad things he done to them.

The failure of Rob is simply the Starks and the North passing under the shadow before the time of wolves. This is absolutely written as an Arian master race poem. Once the Stark POV character come into their own, then the North will rise again and cast down the inferior people who stabbed them in the back. I really doubt that George is going to hurl manpower issues and bankruptcy at them. This is not the Sweden of the Great Northern War that has to confront reality. Maybe they’ll just steal Stannis’s loans. At any rate this moment of weakness is just setting up Stark ascendency and primacy where they will dictate the future of Westeros to the corrupt South and Essos. 

 

 

[ravenous reader]

On 12/15/2019 at 9:42 PM, aeverett said:

I've been considering the Stark warging and Bran's greenseer abilities for some time, as well as Jaime's fever dream and little Cersei Lannister's ability to pet caged lions, and I am beginning to think the Lannisters have many of the Stark abilities, they just don't realize it and shoot themselves in the foot because of it.   

As we know from the World of Ice and Fire, the Lannisters are descended from the First Men and the Andals.  Unlike the Arryn's, who conquered the Royce's and other first men houses, taking their lands and killing off their sons, the Lannisters brokered peace through marriages and hostages.  Eventually the last First Men Lannister King, Gerald III, voluntarily married his daughter to the Andal, Joffrey Lydden.  As Gerald III had no sons, Joffrey Lydden took the Lannister name and became the first Andal King of the Rock, with all future Lannisters, including Tywin and his kids, being his descendants.   This means that House Lannister has a significant amount of First Men blood, even though they long ago abandoned the First Men ways, faith, and traditions in favor of those practiced by the Andals.   This could explain Jaime's fever dream, or Cersei being able to pet caged lions to impress Elia and Oberyn when they were all kids, not to mention how a drop of her blood could permit Maggie the Frog to peer into her future in such detail.   Even Tyrion's obsession with dragons, which some take as a sign he's Aerys II's bastard rather than Tywin's son, might be due to the fact that dragons will play a large role in his future, not that he has any dragon blood himself.  In short (no pun intended), it might be like Jaime's fever dream or the prophesies in Cersei's blood, a diluted first men ability rather than a Targaryen genetic artifact.  The Starks, as do the Mormonts and Umbers, appear to remember these abilities and use them to a certain exent, even if the Free Folk have the most knowledge and control.  The Lannisters chalk them up to fairy tales told by their nursemaids, and think them the stuff of fiction.   

This all makes me wonder how deep the Lannister abilities might go and had they learned how to harness them safely, they might be able to hold their own against the Starks and Targaryens, with something other than gold and human armies.   What do you guys think?

Lions are listed alongside direwolves as among the animals a magically-endowed person might skinchange.  A lion housed at Casterly Rock (a 'hollow hill' greenseer-king venue , according to @Wizz-The-Smith's theory) would literally be a 'cave lion.'  

Also, Varamyr controls a shadow cat, which is basically a mountain lion, so we're certainly supposed to consider Lannisters and their ancestors having such magical ability potentially.

The language used to describe someone such as Lann the Clever, or the curious tale of Lord Loreon Lannister vs. Hooded Lord Morgon Banefort, also has a greenseer flair.

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - Ancient History: The Coming of First Men

The hunters among the children—their wood dancers—became their warriors as well, but for all their secret arts of tree and leaf, they could only slow the First Men in their advance. The greenseers employed their arts, and tales say that they could call the beasts of marsh, forest, and air to fight on their behalf: direwolves and monstrous snowbears, cave lions and eagles, mammoths and serpents, and more. But the First Men proved too powerful, and the children are said to have been driven to a desperate act.

 

On 12/26/2019 at 9:18 AM, redriver said:

True in many ways.False in others.

The groups who do show signs of remembering are the Wildlings,the Crannogmen and the mountain clans.

Secrets long forgotten in Winterfell.

A race of mountain lions?Does that sound right to you?

I'm not sure what you're questioning here?

[frenin]

9 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I recall it being mentioned that Rob Stark kept his men in order. Which is a handwave. Only the rogue elements who refuse the light of Stark wisdom are shown doing anything questionable. All of which falls far short of the impact any pre modern army would have on the countryside. There is a reason the Duke of Wellington called his men the scum of the earth. If the iron duke in the 19th century had issues with his men going on a rampage I don’t think an illiterate thug will. For example when the army of the Spanish Netherlands wasn’t paid it sacked the city of Antwerp and the same happened in Italy with the sack of Rome. Rob should have had similar issues if he’s from an ostensibly poor country trying to I field a massive army hundreds of miles from home. There should be a trail of devastation caused by the Northern army. George massively plays this down.

 

I started this debate because i genuily believed that you gave a  well thought albeit impopular opinion, but at this point it just feels like you're ranting. illiterate thug??

Robb kept his men in order, that's one of the requirements for a good general in Martin's world and Robb was a great one,  that's common sense. Tywin's men are in order too, they only start making havoc when Tywin unleashes them, not before.

Are you arguing that Martin should write an accurately medieval story?? Why??

 

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Youre making an inference. Contrast that with Dorans frank and real discussion of his manpower situation. This is good because it relays the risks and creates conflict. You don’t get this with the North. What you get is the North will rise again and the expectation that Jon is gonna clap his hands and fifty thousand plate armoured men will appear from thin air. At the end this will be a time for Wolves and that means a military that will dictate the future of Westeros.

 

It doesn't create conflict, it only shows Arianne naivette, she should've known about all that stuff,  i don't know where you get that 50k men just show up for Jon, i've, not once, had that feeling.

The last part is just ludicrous.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Thats an inference. George doesn’t mock the KarStark brothers for that the same way he mocks the rainbow Guard. Yes there’s a comparison with the Young Dragon but frankly he achieves more than the young dragon and his end is romanticised. Rob Stark is a martyr. 

 

Perhaps because the one making the judgement is Cat?? Who is butthurt because Renly's army is taking their sweet time while Robb is bleeding away?? For someone who hates the Stark so much... you have a tendency to believe the best of them (and getting frustrated by that) and taking everything they say at face value, that a stance not even die hard wolfie fans present...

How Robb achieved more than the Young Dragon?? And how is not Daeron's death romanticized and him not a martyr??

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 They are all mouthpieces for the author. All of them have great admiration or grudging respect for Northern military power and have very little bad to say about the Starks. Even Jamie comes to help their Tully allies and comes around to scraping to them. Clearly setting up him joining their camp and begging for forgiveness for all the bad things he done to them.

 

 Even Victarion saying that she had to kill his wife after Euron raped her?? That that was only natural?? Can't you see the difference between a character's opinion's and Martin's??

I have yet to see that grudging generalized admiration for northern military power and thy had very little bad to say, that's just bull, Jaime is butthurt with Ned and shits on him at every opportunity, Robb falls becaise he's "his father son",  Ned being syubborn and dying for it etc etc etc. Barbs shitting on Ned,  Cersei shitting on the Starks, Balon doing the same etc etc etc.

If your complaint is that the Starks get less shit than say the Lannisters or Boltons, that's only natural, the Starks are better people than them.

 

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 The failure of Rob is simply the Starks and the North passing under the shadow before the time of wolves. This is absolutely written as an Arian master race poem. Once the Stark POV character come into their own, then the North will rise again and cast down the inferior people who stabbed them in the back. I really doubt that George is going to hurl manpower issues and bankruptcy at them. This is not the Sweden of the Great Northern War that has to confront reality. Maybe they’ll just steal Stannis’s loans. At any rate this moment of weakness is just setting up Stark ascendency and primacy where they will dictate the future of Westeros to the corrupt South and Essos. 

 

I don't know what to say, you sure you're not a Stark fan?? I can't find any sense on this sorry.

[Tyrion1991]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

I started this debate because i genuily believed that you gave a  well thought albeit impopular opinion, but at this point it just feels like you're ranting. illiterate thug??

Robb kept his men in order, that's one of the requirements for a good general in Martin's world and Robb was a great one,  that's common sense. Tywin's men are in order too, they only start making havoc when Tywin unleashes them, not before.

Are you arguing that Martin should write an accurately medieval story?? Why??

 

 

It doesn't create conflict, it only shows Arianne naivette, she should've known about all that stuff,  i don't know where you get that 50k men just show up for Jon, i've, not once, had that feeling.

The last part is just ludicrous.

 

 

 

Perhaps because the one making the judgement is Cat?? Who is butthurt because Renly's army is taking their sweet time while Robb is bleeding away?? For someone who hates the Stark so much... you have a tendency to believe the best of them (and getting frustrated by that) and taking everything they say at face value, that a stance not even die hard wolfie fans present...

How Robb achieved more than the Young Dragon?? And how is not Daeron's death romanticized and him not a martyr??

 

 

 

 Even Victarion saying that she had to kill his wife after Euron raped her?? That that was only natural?? Can't you see the difference between a character's opinion's and Martin's??

I have yet to see that grudging generalized admiration for northern military power and thy had very little bad to say, that's just bull, Jaime is butthurt with Ned and shits on him at every opportunity, Robb falls becaise he's "his father son",  Ned being syubborn and dying for it etc etc etc. Barbs shitting on Ned,  Cersei shitting on the Starks, Balon doing the same etc etc etc.

If your complaint is that the Starks get less shit than say the Lannisters or Boltons, that's only natural, the Starks are better people than them.

 

 

I don't know what to say, you sure you're not a Stark fan?? I can't find any sense on this sorry.

 

That’s hand waving the issue. In a modern army you need a trained officer core and professional soldiers who have a nationalist spirit. Otherwise your army is just going to devastate the countryside. These things did not exist in the Middle Ages. Rob could not possibly keep his men in order and it’s absurd to suggest that he could or even that he would be inclined to. Medieval warfare such as that in the Hundred Years War involves active attacks on the civilian population. Again George is only considering personalities and not the systems. This a key piece of context if you’re asking moral questions about whether this is a just war or how extreme a punishment is. It’s not just a stylistic choice. Why are we asked to question the Dothraki destroying a village when that would be true of any other war?This fantastical situation allows George to position the Starks as good people despite waging a pre modern war and operating a feudal society. Bending reality like this undermines the credibility of the story and makes any moral message it makes trite. 

Why doesn’t Rob discuss his manpower situation in the same terms? Because he doesn’t have one. The Starks are never going to be depicted as weak because that would undermine their Uber man depiction. Again, George had the option to make the story about how logistics and real politick is more important than romanticised personalities. Sweden in the Great Northern War is a perfect example of this. Instead George wants this to be about personalities and how but for that weakness love the Brave Wolf King might have prevailed. 

I am satirising the opinion of other people saying “ohh the Starks had the first word and they’ll have the last”. This is precisely the sentiment Stark fans have. They see them as these Uber men from the North who are morally superior and superhuman. 

Why should the criticism of the Starks be silent but the criticism of the South be loud? If the North is doing things wrong then we should have characters like Cat thinking “god these people are morons”, “god does the North not realise the wars unwinnable”, “what are we even fighting over”. With Dany there is very frequent and on the nose criticism of what she’s doing; Miri for example. Why should George take an entirely silent approach with the Starks when he doesn’t do that’s for non Stark characters. The more obvious answer is that the author isn’t posing any question marks over House Stark.

The Young Dragon conquered Dorne for a day. Rob conquered the Riverlands for over a year and the odds were more stacked against him in terms of soldiers. 

Credible criticism. We aren’t meant to take anything Cersei or Balon say seriously. It’s framed as disingenuous bluster. Often with a character like Tyrion undermining or satirising it. You don’t have a character of moral repute making a real criticism of House Stark either in its strategy, the image of its soldiers or the superiority of its blood. Such empty criticism only ends up enhancing House Starks image because they’re baseless accusations. If an author is being silent on criticisms he could make then that’s not accidental. 

Some characters are closer to the author than others. Vic is a cartoonish caricature that’s meant to contrast the sober and idealised Stark man who has self control on account of his wolfsblood.

Making the Stark enemies all cartoonish paper cutouts also is a way of making the North look good in comparison. George isn’t writing a nuanced or morally grey story. He’s backing the white horse. That’s all by design. He never wanted the Starks to be in a conventional war where neither side has the moral high ground. 

Thats me being bitter and sarcastic. I am saying that it would not surprise me if George continues on this path and will end with the Starks in a position of ultimate power.  How he rationalises that perhaps won’t be as egregious and silly; to me it certainly feels that outrageous. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

35 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

That’s hand waving the issue. In a modern army you need a trained officer core and professional soldiers who have a nationalist spirit. Otherwise your army is just going to devastate the countryside. These things did not exist in the Middle Ages. Rob could not possibly keep his men in order and it’s absurd to suggest that he could or even that he would be inclined to. Medieval warfare such as that in the Hundred Years War involves active attacks on the civilian population. Again George is only considering personalities and not the systems. This a key piece of context if you’re asking moral questions about whether this is a just war or how extreme a punishment is. It’s not just a stylistic choice. Why are we asked to question the Dothraki destroying a village when that would be true of any other war?This fantastical situation allows George to position the Starks as good people despite waging a pre modern war and operating a feudal society. Bending reality like this undermines the credibility of the story and makes any moral message it makes trite

This isn't real life or a medieval feudal society. Yes, it is based on it but this is George's world. George considers the personalities because that's the book he wanted to write. Not showing Robb's men devastating the countryside is hardly the biggest "bend" in reality in this series so it seems a little odd for you to take issue with this & not the fact that people come back to life, warg into animals & other humans, have dragons, do magic etc. 

I don't see why this adds or removes anything to the morality of the war, especially if every single army is going to take its toll on a countryside. To repeatedly state & detail the fact that the army is using resources as it moves would not only be redundant but is obvious. He doesn't go into detail about any army using up the resources of the land & laying waste, although irl that's what happens. The only times it is mentioned is when it's to the extreme - the Dothraki or Tywin specifically giving orders to rape & pillage. It isn't unrealistic to say Robb had control of his men either. Just like anything else there are good & bad leaders. Tywin has control of his men too, hell even Tyrion has some level of control over the clansmen - that in & of itself is totally unrealistic but it makes for a good story. Yet you don't complain about that, presumably because Tyrion & Tywin are not Starks. 

40 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why doesn’t Rob discuss his manpower situation in the same terms? Because he doesn’t have one. The Starks are never going to be depicted as weak because that would undermine their Uber man depiction

Ned, Robb, & Catelyn are dead. Jon is potentially dead. An upjumped, murderous, sadistic, bastard holds WF & has presumably beaten the only person with an army that was willing to help. How much weaker do the Starks have to be before you think they are depicted as such? 

44 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Again, George had the option to make the story about how logistics and real politick is more important than romanticised personalities. Sweden in the Great Northern War is a perfect example of this. Instead George wants this to be about personalities and how but for that weakness love the Brave Wolf King might have prevailed

Sure, he had the option to make what ever story he wanted. Thankfully for the rest of us he made the story he wanted & not the story you did. 

Seriously, this series is HUGE. It has a massive fan base. In order for that to be one of two things have to be true. Either the story you are portraying is not what was written or the rest of us & George disagree that the story you wanted would have been better. I think a little of both. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, at some point you will have to accept that it is a rare opinion. Generally speaking, most people that have read the series enjoy it the way it is & of the ones that don't I have never seen anyone take the stance on it that you do. If you want something more realistic read some fiction. Or continue to read this & be unhappy about it because it's not going to change & I don't think you are going to persuade many people to see things your way. 

50 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

am satirising the opinion of other people saying “ohh the Starks had the first word and they’ll have the last”. This is precisely the sentiment Stark fans have. They see them as these Uber men from the North who are morally superior and superhuman

I have never seen the biggest Stark fan give them the credit you do. 

51 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why should the criticism of the Starks be silent but the criticism of the South be loud? If the North is doing things wrong then we should have characters like Cat thinking “god these people are morons”, “god does the North not realise the wars unwinnable”, “what are we even fighting over”. With Dany there is very frequent and on the nose criticism of what she’s doing; Miri for example. Why should George take an entirely silent approach with the Starks when he doesn’t do that’s for non Stark characters. The more obvious answer is that the author isn’t posing any question marks over House Stark.

Have ya read this forum?? The criticism of the Starks is everywhere. Clearly the author has presented things that are morally questionable because they are questioned all the time, albeit not in the form or the way you seem to see fit. 

We don't have Cat thinking "God, these people are morons" for several reasons. 1. She is married to the North so she is part of them. Her husband & children are Northerners. 2. Because they aren't morons. "Does the North not realize this war is unwinnable?" No, because it wasn't unwinnable. Again, you picked an odd person for your theoretical criticism of the North. "What are we even fighting for" Every single man in that army & Catelyn know exactly what they are fighting for so why in the world would they pose this question?

The characters are different. There are different people, fighting different wars, for different reasons, with different personalities. How boring would it be if every single character had their own Mirri? Their own Bowen? Their own Karstark? Their own Walder Frey? 

If George doesn't intend to pose any question marks over the Starks he clearly didn't do a very good job of it. There isn't a Stark, minus maybe Bran & Rickon, that aren't ridiculed & questioned to the death. Cat started a war, Ned lied & got executed, Robb betrayed his ally & got killed, Jon broke his vows & got stabbed, Sansa betrayed her family, Arya is on her way to being a serial killer, psychopath. 

These are just the things said in a nut shell. Where do you suppose people get all of this from if not from the series? Do you really think George wrote all of this thinking everyone would see them as perfect, "Uber men"? If so it seems he has only succeeded in convincing you. 

That all being said the Starks are written to be the good guys. They certainly aren't the only good guys but they are one. I, personally, think the series would be lacking if it was full of bad guys. There is plenty of grey area around almost every character. Cersei is a heinous bitch but we still feel some sympathy for her. Even Gregor & Victarion have people sympathize & empathize with them. The only truly bad character that I can think of is Ramsay. There are no "white" characters & the Starks aren't even the closest we get to white. Brienne maybe or Samwell would be the closest IMO. 

[the Other Wolf]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This isn't real life or a medieval feudal society. Yes, it is based on it but this is George's world. George considers the personalities because that's the book he wanted to write.

If only they could comprehend this.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, he had the option to make what ever story he wanted. Thankfully for the rest of us he made the story he wanted & not the story you did. 

Word. 

And yesterday’s word du jour was “stoic”; today it’s “Uber”. I don’t get the generalisations, nor why these are being applied only to the Starks/the north.