Who is the Grey girl in Melisandre's fires?

[Bear Claw]

29 minutes ago, winter daughter said:

Well I don't share your opinion but thanks for the explanation.

Btw I sense Jonsa vibes from your posts, do you ship them by any chance?

I know you weren't asking me, but I love Jonsa!

[Colonel Green]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She's had to make compromises to her own ideals and vision for what she thought life would be. She's had to pretend to be an ally with a hated enemy. She's had to learn the art of surface acting.

And she'll have to keep doing those things.  You never reach a stage in politics where you're playing on easy mode for the rest of the time.

Quote

If Sansa could "actively make plans and weigh options" at this juncture, she would choose to 1) not be married off, and 2) to go home to Winterfell. Bye bye Vale if she had the choice. 

Which she doesn't, at this juncture, because achieving that would require her to do a lot of other stuff she's going to have to do first.

31 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

He seems like a Robert 2.0 that will fuck anything that moves. I dont think Myranda will care if he has a sidepiece, she just wants a status boost.

Myranda mightn't care, but Harry has no reason to marry her.  She's already been rejected, she's not attractive to him (as far as we know), and she doesn't bring any major political or economic advantage.

Quote

I dont think she has much growth potential in the Vale. What she really needs to grow is to make a decision about where she wants to go. It's odd that your form of "agency" for her is to stay in a place that she was taken against her will under false pretenses.

No, it's not odd at all, because Sansa spent most of Books 2 and 3 in a situation where she had virtually no agency, and she's now moved into a place where she has a bit more.  Each step in this process involves learning how to make use of her abilities, and she's only started as an active player.  Moreover, the Vale provides the potential for agency because it's a means to gaining important allies and assets that she currently lacks, and which supply her narrative weight that she would not have in the North by herself.

Quote

As I've said she's mostly accomplished what needs to be done there. She just needs to gain control of the army and food, that she will have to use effectively in the North. 

Is that all!

[winter daughter]

10 minutes ago, Bear Claw said:

I know you weren't asking me, but I love Jonsa!

Well to each their own

The Grey Girl has always been a matter of dispute between Jonsa and Jonrya shippers so I'm not surprised by the presence of both parties in this thread lol

[Rose of Red Lake]

47 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

And she'll have to keep doing those things.  You never reach a stage in politics where you're playing on easy mode for the rest of the time.

Quote

 

Yes and I'm arguing that she'll continue to do that - just in the North. 

Sansa's style of politics isn't like everyone else's though so I think you might be mistaking her for all the schemers in King's Landing.

Deploying different politics for different settings is key and she won't be able to learn that if she just stays in the Vale the majority of her plot. She's already learned quite a bit there; She needs to enter a new stage in the 2nd half of Winds. 

47 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Which she doesn't, at this juncture, because achieving that would require her to do a lot of other stuff she's going to have to do first.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

Making a decision to go home can happen very quickly, because the Vale and LF is toxic. He's treading closely to sexual assault and I think he will continue to force kisses on her, and maybe worse. You know how Alayne thought that everything there was great and wonderful in the sample chapter? Yeah, that's just a sign that it's another King's Landing. Beautiful place, rotten underneath.

47 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Myranda mightn't care, but Harry has no reason to marry her.  She's already been rejected, she's not attractive to him (as far as we know), and she doesn't bring any major political or economic advantage.

Quote

 

Well, he's not marrying Sansa. That's for sure. Best learn to trade down. Some humility would be good for the guy. 

47 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

No, it's not odd at all, because Sansa spent most of Books 2 and 3 in a situation where she had virtually no agency, and she's now moved into a place where she has a bit more.  Each step in this process involves learning how to make use of her abilities, and she's only started as an active player.  Moreover, the Vale provides the potential for agency because it's a means to gaining important allies and assets that she currently lacks, and which supply her narrative weight that she would not have in the North by herself.

Quote

 

But she's already well on the way to swaying the Vale to her side; I dont know why you've thought she hasn't accomplished something there. 

I think the plan to reclaim her birthright is a smoking gun, she'll do that but on her own terms. But also, Sansa isn't the one to seek power and I think that's always going to be true of her storyline, so your perspective of her being a political player isn't quite the same as mine. She would get a promotion precisely because she's not an active, self-interested player, much like Jon.  

[Dot Com]

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes and I'm arguing that she'll continue to do that - just in the North. 

Sansa's style of politics isn't like everyone else's though so I think you might be mistaking her for all the schemers in King's Landing.

That's arguable. There are some indications that she's enjoying the style of politicking that LF is teaching her. She definitely enjoys the type of verbal repartee that Ned disliked and LF is a master at, as you can see in her sample chapter where she teases Harry and Lyn Corbray.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree on where her plot is going in this respect: just as I expect Arya to use her Faceless powers and Bran his greenseer ones that they learned from their mentors, I expect Sansa to play the game of thrones. Not the "northern" game of thrones or whatever (which would be  unnecessary in a Stark-dominated north anyways) - the actual game of thrones that she is learning from Littlefinger. 

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Deploying different politics for different settings is key and she won't be able to learn that if she just stays in the Vale the majority of her plot. She's already learned quite a bit there; She needs to enter a new stage in the 2nd half of Winds. 

1 hour ago, Colonel Green said:

 

Personally I think this new stage will be her taking part in the second Dance with Dragons, whether as the wife or love interest of fAegon or just as an agent of the Vale. There is not really anything for her to do in the North that relates to what she's learned. 

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

You know how Alayne thought that everything there was great and wonderful in the sample chapter? Yeah, that's just a sign that it's another King's Landing. Beautiful place, rotten underneath.

The foreboding atmosphere is probably because Harry is going to die in the next chapter (or whenever the tourney takes place). 

25 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Well, he's not marrying Sansa. That's for sure. Best learn to trade down. Some humility would be good for the guy. 

I don't quite understand this reasoning for predicting future plot points. You seem to think things will happen to characters because it would be "good for them." Well, it would've been good for Arya to see Catelyn and Robb again at Edmure's wedding. We all know how that turned out. She will eventually return North, but not so soon and definitely not alone, imo. 

There are a lot of moving pieces here that you have to take into account. For example, where is the place of Jaime and Brienne in this grey girl theory? Both are looking for Sansa right now. I think they will find her eventually, because the dramatic irony of that situation is just too high for GRRM to resist. And there's more. How about Lady Stoneheart? Surely she'll do something other than executing the Red Wedding 2.0 and then getting immediately killed by Arya. Sansa is closer to her geographically than Arya is. 

[Dot Com]

double post 

[Rose of Red Lake]

41 minutes ago, Dot Com said:

That's arguable. There are some indications that she's enjoying the style of politicking that LF is teaching her. She definitely enjoys the type of verbal repartee that Ned disliked and LF is a master at, as you can see in her sample chapter where she teases Harry and Lyn Corbray.

But her motives for doing that aren't the same as Littlefingers. He's doing it to screw everyone over; she's doing it because she genuinely enjoys it, as you point out. He's as insincere as they come whereas Sansa actually cares for Sweetrobin, likes the courtly gestures, and is drawn to happy moments that bring people joy. Littlefinger has just figured out how to be useful and charming to get what he wants; its not as if that's his actual sincere self. I would hate for Sansa to go down that road. 

46 minutes ago, Dot Com said:

That's arguable. There are some indications that she's enjoying the style of politicking that LF is teaching her. She definitely enjoys the type of verbal repartee that Ned disliked and LF is a master at, as you can see in her sample chapter where she teases Harry and Lyn Corbray.

The people who actively play for their own glory or power are going to lose, every time. I dont think Sansa is in that camp. Her rise to power will continue to be serendipitous. She's not actively looking for it but the longer she survives the more the other players will fall. 

Littlefinger's lessons are poison. About 5% are useful. Most of it is garbage. He's not the best tutor for her, he's lying to her about his role in her father's death, he took her there against her will, he plots marriages for her, and he's physically molesting her. Her own instincts are better - "If I'm ever queen, I will make them love me." She doesn't need him. 

53 minutes ago, Dot Com said:

You seem to think things will happen to characters because it would be "good for them." Well, it would've been good for Arya to see Catelyn and Robb again at Edmure's wedding. We all know how that turned out. She will eventually return North, but not so soon and definitely not alone, imo. 

Well, isn't that what character develoment was about? Jon's time with the wildlings was good for him. Arya's abilities to interact with different cultures and classes in Braavos is good for her. I think Sansa will decide what's good for her; just like she noted that she's stronger in the walls of Winterfell. If she knows this, then that's where she will go very soon. 

[Big P]

On 5/3/2020 at 10:50 PM, Tai Pan said:

Jon based his decision on this bit of information.  Which is an example of prophecy leading people astray.  Jon betrayed the NW to save this girl who he believed was Arya Stark. 

Mr. George set that up beautifully.  This vision bit Jon Snow in the bottom.  Many of his truly awful decisions were made because he believed the girl was his sister.  It caused him to commit treason against the watch and the kingdom. 

[Lollygag]

On 5/6/2020 at 6:28 PM, corbon said:

On 5/6/2020 at 1:23 AM, Lollygag said:

Nah.

If you make your point without being an ass about inferring how you think others see Jon, then it will get more traction.

Saying "nah" isn't being an ass in the US. It's used all the time in everyday conversation.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nah

Quote

No. "Nah" and "no" mean the same thing. "Nah" is often followed by "man." As in "nah, man."

-Person 1: Do you wanna go to the movie theater?
-Person 2: Nah.
OR
-Person 1: Do you want to go strip in front of my neighbor's house?
-Person 2: Nah, man. That's just gross.

 

On 5/6/2020 at 6:28 PM, corbon said:

No, it isn't. Assuming everybody is always driven by one theme to the exclusion of all else, is more blind. Actually, its more hammer/nail thinking it seems to me.

Sigorn is the leader of a people dispossessed. The Thenns had a long settled land of their own, but they'd been driven out. He's being offered a new homeland for his people effectively. Plus a hot-to-trot, fierce young bride into the bargain. A new homeland is way better than retribution+destruction, and thats not even taking into account that Jon may have been an enemy responsible for the death of his father, but he's also the one who saved all the wildlings when they were facing something worse than simple extinction. And that war is not over either.

Alys is a Karstark, but the 'Karstark' beef is with Stark, and he's a Snow. Plus its not really a reasonable beef, only held by a few selfish assholes. Alys has good memories of Jon, and is also dispossessed, and being offered back her homeland - and even better 200 loyal warriors to help hold it in very very interesting times.

Both of them would have to be incredibly stupid assholes to put all of that as less important than 'retribution'. Especially when they don't have any power to take retribution right now anyway.
And thats assuming they even hold that sort of view, which not everyone does.

Bold: not what I said. He's undermining his own work by expecting us to believe that both Alys and Signorn, without an alternative explanation presented, totally let go that Starks killed their fathers while at the same time having Jon seething about the exact same thing which is the norm in this tribalistic, revenge-obsessed world. What you're presenting is totally reasonable. Except if GRRM was writing characters who rolled like that, it would be a much shorter series. The theme Game of Thrones doesn't work if his characters are in a world they typically make the logical and healthy choice. I need solid text before I buy that Alys and Sigorn had any come to Jesus Jon moment as it's in contrast to the histories between the families, the culture of Westeros, and the context of ADWD.

The whole North sees Jon as the next KitN, named Robb's heir. He's a Stark. Ned's clone. Batting for the Starks. No one threw a fuss when Ramsey Snow became Ramsey Bolton. Alys has a distant claim to the North being a Karstark. They're getting a lot as it is and retribution. If they play it right, they can get the North, too.

Bold 2: Yes, this is totally true. But have you not read the books? Who makes great life-choices in this world? Sure they might be the rare exception in that they don't care much about revenge (Jaime, Sansa, Sam), but I highly doubt it.

 

 

[corbon]

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Saying "nah" isn't being an ass in the US. It's used all the time in everyday conversation.

Here too.
I was talking about the JoN Snow stuff

Quote

I know that folks want to put a mask and cape on Jon and they want everyone in his arc to amplify that role...
... it shouldn't be brushed aside because we want to believe Jon is just that awesome.

That, to me, was just tarring everybody who doesn't agree with you with a single 'jon snow obsession' brush. It didn't add anything at all to your points. Its easy to do the same sort of thing for any of us (I've done worse I'm sure), just the timing is particularly awkward when you are trying to make points. 

After that, it took an effort of will to actually bother to follow any of your points. 
To be fair, the red irritates me too, but thats a more personal thing and I understand why you use it and it makes perfect sense to do so. I'm not suggesting you stop on my account! Just noting in full disclosure, my own biases.   

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bold: not what I said. He's undermining his own work by expecting us to believe that both Alys and Signorn, without an alternative explanation presented, totally let go that Starks killed their fathers while at the same time having Jon seething about the exact same thing which is the norm in this tribalistic, revenge-obsessed world. What you're presenting is totally reasonable.

Except nothing I presented isn't there in the text. 

Maybe you didn't pick up on it originally, but the information is there and as you yourself say, its totally reasonable.

And where is Jon seething about the same thing - to the point where it changes his actions?
He's not. He would love to go after the Lannisters but apart from that childish first flight from the NW (which was more about family than hate) he puts aside his feelings about the Lannisters when making decisions.

The fact is that some familial ties are stronger, or at least better at generating strong feelings, than others. There are actually very few instances of people doing insanely stupid things for petty revenge. 
Karstark went mad due to losing his sons, but Alys' comment about him show he wasn't the sort of father that inspired her affection at. The only Karstark taken over by a lust for revenge is Lord Rickard. All of the other actions are political calculations, including Harrion's break form the Starks as per his Lord Father's death call. Its clear by then that Robb is doomed and a number of teh northern Lords under Roose Bolton are plotting ways to survive and win back the crown's favour.
Note that the whole Karstark break from Robb only happens after he marries Jeyne Westerling. By the time Jaime escapes, then 

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Except if GRRM was writing characters who rolled like that, it would be a much shorter series. The theme Game of Thrones doesn't work if his characters are in a world they typically make the logical and healthy choice. I need solid text before I buy that Alys and Sigorn had any come to Jesus Jon moment as it's in contrast to the histories between the families, the culture of Westeros, and the context of ADWD.

Some do, most don't. It works the way it is. It wouldn't work if they all always did dumbass stuff all the time like you seem to be suggesting.

Can you list some stupid actions by significant political forces (ie most significant Lords or similar, but not petty mercenaries like Vargo Hoat) done out of petty revenge?
I got Brandon Stark's ride into the  Red Keep, Rickard Karstarks murder of the Lannister squires, Walder Frey's whole character and Cersei Lannister's whole character... there must be a few more, but thats certainly not the dominant force you claim it is.

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The whole North sees Jon as the next KitN, named Robb's heir.

Ahh, no. Thats not been published. Its not even confirmed that it exists as a secret.

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

He's a Stark. Ned's clone. Batting for the Starks.

No, he's a Snow, batting for the Nights Watch. What has he done for House Stark since he joined the watch?
Nothing.
He was given the option to become Lord of Winterfell and marry Val, but refused. 
He gave Stannis some good advice, but that doesn't help House Stark. 
He allowed Mel to run a private mission using wildlings to Winterfell to help Arya, but thats her doing, not his, and shows no political favour to House Stark.

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

No one threw a fuss when Ramsey Snow became Ramsey Bolton.

We's already turned down an offer to become Lord of Winterfell. 

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Alys has a distant claim to the North being a Karstark.

Not seriously. Also not relevant.

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

They're getting a lot as it is and retribution. If they play it right, they can get the North, too.

Not quite sure what you mean here. It sounds like nonsense, but I might be misunderstanding something.
Who is getting a lot and retribution, and who can get the whole north? Certainly not Alys and/or Sigorn

29 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bold 2: Yes, this is totally true. But have you not read the books? Who makes great life-choices in this world? Sure they might be the rare exception in that they don't care much about revenge (Jaime, Sansa, Sam), but I highly doubt it.

Have you read the books? Most decisions in it outside Cersei and Walder Frey are not made for petty vengeful reasons. Revenge may be an underlyin motivation in some cases, but the decisions and actions are mostly a lot more hard headed than that.
Even Tywin Lannister knows better.

Not having a complete total and absolute focus on revenge is not the same as not caring about it at all. But very few characters are as screwed up as Cersei or Walder Frey.

We have explicit discussion between Alys and Jon on this very subject, so that should be settled.
As for Sigorn, we don't know what relationship he had with his father, or much about his character, so it shouldn't be a stretch for him to not be a raving vengeful lunatic. People living a very hard existence in the very far north tend to be a bit practically minded.

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, corbon said:

That, to me, was just tarring everybody who doesn't agree with you with a single 'jon snow obsession' brush. It didn't add anything at all to your points. Its easy to do the same sort of thing for any of us (I've done worse I'm sure), just the timing is particularly awkward when you are trying to make points. 

After that, it took an effort of will to actually bother to follow any of your points. 
To be fair, the red irritates me too, but thats a more personal thing and I understand why you use it and it makes perfect sense to do so. I'm not suggesting you stop on my account! Just noting in full disclosure, my own biases.   

I stand by what I say. Take it as you will.

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Except nothing I presented isn't there in the text. 

Maybe you didn't pick up on it originally, but the information is there and as you yourself say, its totally reasonable.

And where is Jon seething about the same thing - to the point where it changes his actions?
He's not. He would love to go after the Lannisters but apart from that childish first flight from the NW (which was more about family than hate) he puts aside his feelings about the Lannisters when making decisions.

The fact is that some familial ties are stronger, or at least better at generating strong feelings, than others. There are actually very few instances of people doing insanely stupid things for petty revenge. 
Karstark went mad due to losing his sons, but Alys' comment about him show he wasn't the sort of father that inspired her affection at. The only Karstark taken over by a lust for revenge is Lord Rickard. All of the other actions are political calculations, including Harrion's break form the Starks as per his Lord Father's death call. Its clear by then that Robb is doomed and a number of teh northern Lords under Roose Bolton are plotting ways to survive and win back the crown's favour.
Note that the whole Karstark break from Robb only happens after he marries Jeyne Westerling. By the time Jaime escapes, then 

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Some do, most don't. It works the way it is. It wouldn't work if they all always did dumbass stuff all the time like you seem to be suggesting.

Can you list some stupid actions by significant political forces (ie most significant Lords or similar, but not petty mercenaries like Vargo Hoat) done out of petty revenge?
I got Brandon Stark's ride into the  Red Keep, Rickard Karstarks murder of the Lannister squires, Walder Frey's whole character and Cersei Lannister's whole character... there must be a few more, but thats certainly not the dominant force you claim it is.

Jon's marching on Winterfell which is held by the Lannisters via the Boltons which he himself acknowledges is a violation of his oath.

Revenge is part of the culture of this world and not exclusive to the highborn so I won't arbitrarily limit the examples. Robert's Rebellion was personally revenge-based, MMR, Ned deciding to target Tywin while sitting the IT, Sansa telling Cersei, Joffrey in general, Theon taking Winterfell, Viserys, Tyrion especially when it comes to his family - examples just for starters. Westeros' whole no justice system/revenge culture is very Medea.

Is affection a requirement for a sense of family loyalty in this series? Nope.

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Ahh, no. Thats not been published. Its not even confirmed that it exists as a secret.

ADWD Jon I

Stannis read from the letter. "Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. A girl of ten, you say, and she presumes to scold her lawful king." His close-cropped beard lay like a shadow over his hollow cheeks. "See that you keep these tidings to yourself, Lord Snow. Karhold is with me, that is all the men need know. I will not have your brothers trading tales of how this child spat on me."

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

No, he's a Snow, batting for the Nights Watch. What has he done for House Stark since he joined the watch?
Nothing.
He was given the option to become Lord of Winterfell and marry Val, but refused. 
He gave Stannis some good advice, but that doesn't help House Stark. 
He allowed Mel to run a private mission using wildlings to Winterfell to help Arya, but thats her doing, not his, and shows no political favour to House Stark.

Jon did what everyone eventually expected him to do - stick by the Starks. He was getting ready to march on Winterfell and take it back right before he got stabbed. Other times, he was barely held back from leaving the NW. He outright admits he's breaking his vows.

Here's another stupid decision caused by revenge. I agree that Jon needed to deal with Ramsey, bu he screwed it up so bad he got stabbed because he couldn't hold himself back and think it out.

 

ADWD Jon XIII

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

"The Night's Watch will make for Hardhome. I ride to Winterfell alone, unless …" Jon paused. "… is there any man here who will come stand with me?"

The roar was all he could have hoped for, the tumult so loud that the two old shields tumbled from the walls. Soren Shieldbreaker was on his feet, the Wanderer as well. Toregg the Tall, Brogg, Harle the Huntsman and Harle the Handsome both, Ygon Oldfather, Blind Doss, even the Great Walrus. I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. "Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that's how it's done. We'll make a wildling o' you yet, boy. Har!"

ASOS Jon XII

I would need to steal her if I wanted her love, but she might give me children. I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms. A son was something Jon Snow had never dared dream of, since he decided to live his life on the Wall. I could name him Robb. Val would want to keep her sister's son, but we could foster him at Winterfell, and Gilly's boy as well. Sam would never need to tell his lie. We'd find a place for Gilly too, and Sam could come visit her once a year or so. Mance's son and Craster's would grow up brothers, as I once did with Robb.

He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. It was a hunger inside him, sharp as a dragonglass blade. A hunger . . . he could feel it. It was food he needed, prey, a red deer that stank of fear or a great elk proud and defiant. He needed to kill and fill his belly with fresh meat and hot dark blood. His mouth began to water with the thought.

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

We's already turned down an offer to become Lord of Winterfell. 

Yes, and Stannis isn't taking no for an answer. Jon only turned it down after agonizing because Stannis required him to cut down the heart tree and convert. If Stannis removes the requirement, the last Stark rides victorious in retaking Winterfell, Jon rationalizes it with mobilizing the North to reinforce the Wall...

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Quote

Alys has a distant claim to the North being a Karstark.

Not seriously. Also not relevant.

Seriously never stopped anyone in these books. And it's always relevant. The first book is called A Game of Thrones and the entire series is called that because it's so relevant to the whole series. Robb and Cat had a big blowout how there was a big issue with no Stark kids or Jon left.

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Quote

They're getting a lot as it is and retribution. If they play it right, they can get the North, too.

Not quite sure what you mean here. It sounds like nonsense, but I might be misunderstanding something.
Who is getting a lot and retribution, and who can get the whole north? Certainly not Alys and/or Sigorn

Alys and Sigorn get Karhold from Alys' relatives. Sansa and Jon are the last two. Sansa's believed to be with Tyrion. Betray Jon. Add Winterfell and the North, too. Karhold, Winterfell and revenge. The Thenns are restored to their entitled place in the world, this time south of the Wall and the Karstarks are no longer in the Starks' shadows.

ADWD Jon VII

Jon's smile died. "I might if I could trust him. Sigorn blames me for his father's death, I fear. Worse, he was bred and trained to give orders, not to take them. Do not confuse the Thenns with free folk. Magnar means lord in the Old Tongue, I am told, but Styr was closer to a god to his people, and his son is cut from the same skin. I do not require men to kneel, but they do need to obey."

 

1 hour ago, corbon said:

Have you read the books? Most decisions in it outside Cersei and Walder Frey are not made for petty vengeful reasons. Revenge may be an underlyin motivation in some cases, but the decisions and actions are mostly a lot more hard headed than that.
Even Tywin Lannister knows better.

Not having a complete total and absolute focus on revenge is not the same as not caring about it at all. But very few characters are as screwed up as Cersei or Walder Frey.

We have explicit discussion between Alys and Jon on this very subject, so that should be settled.
As for Sigorn, we don't know what relationship he had with his father, or much about his character, so it shouldn't be a stretch for him to not be a raving vengeful lunatic. People living a very hard existence in the very far north tend to be a bit practically minded.

Stated above just starter examples of revenge in Westeros. I'm not going to list them all, but Varys is widely believed to be motivated by revenge. Same with LF. Early Stannis was all about revenge and grudges. It's the whole point of Viserys and Dany taking back the IT. It's huge in the Dorne plot. Sandsnakes. Oberyn. Cleganes. How do you think the Lannisters and Tyrells are gonna turn out? Lysa killing Jon. Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion. Tywin repeatedly trying to kill Tyrion. Arya. Drago killing Viserys. I'll stop now.

IMHO, all of these are stupid choices. Jaime, Sansa, Sam and Bran have it right. Just move on.

As for Sigorn, here's another instance of not-smart revenge, he's quite devoted to his father, threatened to kill Jon in front of everyone, and Jon compares his feelings to the Lannisters killing Ned. Yes, he sounds like a raving vengeful lunatic especially as Jon explains to him that his father made his own bed.

ADWD Jon V

"Fight for you?" This voice was thickly accented. Sigorn, the young Magnar of Thenn, spoke the Common Tongue haltingly at best. "Not fight for you. Kill you better. Kill all you."

The raven flapped its wings. "Kill, kill."

Sigorn's father, the old Magnar, had been crushed beneath the falling stair during his attack on Castle Black. I would feel the same if someone asked me to make common cause with the Lannisters, Jon told himself. "Your father tried to kill us all," he reminded Sigorn. "The Magnar was a brave man, yet he failed. And if he had succeeded … who would hold the Wall?" He turned away from the Thenns. "Winterfell's walls were strong as well, but Winterfell stands in ruins today, burned and broken. A wall is only as good as the men defending it."

 

 

[corbon]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I stand by what I say. Take it as you will.

Ok then.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Jon's marching on Winterfell which is held by the Lannisters via the Boltons which he himself acknowledges is a violation of his oath.

Revenge is part of the culture of this world and not exclusive to the highborn so I won't arbitrarily limit the examples.

Your whole post was so mind bogglingly off what I understood thats its pretty clear we are talking completely past each other. We need to get what we are talking about straight first.

If I understood it correctly, your contention is that the Sigorn/Alys marriage is totally unbelievable because they should both hate Jon so much in their lust for revenge that they'll sacrifice everything in order to destroy him.
Since thats nothing like the motivation or actions of 95% of your examples, clearly thats not right.

I do agree that revenge is a part of the motivation for many different people at many different times for many different actions. But you seem to be taking it way waaay past that

So can you explain the issue simply please?

[a black swan]

14 hours ago, glassgardens said:

re the ID as Jon's sister, even though it's called a "vision" and she says she sees it "clearly," we get the ID in that specific language, almost as a caption or a TV chyron. A voice in the flames may have spoken that label. It might not have been that Melisandre saw a specific face and saw such an obvious resemblance that she tagged the person as "sister." 

 

There is no mention or indication that Mel heard a voice regarding this vision. @corbon broke that down for you. 

"She had seen the girl only once. A girl as grey as ash, and even as I watched she crumbled and blew away." - Mel, ADwD 

Quote

The label "Jon's sister" is received wisdom rather than a deduction based on family resemblance. 

You could say that about almost everything Mel has said about the grey girl including all the mention of coming to the wall for protection, an unwanted marriage...etc. But I think you wouldn't be willing to go that far? Mel was confident enough to tell Jon has a familial relation with this girl and she would have only known that by seeing her face. I don't see how you can get around that? Alys, Jeyne, and Lyanna are all more likely because they could pass as an Arya stand-in. Sansa does not. 

Quote

I would argue that George is leaning on assumptions about the prevalence of the Northern "look" amongst characters who "matter."

He very clearly and repetitively states this fact about Arya & Jon specifically, and by extension Lyanna have all been linked to the traditional Northern look. In this case, he has Mel point out Jon and his features multiple times and her immediate conclusion was that this girl looks related to Jon. 

[Lollygag]

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Ok then.

Your whole post was so mind bogglingly off what I understood thats its pretty clear we are talking completely past each other. We need to get what we are talking about straight first.

If I understood it correctly, your contention is that the Sigorn/Alys marriage is totally unbelievable because they should both hate Jon so much in their lust for revenge that they'll sacrifice everything in order to destroy him.
Since thats nothing like the motivation or actions of 95% of your examples, clearly thats not right.

I do agree that revenge is a part of the motivation for many different people at many different times for many different actions. But you seem to be taking it way waaay past that

So can you explain the issue simply please?

It's in my past posts and I think it's clear. If your expectations after reading the books are that characters generally make well-adjusted and healthy life choices and the Westerosi people don't have a clear history of going off the rails when it comes to revenge for actions against their families, then we won't see eye to eye because I don't even see how we're reading the same books.

[corbon]

Alright, I'm done talking to you about this then. Your list of examples was so ridiculous, with almost none of those people doing crazy self-destructive things solely for revenge (as opposed to risky things that could damage or destroy them but could also bring them benefits).
I'll leave you with Tywin's (one of your examples of crazy self destructive revenge) words

Quote

"Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you. 

 

[LynnS]

On 5/8/2020 at 4:58 AM, a black swan said:

"She had seen the girl only once. A girl as grey as ash, and even as I watched she crumbled and blew away." - Mel, ADwD 

It's intriguing that this could be a vision of Lyanna.  Especially since Mel keeps imploring R'Hllor to show her his instrument and sees Jon Snow instead of Stannis.

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Jon I

Melisandre laughed. "It is his silences you should fear, not his words." As they stepped out into the yard, the wind filled Jon's cloak and sent it flapping against her. The red priestess brushed the black wool aside and slipped her arm through his. "It may be that you are not wrong about the wildling king. I shall pray for the Lord of Light to send me guidance. When I gaze into the flames, I can see through stone and earth, and find the truth within men's souls. I can speak to kings long dead and children not yet born, and watch the years and seasons flicker past, until the end of days."

It's a very grandiose claim on Mel's part and should be taken with a grain of salt.  But I do think it possible that she receives visions from the past.  I'd also make a guess that she isn't receiving these visions from R'Hllor but from Bloodraven when she puts herself in a dream-like state or drowses off for an hour or two.

 

[Springwatch]

On 5/6/2020 at 6:01 AM, Lollygag said:

I know that folks want to put a mask and cape on Jon and they want everyone in his arc to amplify that role, but I don't agree. Do we know for sure that Alys came straight from Karhold? We've been given some major hints to not trust her. Robb/KitN killed Alys' father, and Sigorn blames Jon for his father's death. To underscore that, Jon compares Signorn's feelings with Jon being asked to make common cause with the Lannisters who killed Ned. In this world, people don't forget that sort of thing and it shouldn't be brushed aside because we want to believe Jon is just that awesome. Then we see Sigorn, who deeply hates Jon, very taken with Alys. Why? Jon's glowing benevolence? Not for these books. More like the Starks are responsible for the death of both of their fathers and they found common cause. I don't trust what she says and she may have not come from Karhold.

This is a very neat idea. It is so striking that Alys' father is disgustingly bloodthirsty for revenge, but she herself is eager to make peace. She might be a pacifist. But Sigorn most certainly is not a pacifist, and still he is meek and obedient to Jon's wishes. I think there's way too much meekness and compliance from the wildlings - Mance himself struggled to control them, how does Jon do it? They would not promise to obey the law; they have already foraged the New Gift to population extinction; they have strength in numbers. So why so tame? I don't get it, I don't like it. Theories like the above ease the strain.

Although - we don't always get what we want. I thought it was ridiculous that the Mountain Clansmen were so disciplined in the service of Tyrion. The clan leaders were so proud they wouldn't talk to each other, but still happy to act as Tyrion's bodyguards. It was lame. But maybe the idea is that Tyrion and Jon are just so charismatic that.... (But no, it's just lame.)

Another personal reason for liking the theory is that I like following words given double meanings - a dance that is a fight, a kiss that's the touch of a sword, mercy that's a quick death, and so on. Dancing plays a big part in the wedding of Alys, which is a strange thing at the Wall, and she makes a strange remark about dancing with Jon 'anon'. She used it as a reference to the past, but 'anon' actually means the future. So, yes, I see conflict there. Might not be literally Alys though - the north is just alive with parallel/shadow characters at the moment. The grey girls.

[Springwatch]

On 5/6/2020 at 11:02 PM, corbon said:

Quote

Are you sure you want to do this? It's a very, very narrow interpretation. The marriage is gone. Travelling toward Jon is gone. Protection is gone.

Yes. How can these be 'seen'? They are reasonable implications for Mel to make given her prior knowledge and her beliefs in why she has these visions. But we've seen before how badly she screws these up.

Jon's not that reasonable, given the Watch is no place for women, and he is bound not to interfere; also that many northern lords love their Starks. But anyway, these rationalisations apply to Arya. It is a staggering coincidence that Alys turns up and fulfils them.

Quote

Every time we see the images all we see is imagery. Like a soundless movie. 

Can we agree that there is no image in the fire like a little tv screen? Otherwise everyone could sit round the fire and watch the film, and I don't think that's so. Flames, sparks and ashes suggest shapes, and only then the detail follows in the mind of the viewer.

Quote

Nope. Its easy to correctly, or probably correctly, infer someone is fleeing and being hunted by a short scene. Behaviour like following a stream bed with running water that is crosswise to your normal direction  for a short time, and looking over ones shoulder, strongly infers fleeing and being hunted.

Nope. changing direction once to skirt an inhabited location is enough to infer avoiding villages.

Easy to infer correctly, or probably correctly. You only need to see a change of directlion to hit a stream. Heck, you don't even need that. Simply seeing her come to a crosswise stream, follow the bed for a minute or so, then come out and resume the same direction, is enough to infer this.

In other words, a lengthy session of charades from R'hllor. I don't think so. It seems to go against the nature of the medium:

Quote

"Fire is a living thing," the red woman had told him, when he asked her to teach him how to see the future in the flames. "it is always moving, always changing... like a book whose letters dance and shift even as you try to read them. It takes years of training to see the shapes beyond the flames, and more years still to learn to tell the shapes of what will be from what may be or what was. Even then it comes hard, hard. You do not understand that, you men of the sunset lands." Davos asked her then how it was that Ser Axell had learned the trick of it so quickly, but to that she only smiled enigmatically and said, "Any cat may stare into a fire and see red mice at play."

[ASOS - DAVOS VI]

This fits with Mel's chapter, where she sees very short images, that shift from topic to topic.

The visions are far more than the rays of light coming from the fire - Mel describes 'the shapes beyond the flames'  i.e. the visions are formed in the mind, not the eye. Sort of like the real life way we recall a memory - there can be a lot of information attached to that memory.

Quote

No, it isn't all flame coloured. Where was anything in her visions all flame coloured?
The deep blue lack with a crust of ice that seems to go on forever and ever and is on the girls left, is still there.

I doubt extremely that there's a big patch of blue in the flames. The idea of 'blue' was formed in her mind, and it was part of the vision, not a conscious addition of her own. In other words, the fire gave to her eyes something like the scene of a lake, but the blueness of the lake came on a different channel.

Quote

Possibly, yes, a spectacular coincidence. Literature, even GRRM, has these. Consider, for example, the chances of the exact right three unnamed, unfamous, nobody-nothing minor knights being 3 out of 5 'champions' at the same time at the greatest tournament in Westeros, when the KotLT challenged them.

There are a lot of far-fetched things in the books. I never forget the army of the Yunkaii for a moment, I promise you. Still, a heavy reliance on coincidence and far-fetched events is generally considered bad writing. I don't know how other readers deal with this to keep their enjoyment of the books, but personally I'm hoping it all gets wrapped up in some grand overall scheme of destiny or somesuch.

Quote

OTOH, its not really that spectacular. The marriage part is an easy inference - any relevant girl that age fleeing is more likely to be fleeing an unwanted marriage than anything else, and Mel surely knows fArya is betrothed to Ramsey, so the fleeling marriage part is an emotional hook aimed at Jon. 
The girl is fleeing North, and in the visions, so relevant to Mel's needs, even if not relevant necesssarily how she thinks, and she thinks she needs Jon, who is the big chief in the furthest North, so thats an easy call.
Any girl fleeing is going to ask for protection, so thats an easy call.

So the question is, is Alys the girl? She looks like she fulfills it spectacularly and I never considered anything else very deeply before.

But Mel sees Alys face to face. Yet there is no 'recognition' that this is the girl from her, no special significance to Alys it seems.
ETA: Plus Mel said it was Jon's sister, which implies the girl looked like Jon (there's no other way to suggest its his sister). Alys doesn't look like Jon. 
Alys doesn't actually seem to be at all relevant to the usual prophetic images - she doesn't seem to have any relevance to AA or the War for the Dawn 2.0, which is what the images are usually relevant for - and its entirely possible that that particular analysis will change in the future - what relevance did the Renly/Garlan image appear to have to these things initially? (it was a key factor in Stannis losing at the Blackwater and Mel basically coming north to the real war, but we don't see that until much later).

I think it's all about shadow/parallel characters. Impossible to say for certain at this stage.

Quote

Long Lake is 'wrong' for Alys. OTOH, looking more closely, I see some maps, including the I think official one at Fantasticmaps, show a kind of thickened river line line or relatively thin lake on the Last River due east of Karhold running more or less NNW-SSE. Its possible that the vision showed Alys alongside that lake, fleeing north with the lake on her left. Perhaps the lake "going on forever" is only talking one dimension, along her route. 
However the biggest negative for me with Alys is that the visions seems to show a climate without deep snow, and with running water in streams that is not frostbite-life threatening. To me that rules out Alys. Karhold and all parts between there and the wall should be well snowed before Alys leaves.

If Alys took the long way round (let's say, the Wall was not her first choice or something) - she was travelling a long time. The horse looked starved, didn't it? Also the visions don't say anything about snow on the fields or not. Most likely the conditions looked appropriate for the season, else they might have been worth mention.

The weather at the Wall didn't seem so bad. Scattered snowflakes, patches of snow. The Wall was weeping the day the Wildlings came through, and after that there was talk of shadows, so the sun was shining. People felt cold, but that's natural when you're sitting on the biggest ice cube in the world. The real cold, snowy weather came later, iirc

[a black swan]

43 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Jon's not that reasonable, given the Watch is no place for women, and he is bound not to interfere; also that many northern lords love their Starks. But anyway, these rationalisations apply to Arya. It is a staggering coincidence that Alys turns up and fulfils them.

Can we agree that there is no image in the fire like a little tv screen? Otherwise everyone could sit round the fire and watch the film, and I don't think that's so. Flames, sparks and ashes suggest shapes, and only then the detail follows in the mind of the viewer.

In other words, a lengthy session of charades from R'hllor. I don't think so. It seems to go against the nature of the medium:

This fits with Mel's chapter, where she sees very short images, that shift from topic to topic.

The visions are far more than the rays of light coming from the fire - Mel describes 'the shapes beyond the flames'  i.e. the visions are formed in the mind, not the eye. Sort of like the real life way we recall a memory - there can be a lot of information attached to that memory.

I doubt extremely that there's a big patch of blue in the flames. The idea of 'blue' was formed in her mind, and it was part of the vision, not a conscious addition of her own. In other words, the fire gave to her eyes something like the scene of a lake, but the blueness of the lake came on a different channel.

There are a lot of far-fetched things in the books. I never forget the army of the Yunkaii for a moment, I promise you. Still, a heavy reliance on coincidence and far-fetched events is generally considered bad writing. I don't know how other readers deal with this to keep their enjoyment of the books, but personally I'm hoping it all gets wrapped up in some grand overall scheme of destiny or somesuch.

I think it's all about shadow/parallel characters. Impossible to say for certain at this stage.

If Alys took the long way round (let's say, the Wall was not her first choice or something) - she was travelling a long time. The horse looked starved, didn't it? Also the visions don't say anything about snow on the fields. Most likely the conditions looked appropriate for the season, else they might have been worth mention.

The weather at the Wall didn't seem so bad. Scattered snowflakes, patches of snow. The Wall was weeping the day the Wildlings came through, and after that there was talk of shadows, so the sun was shining. People felt cold, but that's natural when you're sitting on the biggest ice cube in the world. The real cold, snowy weather came later.

I agree the magic fueling the flames allowed Mel to see the scene that one time. The magic did not tell her where or even when this scene would occur which she clearly admits to herself and not Jon or Mance. 

Alys was described as being blue (in no way, at any point, according to not one single person is she ever "grey as ash" or "a girl in grey" so with her being blue clearly the weather was crazy fierce. If she'd gone the long way for some illogical reason then she would be far worse off physically. She had no supplies, no preparation for a long dangerous journey alone during Winter. She seemed to get her strength back rather quickly. She was ultimately found near a village and the King's Road increasing her danger of being found by her pursuers. Not very clever. She's doesn't tick all the boxes. 

The fact that Mel describes the girl as jon's sister and "little sister" - was that idea inspired/planted in her mind by the magic in the flames or her was it own bias? If it was the latter, what else was tainted by her bias? 

[rustythesmith]

Azor Ahai

Melisandre isn't wrong about her Azor Ahai prediction. The readers misinterpret her prediction. Melisandre's original prediction wasn't that Stannis is Azor Ahai. It was that Dragonstone will be the place where Azor Ahai is reborn amidst smoke and salt. She mistakenly thought Stannis was Azor Ahai because she knows for certain from the original vision that Dragonstone is the place where Azor Ahai will be reborn. When she arrived at Dragonstone she found Stannis there, a claimant to the throne.

Much like the reader's mistake, Melisandre's mistake is that she jumped the gun and settled upon a conclusion too soon. Azor Ahai hasn't been "reborn" at Dragonstone yet, but he/she will be reborn at Dragonstone in a future book, in some interpretation of the words reborn, smoke, salt and so on.

Melisandre

The reason GRRM says Melisandre is the most misunderstood character is because he wrote her to be misunderstood. His answer was akin to patting himself on the back in a way that is only identifiable to himself, reminiscent of the speech of Littlefinger and Varys. It's also a way of hiding the truth in plain sight, because he knows that the way people will interpret his words is not the way he means them. And that the common interpretation will drown out any other interpretations.

Melisandre is written in a way that will cause the less investigative and metaphorically inclined readers to believe that she is foolish and wrong all of the time. The more-investigative and metaphorically inclined readers will find that, much like other prophets and seers, Melisandre occupies a wise fool role. Her visions always come true in some interpretation. But in every case, only the first and original interpretation is valid.

Every re-iteration, re-telling and re-interpretation of the vision and the original telling moves Melisandre, the characters and the readers further away from the original vision and telling. It does this for a number of reasons: Because we take shortcuts with speech, we omit vital details, we make faulty assumptions, we use faulty logic. That's why the original telling has to basically be enshrined. It has to be carefully remembered word-for-word so that it can be referenced over and over again. Because part of our job is thinking up new interpretations of the words. Every possible interpretation of those words has to be explored because the author is using symbolism, metaphor, slippery language and he's manipulating our expectations to his advantage. Which is only to say that he wants to pleasantly surprise us.

Girl in grey

One of the faulty logics that readers tend to use when interpreting the girl in grey prophecy is to assume that a person must be wrong if she is biased. Melisandre's bias towards Arya being the girl in grey stands out to the reader very clearly. One might say too clearly. She obviously wants to give Jon good news. If a prophet is supposed to be objective in her interpretations then Melisandre's conflict of interest is apparent.

So with a prophecy, an author is trying to trick the inattentive readers until they become attentive, because that's what a prophecy is. It's foreshadowing that announces itself so that the mystery of how it will resolve can be played like a game. And he knows that some people will be rather pleased with themselves for spotting Melisandre's bias and rejecting the Arya interpretation right from the start. The result is that the player is on the wrong path before he has hardly begun, and on that path there are many red herrings that need to be overcome.

But the truth is that a person being biased does not necessarily mean that she's wrong. It's perfectly possible for a person to be biased and correct. So the reader's inability to solve the mystery will be a consequence of his own shortcoming rather than that of the author or story. And that's exactly what GRRM wants in every case. If I thought a person being biased means the person is wrong, that mistake rests entirely upon me rather than the story. It's simply my own failure of reasoning, because the right answer was available all along.

As much as I love this prophecy and these books, I find that I often become frustrated when I talk about them. Because in order to talk about them it requires a lot of teaching and unteaching. Thankfully I enjoy teaching, but when I begin doing it people tend to get combative, because teaching carries the implication that I know something they don't. The obstacle is really peoples' insecurities, and I don't know how to fix that for other people. I have enough trouble with my own. It's easier to trick a person than to convince him that he has been tricked. And ASOIAF is a whopper of a trick.