butterweedstrover Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They could have, and I expect Varys would have preferences in what YG was taught, but that just hasn't been established. Like I said, the one and only time, and at that point he was showing extreme frustration, to the point that he would say anything. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I explained why I thought there was a RELEVANT distinction between accent & "speech pattern", and when you said "accent" I had thought you meant "accent". "Ooh, me accent's slipping" is a trope on TV Tropes. It's something characters often make note of, but Arya does not notice any change in accent. Yes, well we established we were talking about the speech patter since you mentioned the usage of "she" instead of "a girl". Then I went on to provide evidence of possessive singular pronouns (I). Accents are difficult to make out in text, and the characters must recognize them. Lorathi is distinct from their pattern, and Braavos has its own accent. Jaqen for all intent and purpose would have a Braavosi accent regardless, so to Arya it would still be foriegn and from that general region of north western Essos. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It would have been simple to write "Arya noticed he didn't seem to be speaking in his normal accent". Then we'd even know that's what GRRM intended. And don't say it would be giving away too much, because nobody else thinks Jaqen is Aegon and we learn Jaqen is willing to throw away his identity at the end of the book anyway. Besides what I said above, and this is directed towards the bold... I wouldn't be so sure. The first time GRRM said some people had figured out the story of ASOIAF was during the release of the second book, around 1999. Back then there were far less extraneous factors, and no tv show to influence viewers. Aegon VI was heavily foreshadowed in the first book, as was Arya's future marriage to a king (remember the scene under the heart tree with dragon's breath and Ned's cloak). Jaqen stood out more because he had a larger share of book time, before later falling back in the later books. Impressions were very different back then, and that was the time when he said some people had figured out the whole story. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Pate's dialogue is, NOT your imagined dialogue with Elia. It is in the books which is my point, that exact dialogue word to word is in the books. I'll bring Pate up again later when you mention him again. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: WE JUST ESTABLISHED ACCENTS ARE DISTINCT FROM WORD CHOICE, SO STOP SAYING "ACCENT"! And I explained why someone making an oath to a Westerosi would not maintain Lorathi self-negation. To elaborate on that, the word "god" has been euphemized into minced oaths like "gosh". But if you're earnestly swearing an oath, you say "god" not "gosh". Yeah, I don't buy that excuse. Especially knowing how important the symbolism of Arya being pledged to under the heart tree is (again, the first version of this was in AGOT). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes, it is on your side! You are insisting he could not have been in the cells willingly, while I take no position on that. Either possibility is fine by me, but neither has been proven. We are introduced with a man in the black cell, with no way of escaping, and then being set free to go and do what he wants. The implication is this man is a prisoner, someone being held against their will. He even for a time joins the bloody mummers. The evidence needed to prove he wanted to get captured is that he would want to get to the wall, and that he couldn't reach that place without being inside a cage. We know he does not follow that path, and we know he had no escape plan when the fire started. That does work as evidence against the claim he was there on purpose. More to that point, he was presented to us as an unwilling prisoner like Rorge and Biter. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't understand what hypothetical you're talking about. Are you saying that if someone had attacked them while they were conspiring Varys would have had them locked up? I don't know what that would have to do with anything, and I don't know if I would give Varys great odds. Varys is a trickster. Being in the dungeons as Rugen, his first action would be to have them locked up in the black cells nearby. This is again better than trying to face them head on (which as you say would not end well for either of them). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If somebody actually observed Jaqen committing a crime and then arrested him, Janos' competence would be irrelevant. It would be a testament to Jaqen's own abilities however. Being as he killed two people in Harrenhall without getting caught, I don't think he has trouble evading suspicion. If you're to say he did it on purpose (to get caught), then you face the same troubles explaining why he wanted to be in the black cells in the first place. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No we don't. When is the earliest he could have been arrested? We can't be sure I grant you, but I look at it this way: We know the moment when three major characters are in the dungeons half way through the first book: Varys, Ilyrio, and Arya. The City Guard are occupied during the show down between Cersei and Eddard, so they aren't making high level arrests. So unless you believe Jaqen was a member of the stark household guards (who were all killed) then the faceless man must have been put their before the confrontation in the throne room. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Only to you. But it is obvious and clear, I don't know how else to perceive it, and I'm surprised you don't see it as well. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM has often acknowledged being inspired by other fantasy novels, but that doesn't extend to us getting to imagine dialogues between characters that we didn't actually read. Let's not go overboard here, for now we are talking about Pate and the Alchemist having clear analogies to the Swineherd and Strider. Obvious and clear analogies, neither of which prove anything about Pate and Rhaegar (I agree). But its a first step. Contextually these analogies begin to make more sense. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Where did Rhaegar send him, if not to Pentos? To whom was he sent? After Rhaegar died, why did that person let Illyrio take Aegon? We know something entirely different happened with Viserys & Dany. He could (not for sure, this is just an example) have sent him to griffin's roost (remember, Connington was exiled by this point). Griffin's Roost has direct access to the narrow sea (secret passageway), so he could be shipped away at any moment. If people thought the real baby was with Elia, Aegon VI would be safe. That is the point more than if he was physically inside or outside of Westeros. As for Varys... Remember, Aegon II and his was taken out of Kingslanding by Larys Strong (the master of whisperers). It is not so strange to have such a man handle a highly secretive action like a baby swap. So this movement wouldn't be announced, Varys would be in control of the baby and who people thought the baby was. After Rhaegar died he would be transported to Pentos. Regardless of how it played out, he was in Pentos one way or another. That is why Dany and Viserys were left homeless (going from home to home) for years before being taken in by Ilyrio (his manse was occupied). Elia didn't want this to happen either way (the original baby swap), Rhaegar forced her hand (he is the prince, he makes the decisions). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: YG isn't 5 years old anymore (or a infant, which is when you but not Tyrion think those things are from). Septa Lemore is a maternal figure to YG (or his actual mother as is most likely the case) by she has the baby cloths destroyed and turned into a fools motley. She show's no concern for baby cloths that should be of her own guardian (or as a maternal figure). Should she not show nostalgic interest to these things? Unless they were not YG's cloths, so there was another baby. In Pentos. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Wait, you think they swapped the baby but then forgot they did so? Do they have Alzheimers? No, it's a matter of creating an illusion. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why are they trying to "replicate" a baby's taste in candy? The real Aegon liked Ginger, supposedly someone would know. Look at this way: We have baby cloths that don't belong to YG, and candied ginger he doesn't like. So we have another baby, of high birth, who liked ginger. That baby is not faegon. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How is he "set up"? A prisoner in the black cells held against his will. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If he had, would Lyonel not have rebelled? He wouldn't have to because it was a royal decree (of sorts). Rhaegar did not do the same to Lyanna, because again, he was already married. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: In your version she knows he wants to father a child with Robert Baratheon's betrothed. How is that not going to cause a conflict!? Does every character in this series think things through on that level? Did Brandon? Did Catelyn think she would get her daughters back by freeing Jaime? In the history of Westeros people have done things far dumber, and Elia saw him as a prince, he would have some regal authority on this manner. Not knowing that he would go, steal Lyanna away, and avoid making any claim and just hiding away at the Tower of Joy until the war already started. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There is an important distinction between them. His wife & child are in KL, the seat of the government, where it would be most difficult for rebels to reach. The war would have to be lost, and he assumes he's going to win. Lyanna isn't there, because he doesn't want her under his father's control. Aerys doesn't know where Lyanna is, so when Brandon starts demanding her Aerys can't return her. Sending three KG is about the best Rhaegar could do since he can't send an entire army like KL has guarding it. Same as he would do for Aegon, since secrecy is the greatest form of protection. Either way the tower of Joy was further south than KL, further away from the fighting. We don't know the full story yet, and I have my suspicions. How did Elia and Rhaegar leave their marriage off? According to Jon's chapter, she hated him. What did he think of the prophecy? Here is the key question. Did he still think Aegon VI was his heir? Did he want to legitimize Jon? A central difference between Elia and Alicent is the former's son was the heir apparent. Lyanna's child was not suppose to challenge this. Did that change when Rhaegar returned to KL? Was Aegon sent away so that he could no longer lay claim to the throne (there is some textual evidence for this, but its sparse and I doubt it)? These are all questions and I'm sure we will have answers eventually. The central point is that there was a baby swap at kingslanding. When Rhaegar returned. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A single baby-swap is somewhat far-fetched but not overly so for a fantasy series. But you are adding an additional baby-swap as part of one where Aegon survives but is replaced by YG. I think either PoorQuentyn or Steven Attewell has a double-swap theory where Illyrio betrayed Varys and replaced the real Aegon without his knowledge. It's very much a minority theory, and not considered "obvious" by anyone. Hold on, we are only talking about the first baby swap. That is the one we need to prove. It is suggested by the foreshadowing about Aegon VI as early as in book 1, and its further suggested by Tyrion and Jon's chapter in ADWD. The Valonqar prophecy and Dany's vision in the house of the undying are two more clear references to Aegon VI. YG being a fake is self evident, so then we naturally ask ourselves, if YG is not that child, then who is? That question is separate from the first, was there a baby swap? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's possible, but we have no evidence that happened. We just know of him thinking both Rhaenys & Aegon were 2 of the 3 heads. Having a third child could very well have changed his perspective. But lets say he saw Rhaenys as one of the heads still. She is dead, and the other two are alive. It's certainly possible he did not rethink the whole prophecy, but his heir is the most important. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Was it drenched in "red" or in "blood"? Because they aren't the same. If one hand was orange and the other red, perhaps you could argue that they represent fire & blood (respectively). But if one is literal fire and the other is not literal blood, that's an inconsistency. Just like your argument about the two-colored hair. It was red, but the parallels were clear given what Aemon and Jon were speaking of at the time. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ah, Marwyn. We know he's wrong in a number of things he says. He claims Aemon was sent off to Castle Black rather than becoming an Archmaester because both he & Marwyn couldn't be trusted. But we know (including from Aemon himself) that the real reason was to remove him as a competitor for Aegon V as candidate for the throne, and also to accompany Bloodraven. And Marwyn himself was made an archmaester despite being by his own words too untrustworthy for the office! Marwyn also claims that if Aemon had arrived he might have been murdered, but Aemon gave no indication that was at all a risk. And nobody has murdered Marwyn, nor have we gotten any indication there was even any attempt. The real portrait of maesters we can see is that most of them are too ignorant (sometimes even willfully) of magic to be able to respond to it. It is meant to introduce us to the concept, which I mention more of later (Just like in Jon's chapter about the baby swap). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A highborn girl can certainly boss around lower-born men. That's sort of the point of a class hierarchy. I know you don't believe this, I know you don't believe this, I know you don't believe this. What was people's reaction to Arya fighting Mycah? Highborn ladies are not suppose to fight other boys. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It was her father's man, as she said, and thus the Starks had a feudal obligation. We see that when Gregor raided the Riverlands the Tullys sent the farmers (by force, Ned believes) to KL to seek redress. And then the throne in turn has an obligation to defend its own vassals. Howland Reed was being bullied by a bunch of squires, it was in no way her duty to fight them off herself. And the story never portrayed this as some violent enforcement of feudal law. Remember values were different back then, so things you may find disparaging were considered the moral thing to do. Lyanna did what she thought was right, which goes back to the central facet of "kind". 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I've argued against people saying such things. There isn't an absence of evidence, instead there are multiple instances of him acting crazy. Then we are comparing evidence vs. a lack of evidence. All Aerys has to do to prove his mad is act crazy, All Rhaegar has to do to prove he is an adulterer is to take a mistress. The reverse would be this: Aerys can appear sane but secretly he is crazy Rhaegar can appear loyal but actual he is a serial cheater. You see the latter two cannot be proven, only denied. Therefore we operate on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And Lyanna was presented to us as more than an idle fascination or sexual outlet. She was needed for the third head of the dragon. That is entirely separate from the question having mistresses' who can only serve the former, not the latter. And Rhaegar never showed any interest in sexual advances or 'whoring'. So, innocent until proven guilty. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I've already explained why Howland would be focused on her and not everyone else (and since Bran is the audience, there's even more reason to focus on the Starks). In that scene every Stark has a sort of interaction with their sibling: Brandon asks Ashara on behalf of Ned, and Benjen laughs at Lyanna (and gets wine dumped on his head). Howland notices both because he's sitting with the Starks. And, yes, the fact that Lyanna was crowned and later disappeared would be a good reason for HOWLAND to particularly remember her crying. We have to look in the context of Lyanna at the tourney. We are provided two key actions before her crowning: Her fight with the squires (both before and after the KotLT) and her tears at Rhaegar's music. The latter is important as literary device because it is the first connection that ties these two characters together. Knowing what know of what happens, there is a reason this was put in the story. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We had Barristan saying it was not in Rhaegar to be happy. He was basically always sad. The hypothesis that his sadness might have only applied in the absence of childbirth would have already been tested with Rhaenys. Elia did not grow up around morbid or dour people. She grew up around Oberyn and her family, people who made her laugh. Regardless of what she knew of Rhaegar, his lack of emotional response to a newborn child would stand out to her. Both the first and second time. Only the second time, their involves another woman. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The word "worth" is not used in the way you have it used for Lyanna. "Worthy of a dragon", perhaps, but that's different. Same thing with the word "thief". Having a wife at the time was scene as a gift or property. It was an object used for negotiations and trade (for example). Objects, or property, are valued in terms of "worth" and "theft". Worth because of what they offer (example: Dany is worth a Dothraki army), and theft because they are a possession of their husband or betrothed (they trade the cloak of their old family for their new family). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You can't assume the conclusion you are trying to prove as part of the evidence for that conclusion. No, I mean secret prince as in the Alchemist being a metaphor for Strider. That which is obvious and clear. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Marwyn claimed that, and I explained that we already know he's wrong about a number of things. And we've read about how most dragons were killed during the Dance: not by maesters. We read that from Fire and Blood and are given no explanation. Fire and Blood is purported to be written by a maester as was AWOIAF This question is brought up by Wyman Manderly and Barbrey Dustin in ADWD: The first one says his own maester claim neutrality, yet his surname (which maesters hide) connects him to house lannister. The second one calls the maesters grey rats because ever lord and king is suppose to expect them to be completely loyal to their lord or king. These two characters are used to present the idea that the maesters are not just outlets of knowledge, but players in the game of thrones. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes to the first, no to the second, and Balon was already dead by the time we met the Alchemist so he would have to be out of the loop to still "want" that death. He wouldn't want him dead, he would have already killed him by AFFC, which is why he has the dragon egg. And again since you say we don't know that, what you mean is its not confirmed. There is plenty of evidence that the alchemist has a dragon egg with him. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Could you provide the quote? I recall him referring more vaguely to locked scrolls but not that specifically. In AFFC Pate says this: "“Is it some book you want?” Some of the old Valyrian scrolls down in the locked vaults were said to be the only surviving copies in the world." In ADWD Tyrion says this: "And of course there was even less chance of his coming on the fragmentary, anonymous, blood-soaked tome sometimes called Blood and Fire and sometimes The Death of Dragons, the only surviving copy of which was supposedly hidden away in a locked vault beneath the Citadel." There is a reason literature is written like this. Of course neither Tyrion nor Pate know what the Alchemist is looking for, but authors use words and repetition, and scattered information to tell you more about the story. You can deduce these things simply by looking at fragments of knowledge. The theme of wanting a dragon in the prologue. The keys with access to the vaults underneath the citadel. The dragon book locked away in the citadel. Marwyn introducing us to the idea that the maesters were responsible for the death of dragons. The title of the corresponding book. The usage of Wyman and Barbrey to cast doubt on the political posturing of the citadel. An Author does not do this on accident, he does it to tell a story without handing it to the readers in one direct paragraph. That is the problem with only looking for "confirmed information". 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Pate, Leo, the Alchemist, Rhaegar & Elia. All We have is Elia (who is the actual person) and the Alchemist playing her role. Pate is a parallel to Rhaegar, and Leo is a parallel to nothing. I only bring up Leo for how he phrases the question, which plays into the motif of a fifteen year old maiden and a dragon. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: People might be described as "having worth" for some reason, but I can't recall ever hearing someone described as "worth" a thing they could produce. That would sound like you could exchange that thing for that person. Like I said above, a wife is a tool for political negotiation and exchange more than she would be a simple romantic interest. Dany was traded for a Dothraki army. She was treated as a "gift". A gift is something with worth that can be exchanged. Similarly theft is done onto the betrothed, not the lady herself. She is taken from the man who possesses her. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: First you say "maybe, maybe not", but then in your very next sentence you confidently assert one of the two possibilities. Feelings do not necessarily result into primary motive. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She would be analogous to Rhaegar in this circumstance as the person who wound up with the formerly-betrothed. She cannot steal herself away. She would be stolen by another person. Again, this goes back to the objectification of marriage. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Rhaegar wants both, but Pate just wants the maiden. A dragon is merely a means for him to get that, and he's going to give it in exchange for her rather than keeping it. Completely different from Rhaegar, who is certainly not going to trade away a dragon once he gets it. In this case Jon would be the dragon. We don't know how much he came to value Lyanna, but we do know about how Pate's desires were phrased (which is the important part). "Is she worth a dragon?" "Do you have my dragon?" The dragon is the central theme of the entire prologue. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You can't assume your conclusion in order to prove it. Again, I am only talking about the metaphors. And the parallel between The Alchemist and Strider as well as Pate and the Swineherd are clear and obvious. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's about taking a lock of hair, even though the word "rape" is used. And that was written in the 18th century, more "modern" than Westeros. The book series use older terminology, but their prose are more contemporary. I've read plenty of 18th century text, and ASOIAF (despite being medieval) is not written to mimic old world linguistic habits (again terminology is used, but not when it conflicts with already established terminology like rape or murder). Whiskers instead of beard I think is used, but that is the only one I can think of (not sure about it though). In the series rape means rape, kills mean kill, etc. Supper means dinner. It is all written for contemporary audience. In that sense "he raped Lyanna" means just that, "he raped Lyanna". If the book was trying to communicate theft, then it would say "he took Lyanna" or "he kidnapped Lyanna". 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Lyanna agreeing to run away is irrelevant in a patriarchal society like Westeros. Her father had already decided she was marrying Robert, she doesn't get to decide for herself. Similarly, the fathers of the Sabine women didn't want them marrying Romans, and they fought over that. Exactly, which is why it's theft either way. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Whether he was "distant and unloving" in their society was less important than whether he provided children & took care of his family. We have plenty of perspectives from women who want their husband's love. Sansa wants to marry a charming prince, not just provide children. Catelyn is bothered by Jon not because Ned cheated on her, but because he must have "loved this woman fiercely" to take in her son as his own (ironically he did, just not in the way she thinks). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He hasn't seen Lyanna since Harrenhal, he's with Elia in that scene. And he hasn't mentioned her in that scene either. She was, implicitly. "The dragon needs three heads". He needs another child. Elia can't provide that. Only women can provide children. He needs another woman. Who is the other woman standing between them romantically? Lyanna. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: And now you're just making stuff up we have no reason to believe. He's not "due" another lord's betrothed as his mistress. Rhaegar already has a wife & two children! How does giving him Lyanna prevent him from drifting away!? You're right, I wasn't raised as a noblewoman like Alicent, Catelyn or Cersei. They would spot such foolishness before me. Marriages are not all equal. For example Uwin Peake wanted to marry his daughter (Turnip) to Aegon III. Aegon was a Targaryen, and Peake was a relatively minor household. But given the political realities of the time, such a match made sense. He was the hand of the king, and Aegon needed to provide heirs as much of his extended family was now dead (thanks to the war). Alicent also made sense at the time. She was beautiful, house Hightower was well involved with the political undertakings of Jaehaerys' reign (Otto Hightower was hand of the king, and old town was where the high septon was located). Catelyn was the eldest and most beautiful daughter of the lord paramount of the trident. Rickard Stark had Southron ambitions and the riverlands were a doorstep away from the north (connecting their borders) so she was an obvious choice. Elia was not an obvious choice, Cersei was. Tywin was hand of the king, and at this time the westerlands were resurgent. They were richer and better positioned than Dorne. House Martell never expected Elia to marry Rhaegar, and she was a weak woman, far from one of the most beautiful (like Lyanna, Ashara, Cersei, or Catelyn). Giving him Lyanna would give him the third head of the dragon, which is something she can't provide. So Elia is a second (or third) choice for marriage, and now she can not provide the deepest need of the prince. If she forces him (she can't) to stay loyal then she would be the cause depriving him and his house of their most wanted need (the prophecy, the dragons). Elia does not expect him to marry her or run off to the tower of joy, or take her child from her. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Dorne has little agriculture, but they produce high-value items and do a lot of trade. I think they're richer than, say, the Starks. They have less people. I think its mentioned that Dorne has the smallest population. That means a smaller army (since Armies in this world are taken from the land). The north has white harbor keep in mind. Either way at this point in time Dorne is not best positioned. The North had Rickard Stark which was like their own lord Tywin. He had a daughter betrothed to the heir of the stormlands and a son betrothed to house Tully. Tywin was hand of the king and expected (by all means) a match between Cersei and Rhaegar. If Aerys wasn't insane that would probably be what would happen. These were resurgent kingdoms, it was not the same political situation as when Daeron II married Myriah Martell. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She has an obligation to represent her own family, not to step aside for Rhaegar's "better wife". Obligation and personal desire are not the same things. Elia is not just a machine, she has her own personal interests and desires. And who is to say he would not have cast her aside had she not offered first? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: NO, she was only betrothed to Brandon, he was killed before they could marry. And Ned married her without much of a betrothal period. Betrothed yes, not married. You are right. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: According to Barbrey Dustin, Cat wasn't the one Brandon wanted. Rickard & Aerys both chose wives for their firstborn sons based at least partly on politics. We're talking about separate things. This is about Catelyn's worth as a tool of marriage (which was high. She was beautiful and the eldest daughter to the ambitious lord paramount of the trident). That is why Catelyn was not a second choice, but the first. Aerys married Rhaegar to Elia as a slight against Tywin, not as some advantageous political move (he was not only crazy, but a moron as well I guess. It made sense to him, but he was using the same Logic as Hoster or Rickard.) 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A mother was supposed to content herself with her children. Yes well, we are all suppose to do things. That doesn't stop emotions from controlling behavior, no matter how unwise. And who is to say what Rhaegar would have do had she not been the one to make the offer. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The realm was a tinderbox, I'm not convinced swapping out Alicent for Elia would have prevented that. Intention is the key here, Elia was in a different position than Alicent. Aegon VI was Rhaegar's heir, so he was (she assumed) safe. She would inherit the throne. Rhaenyra was the heir in the case of Viserys I, not Alicent's children. So she made a political move to change the situation. That wasn't the motives underlining Elia's actions. Now if Rhaegar wanted to legitimize Jon and make him heir, that would change everything. But that could only have happened after Rhaegar returned from the tower of joy. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Alicent insisted on pushing for her children's interests while her husband was alive, as did Cat. Aegon VI was the heir, Elia believed that to be true. Cat had her own reasons, as did Alicent. Both women were different from Elia besides. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why does she want that!? Imagine being in her position. This man, in front of the entire kingdom, crowned another woman queen of love and beauty. He hasn't spoken of it since, wouldn't you want to here it from himself? She knows what he thinks, and she certainly thinks he must love this woman (just as Catelyn assumed Ned must have loved Jon's mother "fiercely" who was ironically also Lyanna). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: In the past tense, he's not trying to get him to admit he wants to sleep with Cersei now. Tyrion had previously confronted Lancel with such knowledge, it was a means of obtaining leverage. Not like your imagined Elia. He (Jaime) knows something to be true and he needs to hear confirmation (he travels all the way to Castle Darry to hear it). Elia knows something to be true and she needs to hear the confirmation for herself. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She doesn't know the specifics of the ToJ, but in your imaginary conversation she's using the same lines the Alchemist used to goad Pate into stealing the key. WHY!? Nothing good for Elia can come from that. Same as above "Do you love her (why wouldn't she wondering that), do you want her (same as before), you won't do better (he named her queen of love and beauty against his wife and all the other beautiful maidens and ladies at Harrenhall)". 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Perhaps in the future, but it hasn't happened yet. It will. Unless you believe he is azor ahai reborn 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You brought up ancestry, just there. Shouldn't all three apples be indicative of ancestry? Otherwise you're being inconsistent. Arya is the eater of dead apples, of worms “So says Arya of House Stark, eater of grave worms.”- Kindly man, AFFC Aegon VI dead mother was from dorne, the golden spear (arrow) through the core of the sun (apple) The fallen apple is Jon, he is the bastard, the one who never had his birth name recognized or known. The three apples are different, but they are meant to clue us in on the three heads of the dragon, this information is translated in different ways, but they all have to do with the identity of the person. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We actually don't know how many there are. There aren't many, the point of the facelessman is that they are rare. They also don't do recruitment drives from what we know (they aren't corporate America). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Our only knowledge of him having an egg in the first place is in his claim that he threw one away. So, no, we don't "know" that. Again, not something we actually know. Deduction, as portrayed above. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: And we could have been told that his accent slipped. We weren't. Of course not, it would only be what Arya notices. She is not from the free cities, and he must at this point have a Braavosi accent similar to Lorath. Either way it is foriegn to her. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I am indeed mocking your argument. Reductio ad absurdum is a common form of argument. Have you ever heard it said that an argument "proves too much"? A "proof" of something known to be false shows that there was an error in the chain of reasoning or a starting premise. That's too bad, you would have been treated to some more great evidence as to why Jaqen was acting the part of a false identity. If it was a mask, then Jaqen would be a real person, and not just a mummers role. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That Alleras is said one time to "bathe"? Jaime & Brienne bathe, that doesn't prove anything. No, but it is another parallel between 'Alleras' and 'Jaqen'. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We really don't know, so we can't rely much on any argument that depends on him telling someone else in the Red Keep. The question is, if it was part of the prophecy, why would it only be said to his wife? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why does he keep that face even after Balon is dead? Again, I go back to the central point: GRRM needed for us to recognize his character. If there was no reason for him to change his face after killing Balon, then he wouldn't have to do it. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Alchemist isn't going around picking pockets or selling burgled goods to a fence. He appears to be taking steps as part of some larger mission, although what that is we don't know yet. Dragon eggs, stealing from the citadel, this all above the religious order introduced to us in Arya's chapters. So unless you believe the FM are just a cover for some political operation, we must assume the alchemist is working separately from them. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That quote isn't about hiding or revealing your own face, but looking directly upon the person being executed and taking responsibility for it. Ilyn Payne is the executioner rather than judge, but there's nothing wrong with him revealing himself. Everyone knows he's the King's Justice. He knows who Arya of house stark is. So if we were to say he made the specific rule just for Arya because of her heritage, then we must assume the reason is because for a stark, looking into the eyes of those they kill is them passing judgment, which is not what the facelessmen do. Or it is not a rule specific to Arya. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You don't actually know what a typical FM is like, you've just got Arya's lessons which won't necessarily apply to an experienced agent responsible for exercising his own initiative in the field away from any superior around to give orders. Arya's chapters is what we have to go by. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Provide a quote. "He was the youngest of the three, slender, fine-featured, always smiling" "the handsome one with the red-and-white hair said" Note the descriptors are from Arya's perspective. "Beric Dondarrion was handsome enough, but he was awfully old, almost twenty-two"- Sansa, AGOT A matter of perspective, but he could not be some middle age person like Biter or Rorge, or else "youngest" would not apply. They would all be old one way or another. Handsome is relative to age, as shown by Sansa, yet it is offered her without clarification (like "enough"). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Did Arya call Beric old? Arya is younger than Sansa 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is the evidence that Jaqen is any more "made up" than the Alchemist? Do you know the true identity of the Alchemist? Well, unless you believe Jaqen was using a glamor, we know the Alchemist was a mask which means he was of a living person who is now dead (not a false identity). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How do you know that for the former? Because of the mask he wore when he left Harrenhall (unless it was a glamor). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Answering a question in the negative is not "dismissing" it. In this case it was. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: But Elia doesn't know what will happen! You can't use the future actions of someone other than Elia to determine what Elia was thinking. The future can tell us about the past as much as the past can tell us about the future. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I assume that's for "you won't do better", but the parallel doesn't work at all between Pate & Rhaegar. Pate is a nobody who can't have even a tavern girl unless he gets a lot more money than he could normally acquire. Rhaegar was famously high-status, as you emphasize when arguing their marriage was "uneven". Lyanna was not regarded as the most beautiful, so it seems that Rhaegar COULD do better. And why would Elia be talking up some other woman as the best Rhaegar can do!? In comparison, yes. Pate is an average-ugly boy, and Rosey is a tavern girl. Rhaegar is one of the most beautiful men in the world, and Lyanna is among the most beautiful woman in the world. Of the highborn ladies present he chooses her as his queen of love and beauty (not "his" but you get the point, that is his judgment call). If that is true then he certainly can't do better than her. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Amory presumably recalls on which floor they split up, might even have heard what was going on through the floor, and when he finished stabbing Rhaenys half a hundred times could have gone on to the other floor. He was in the keep at the same time as Gregor and on essentially the same mission, so he seems like a perfectly adequate source for Tywin even if Gregor wasn't also present giving an after-action report. Persumably, assume, etc. Yes but we don't know, and I find it odd this information had directly been danced around deliberately. It could be nothing, but still... 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Sam stops at Braavos on the way to Oldtown, and even encounters Arya. That doesn't sound like much of a conflict. Sam left from Eastwatch by the sea which was far north (just like Braavos). From Harrenhall there are shorter ways to Oldtown (also he went to the Iron Islands before). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why only one method? They were willing to take Arya even though she wasn't an offering. She had the coin, that makes her stand out. It goes back to my point, its just an iron coin, but the facelessmen keep them safe, which is why they have so much value. Otherwise we would see more exceptions than just Arya. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He wasn't sent to do that specifically, but I already mentioned how many firms encourage their employees to refer potential hires even if recruiting isn't their primary job. They have not been shown to behave this way, or seek out many recruits. The fact that Arya is given so much special attention with her one coin is a testament to how rare it is for someone to show up at the house of black and white with one. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You don't know anything about him being "rejected" at all, you simply made it up. And what "support" are you referring to? The sighs of maester Ebrose are meant to reflect the kindly man. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is "everything about Lyanna"? Well, the crowning for one. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We just don't know, so we shouldn't build a long chain of reasoning dependent on either possibility. Whether Lyanna was important to the prophecy or not, that doesn't change Elia's perspective. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: So the nobility can't be adulterers, although everyone knows Rhaegar to have been one (with Lyanna at least)? Noble as in the adjective, not as in a member of nobility. Noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If she had known what was going to happen, she should have told someone in an attempt to prevent it, because nothing could be worse. He is the crowned prince of the seven kingdoms and she is his wife. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't know, there's merely an absence of evidence. Incidentally, there seems to be a JFK/RFK inspiration for Daemon Blackfyre, Baelor Breakspear & Rhaegar Targaryen and we know JFK did have mistresses. Of course, I think that proves nothing for Rhaegar because it's not in the text. Well Rhaegar did have an affair with Lyanna, but that is from a distinct purpose and attraction. Not an idle series of one night stands. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: So you're reduced to her being "outwardly" sweet, and relying on Robert's inaccurate perception. And defending Howland. She was not once shown to be vindictive. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That is my take on what "the wolf blood" entails. Not vindictive. I give you wild, but that is different from being emotionally cruel or manipulative. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes, because that is exactly what Starks are supposed to do! Howland was bullied by a bunch of squires, she was not suppose to fight them herself. If we are going off of what she is suppose to do, why would she do something like that by first breaking the rules of impropriety? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: This has nothing to do with what I would "rather". In Westeros lords are obligated to retaliate against attacks on their vassals... and they are obligated to pursue the interests of their own house over someone else's. Polygamy is not permitted, and one reason is that there would be too many divergent interests rather than one pairing with a shared interest in both their children. The Dance and the Blackfyre rebellions both happened because a king had children with multiple women. A widower remarrying is not prohibited, because it is still desirable to have male heir if one doesn't exist (and the death rate was higher in pre-modern times, so having a spare was good too), but multiple claimants from different families spell the potential for disaster. Defending Howland herself did none of those things, and I would hardly classify squires bullying him as "an attack against..." 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't claim they are like the average couple in EVERY respect, but being a good Bayesian I do try to start from a base case of the "outside view" and then cautiously see where we can extrapolate based on the "inside view". The outside view tends to be more accurate than the inside view. Interesting link, but we know a few things about Elia's position relative to Rhaegar, and his obsession with the prophecy. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She was expecting her children to be killed if Rhaenyra took the throne, so yes she was attempting to do so. Fine, then telling her son not to seek peace near the end of the war (which was a death sentence to him). The point is she did what she thought was right, not always what was right. And Elia's son was the heir apparent, she had no reason to believe that would change. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: And Domeric was going to be Roose's heir. Ramsay didn't have a noble family to back his claim over his half-brother's, but he was still a threat anyway. I think its possible Aegon VI claim was to be challenged, but Elia thought it was a certainty. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: An exit strategy for what happens if Yoren gets attacked on the road? For any reason. It would be as simple as having a pick lock on hand. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I am commenting on all sorts of things written in this thread, whether they are directed at me is irrelevant to whether they are sensible or not. Yes, fine, that is all fair and good. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Have you noticed that a very small portion of my comments are noting when you say something correct? If others evaluate a similar percentage of what you say as correct but don't respond at as much length, then they probably won't include such things. There's nothing "suspicious" about people disagreeing with your theory, that's entirely normal for newfangled theories. Get used to people expressing disagreement with you and not believing your theory. Yes, those were when I said something that did not back my main point, like I am not sure, or this can't be proven. It was also treated sarcastically which again is fine. Sarcasm is allowed. As for theory... there is more than one part to an argument. We can acknowledge the parts we agree with and the parts we don't. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They also renamed Asha to Yara so viewers wouldn't get confused, and cut out the Tysha reveal because viewers wouldn't remember her being mentioned in the first season. Jaquen was not removed, but YG was. So if YG is the real Aegon, then they did cut him out, but if "Jaqen" is then they didn't. They also made Jaqen the kindly man, so they did cut him. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'm not ignoring it, that's a big part of why that part of the pitch letter no longer seems likely. AFfC was when that gap was discarded. The Alchemist is just a Faceless Man in Oldtown, and we don't get any indication he's meeting up with Arya again. That will happen in discourse, we have a lot of time between now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talvikorppi Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 On 10/29/2020 at 7:12 PM, butterweedstrover said: Remember Ned's words, the person who passes the judgment should swing the sword (paraphrasing). The facelessman don't pass the judgment, they should not reveal themselves as the one responsible for the victims death. And that is my point. Arya is no Faceless Man. She passes the judgement (she thinks the insurance salesman is a bit shit and deserves to die - acting the judge) and she's fantasizing about making him look her in the eye as he dies = a form of what Ned taught his kids. (This happens in ADWD chapter The Ugly Litle Girl (Arya 2), btw. It's courteous to give a chapter reference to any quote.) So that dialogue with the Kindly Man is very specific to Arya. It's not some primer on FM rules. I don't see any FM rules to not look upon the face of the victim. I also don't see any FM rules that they should never steal. They're assassins. Think of them as MI6/CIA operatives. Do they always work within the law? No. They might use stealing or breaking and entering as a means to get at their target (just as long as they're not caught doing it). This isn't even Arya's first offence. She had already been punished (made blind, though that is also training) for breaking the one FM rules we actually know aout: don't take judgement upon yourself. As Cat of the Canals (AFFC, third Arya chapter), she took it upon herself to execute Dareon, the Night's Watch brother sent with Maester Aemon, Sam, Gilly and the baby, because he was deserting the NW. In Westeros, in the North at least, NW deserters face the death penalty but it seems it still has to be administered by a legally competent lord . In AGOT Bran I, the people who caught Gared didn't just kill him, they waited for Lord Eddard to arrive, question the prisoner, and pass the sentence in a very formal way. In contrast, Arya is in Essos, with no legal competence whatsoever, but kills Dareon because she doesn't like him and he's deserting the NW. She's acting the judge and the jury and it's quite personal to her. All big no no's to the Faceless Men. And she gets punished for it, although blinding her is also a lesson, a part of her training. Next we have Cat of the Canals STILL wanting to look her victim (the insurance guy) in the eye, making it personal. It's not that the FM cannot ever look their victims in the face, it's about ARYA not doing it because it's one of the Arya Stark of Winterfell things she should put behind her and let go if she's to be a true FM. (TBH, I'm not sure the FM want Arya to become a true FM. They indulge her, they might want to use her, her warging ability, the wolf pack etc. for some purpose; But that's another whole can of worms.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talvikorppi Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 On 10/29/2020 at 9:19 PM, butterweedstrover said: There are fanciful theories, but I don't use those ideas in my head canon. I don't see this as a fanciful theory. So what do I mean by my certainty? Its just this. This is the thing. If you'd labelled this "theory" as "crackpot" or "tinfoil", a bit tongue-in-cheek, much lively, good-natured discussion would ensue. Examining the out-there idea, having fun with it, pulling quotes, maybe discovering something new, something unexpected (like you made me read Kindly Man/Arya exchange as Arya still adhering to her Northern roots). "Theory-crafting" is fun. But insisting, in earnest, on your own head-canon (fanfic) to prove a "theory", taking quotes wildly out of context and building a house of cards on them, and then not understanding why people, who know the text inside out, might not buy your fanfic "theory", is just willfully stubborn. I welcome your ideas, they've helped me to find new things, but insisting on your fanfic headcanon... Let's just say, it's not convincing. Also, sorry if I come across as patronising. I don't mean to sound patronising. (Even though I probably am, ha ha.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talvikorppi Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 On 10/29/2020 at 9:19 PM, butterweedstrover said: When Arya awakes Ned tells her this: "“You,” Ned said, kissing her lightly on the brow, “will marry a king and rule his castle, and your sons will be knights and princes and lords and, yes, perhaps even a High Septon.” This is not when Arya awakes in the Godswood. This is several days later when Arya and Ned meet and talk on the steps of the Tower of the Hand, in AGOT Ned V. You're once again misquoting, or making the text bend to your preconceived ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talvikorppi Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 On 10/29/2020 at 11:08 PM, butterweedstrover said: “By all the gods of sea and air, and even him of fire, I swear it.” “By the seven new gods and the old gods beyond count, I swear it.” That goes against Lorathi speech patterns. I give you that. He didn't say "a man swears it". But the only thing that might prove is that the faceless man assuming the identity of Ja'qen H'gar the Lorathi might not be a Lorathi. It's a hell of a jump to assume that because of this he is Aegon, Rheagar's and Elia's son. Most of your supporting "evidence" is random quotes pulled out of context, supplemented by imaginary (fanfic) conversations and wild leaps. Fine. If GRRM proves you to have been right, I'll have egg on my face. I can live with that. But you have not convinced me of Jaq'en H'gar/Alchemist = Aegon, son of Rhaegar & Elia. Interesting idea/thought experiment, though. Thank you for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talvikorppi Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 On 10/30/2020 at 2:13 AM, FictionIsntReal said: Rhaegar was wrong repeatedly, including right as he rode off to battle because he was sure he would win. That's why none of his family was moved from KL. I'd just like to point out that we know from Jaime and Barristan (I think) that Elia and her children were called from Dragonstone to King's Landing and kept there on Aerys II's orders, hostages against Rhaegar and Dornish loyalty. Aerys II sent Rhealla (pregnant with Daenerys, though he didn't know it) and Viserys to Dragonstone, out of harm's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterweedstrover Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 49 minutes ago, talvikorppi said: This is not when Arya awakes in the Godswood. This is several days later when Arya and Ned meet and talk on the steps of the Tower of the Hand, in AGOT Ned V. You're once again misquoting, or making the text bend to your preconceived ideas. Here is the quote: This is from the pdf: https://www.nothuman.net/images/files/discussion/2/1815b71a2e633176b1c509f3a186605b.pdf No edits were made: Ned knelt beside her. “He has years to find that answer, Arya. For now, it is enough to know that he will live.” The night the bird had come from Winterfell, Eddard Stark had taken the girls to the castle godswood, an acre of elm and alder and black cottonwood overlooking the river. The heart tree there was a great oak, its ancient limbs overgrown with smokeberry vines; they knelt before it to offer their thanksgiving, as if it had been a weirwood. Sansa drifted to sleep as the moon rose, Arya several hours later, curling up in the grass under Ned’s cloak. All through the dark hours he kept his vigil alone. When dawn broke over the city, the dark red blooms of dragon’s breath surrounded the girls where they lay. “I dreamed of Bran,” Sansa had whispered to him. “I saw him smiling.” “He was going to be a knight,” Arya was saying now. “A knight of the Kingsguard. Can he still be a knight?” “No,” Ned said. He saw no use in lying to her. “Yet someday he may be the lord of a great holdfast and sit on the king’s council. He might raise castles like Brandon the Builder, or sail a ship across the Sunset Sea, or enter your mother’s Faith and become the High Septon.” But he will never run beside his wolf again, he thought with a sadness too deep for words, or lie with a woman, or hold his own son in his arms. Arya cocked her head to one side. “Can I be a king’s councillor and build castles and become the High Septon?” “You,” Ned said, kissing her lightly on the brow, “will marry a king and rule his castle, and your sons will be knights and princes and lords and, yes, perhaps even a High Septon.” Yes, she was in the tower of the hand, but this is said right after a recollection of the night under the godswood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterweedstrover Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 3 hours ago, talvikorppi said: This is the thing. If you'd labelled this "theory" as "crackpot" or "tinfoil", a bit tongue-in-cheek, much lively, good-natured discussion would ensue. Examining the out-there idea, having fun with it, pulling quotes, maybe discovering something new, something unexpected (like you made me read Kindly Man/Arya exchange as Arya still adhering to her Northern roots). "Theory-crafting" is fun. But insisting, in earnest, on your own head-canon (fanfic) to prove a "theory", taking quotes wildly out of context and building a house of cards on them, and then not understanding why people, who know the text inside out, might not buy your fanfic "theory", is just willfully stubborn. I welcome your ideas, they've helped me to find new things, but insisting on your fanfic headcanon... Let's just say, it's not convincing. Also, sorry if I come across as patronising. I don't mean to sound patronising. (Even though I probably am, ha ha.) Of course there is a chance I have gone completely insane, but for some reason it just seems obvious (to me). You're right if I was more light hearted about the premise the discussion would be more engaging, but this is honestly where I'm at right now. It started with the Valonqar theory. Once I started reading it as being Aegon VI, then I couldn't stop myself. "Until there comes another, younger and more beautiful" (than your prince Rhaegar) to cast you down, and when your tears have drowned you the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale throat and choke the life from you." So someone will cast her down and then kill her, the way its phrased seems like its talking about the same person. The little brother in valyrian (Aegon VI, younger brother to Rhaenys) who is younger and more beautiful than Rhaegar (his father). But here is the thing, none of the fans consider it a popular theory: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Valonqar/Theories So what do I make of this, something I find obvious isn't considered serious by a fanbase that knows more about the series than I do. It makes me feel strange because I would think others would agree, and yet it's not even seriously discussed by most of the fandom (and I am not as well versed as they are). I don't know, and I get why a lot of people are repulsed from my arguments but for me its less of a "Tyrion is Dany's son from the future" and more of an "oh wow, that makes sense". Yet others don't seem to buy into as a serious possibility, which is surprising to me. Arya and Lyanna (history repeats itself), Aegon and Rhaegar. There are more allusions to Arya being married under a heart tree. Like fArya (Jeyne Poole) marrying Ramsay: "Then the mists parted, like the curtain opening at a mummer show to reveal some new tableau1. The heart tree appeared in front of them, its bony limbs spread wide. Fallen leaves lay about the wide white trunk in drifts of red and brown2. The ravens were the thickest here, muttering to one another in the murderers’ secret tongue. Ramsay Bolton stood beneath them, clad in high boots of soft grey leather and a black velvet doublet slashed with pink silk and glittering with garnet teardrops3. A smile danced across his face. “Who comes?” His lips were moist, his neck red above his collar. “Who comes before the god?4”" 1. Its mummer's farce, not the real thing 2. The tree is white and the leaves red (and brown) like the motif of white and red. 3. black with red gems, like the red and black dragon (Rhaegar's armor for example). 4. Typical ceremony, but also a question about the gods. Some of this could be wrong, I'm reaching on the parallels with fArya's wedding, which is why I don't use it as evidence for everything. But it fits the imagery that Arya will be married under a heart tree. And if our suspicions are correct, Lyanna was as well. edit: Also note the garnets being like teardrops (3). "The queen wore a high-collared black silk gown, with a hundred dark red rubies sewn into her bodice, covering her from neck to bosom. They were cut in the shape of teardrops, as if the queen were weeping blood"- AGOT That is when Cersei wore the black dress studded with rubies in respect to Rhaegar's armor from when Robert killed him (this is after Robert is killed by the boar). edit2: "Behind them, Gendry groaned. “Lords and ladies,” he proclaimed in a disgusted tone. Arya plucked a withered crabapple off a passing branch and whipped it at him, bouncing it off his thick bull head" There are more about a withered apple (or worm eaten apple) as relates to Arya. Mollander also threw a "withered apple" for the second arrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted November 1, 2020 Share Posted November 1, 2020 On 10/30/2020 at 8:33 PM, CamiloRP said: the fact that they can breed with humans The story of the Nights King involves a man taking one as his lover, but I don't think they actually had any offspring. That would be a very Lovecraftian thing, and GRRM seems to lean more in that direction with seagoing people rather than the far north. Quote George really hates the notion of non-humans breeding with humans You should tell that to people writing about how the Valyrians magically interbred with dragons, along with similar theories about some First Men with Children of the Forest resulting in greensight/warging. On 10/30/2020 at 9:20 PM, butterweedstrover said: On a side note, the kindly man does miss when Arya lies or is deceitful at times Quote However the kindly man misses the nostalgic connection: [...] Once more he does not get the connection. I don't think that's "lying" or being "deceitful". He asked her to make up new names, and those aren't her actual name. Sure, she was inspired by names she knew, but he didn't prohibit that. She was just supposed to stop being "Salty" and choose a Westerosi name. Quote Side note2: There is a chance the alchemist was using a glamor, not a mask- Entirely possible, Jaqen just put a finger on his face rather than pulling an actual mask out of a bag and placing it on himself. But I think that may be a common technique used among Faceless Men with more experience than Arya. Quote But look at what he is eating when he says this: "Tap, tap, she heard, then a tiny crackling sound. Breaking his first egg." An allusion to the alchemist, or perhaps the archmaesters themselves. How is the bold text an "allusion" to either? On 10/31/2020 at 2:06 AM, butterweedstrover said: Like I said, the one and only time, and at that point he was showing extreme frustration, to the point that he would say anything. Are you saying Varys was showing "extreme frustration" when he killed Kevan and talked about Aegon? Perhaps this was intended as a reply to something else. Quote Yes, well we established we were talking about the speech patter since you mentioned the usage of "she" instead of "a girl". I thought it was you who brought that up first. Quote Then I went on to provide evidence of possessive singular pronouns (I). I think the first-person possessive is "my" or "mine". Quote The first time GRRM said some people had figured out the story of ASOIAF was during the release of the second book, around 1999. R+L=J was a theory then, but I have never heard anybody else raise your theory that Jaqen=Aegon. Quote It is in the books which is my point, that exact dialogue word to word is in the books The scene for one set of characters, which you try to apply to an entirely different set in a different scene. And I explained why you can't simply assume that as with Howland Reed supposedly fighting Arthur Dayne in single combat. Quote Varys is a trickster. Being in the dungeons as Rugen, his first action would be to have them locked up in the black cells nearby. This is again better than trying to face them head on (which as you say would not end well for either of them). How is he going to do that if whoever attacked him in the dungeons could overpower him? It's not like he's going to call the guards to him while he's secretly conspiring with Illyrio (known by Robert to be protecting the Targaryens) against the throne. Quote Being as he killed two people in Harrenhall without getting caught, I don't think he has trouble evading suspicion. Nobody can be perfect all the time. Quote The City Guard are occupied during the show down between Cersei and Eddard, so they aren't making high level arrests. What is a "high level arrest"? And how do you know he wasn't arrested prior to that? Quote then the faceless man must have been put their before the confrontation in the throne room I asked what the "earliest" time was, and instead you are telling me what the latest time is. Quote But it is obvious and clear, I don't know how else to perceive it, and I'm surprised you don't see it as well. You are continuously surprised because you are so often wrong. Remember that recognizing a fact that disagrees with your intuition as surprising is an important step in updating your worldview. Quote He could (not for sure, this is just an example) have sent him to griffin's roost (remember, Connington was exiled by this point). What is "this point"? We don't know precisely when this happened, if it did. It presumably didn't happen while Rhaegar was gone, unless he sent someone to act on his behalf (which I doubt Elia would accept), but he could have arranged for it before he ran off in the first place. If, as you think, this happened after Connington was exiled, it makes little sense. Robert Baratheon has already won three battles in a single day in the Stormlands. That region is significantly LESS safe than King's Landing. Robert could seize it even without ever meeting Rhaegar in battle. And from the preview chapters for TWOW, we know Griffin's Roost can be seized even with a small force. Quote As for Varys... Remember, Aegon II and his was taken out of Kingslanding by Larys Strong (the master of whisperers). Aegon II was the king. Aegon VI isn't the king or even the heir. Varys was working for Aerys II, which included spying on Rhaegar and alerting Aerys if his own son was plotting against him. Would Rhaegar really trust Varys with his son, given that he was keeping his father (and Varys) in the dark while he was gone? Quote Regardless of how it played out, he was in Pentos one way or another. That is why Dany and Viserys were left homeless (going from home to home) for years before being taken in by Ilyrio (his manse was occupied). Viserys & Dany didn't start out in Pentos. They only wound up there after moving from a number of Essosi cities. And YG has been with Jon Connington for years, Illyrio only seems to have had him when he was quite young. Quote She show's no concern for baby cloths that should be of her own guardian (or as a maternal figure). The clothes don't fit YG, and it seems like she & Connington have both been with YG as he grew up. The version of YG in their heads isn't frozen as the little kid in those clothes. Why would she keep around those clothes? My parents didn't keep mine. Quote No, it's a matter of creating an illusion. HOW DOES IT CREATE THE ILLUSION?! He can't even fit into those clothes! Tyrion can, which I don't think would be possible if they were meant for an infant rather than a 5 year old. Quote The real Aegon liked Ginger, supposedly someone would know. Who? I can't recall anybody talking about what I liked as a baby. Babies drink their mother's milk, and then later consume babyfood because they're limited to things they can't choke on. It's older children who get to express opinions on food. Children like the 5 year old YG would have been when he was handed to Connington by Illyrio. Quote We have baby cloths that don't belong to YG I don't agree with that. Perhaps they "don't belong" in the present tense, because he's too old for them, but a teenager sent baby clothes (whether they were his or not) wouldn't care about them. Quote Rhaegar did not do the same to Lyanna, because again, he was already married. Even if he doesn't marry Lyanna, if he knocks her up that's unnacceptable to Robert (as well as her father). Quote Does every character in this series think things through on that level? That level is VERY basic. Every Westerosi aristocrat knows the importance of marriage in politics and that the point of marriage alliances is that there is a shared interest in the offspring. Quote Did Brandon? If Rhaegar had been in KL, Brandon's decision wouldn't have seemed quite as irrational. Rhaegar would have to answer for his actions, and the Starks would find out what was up with Lyanna. Quote Did Catelyn think she would get her daughters back by freeing Jaime? That was a desperate hail-Mary to save her daughters after she heard Bran & Rickon had been killed (and Tyrion had sent false envoys to free Jaime, so Robb would not accept more envoys negotiating him). Elia does not need to resort to anything like that (at least not BEFORE Rhaegar runs off with Lyanna). Quote In the history of Westeros people have done things far dumber Like what? I suppose you could find some examples from Aerys at his most insane. Quote Elia saw him as a prince Her mother was a princess, she is not overawed by such titles. Quote Not knowing that he would go, steal Lyanna away, and avoid making any claim What "claim" might he have made, and how would that prevent conflict? Quote Either way the tower of Joy was further south than KL, further away from the fighting. During the Dance, Baratheon forces went south into Dorne prior to relieving KL. Rhaegar can't be confident Dorne will be spared longer. Even if he wins at the Trident, Robert could try to regroup again (as he did after Randyll Tarly beat him) and try to knock out a loyalist region. Rhaegar would presumably pursue him, but it wouldn't seem safer than KL. Quote According to Jon's chapter, she hated him. Which bit in Jon's chapter are you referring to? Quote Did he still think Aegon VI was his heir? Why wouldn't he!? He was the eldest son. Quote Did he want to legitimize Jon? Jon hadn't even been born yet! Quote A central difference between Elia and Alicent is the former's son was the heir apparent. Lyanna's child was not suppose to challenge this. Robb Stark & Daeron II Targaryen were also heirs, but their bastard brothers were suspected of or proved to be actual threats. Plus I brought up Ramsay earlier. Quote Was Aegon sent away so that he could no longer lay claim to the throne (there is some textual evidence for this, but its sparse and I doubt it) What are you talking about? Quote The central point is that there was a baby swap at kingslanding. When Rhaegar returned. There's no evidence for that specifically. Quote The Valonqar prophecy and Dany's vision in the house of the undying are two more clear references to Aegon VI. I only read people other than you saying Jaime is the Valonqar. You're the only one saying it's Aegon. Quote YG being a fake is self evident I disagree, and wil remain agnonstic on the question. Conditional on him being fake, I doubt Aegon VI is alive at all. Quote Having a third child could very well have changed his perspective. Why? Quote But lets say he saw Rhaenys as one of the heads still. She is dead, and the other two are alive. It's certainly possible he did not rethink the whole prophecy, but his heir is the most important. Rhaenys & Aegon/"pisswater prince" were killed AFTER Rhaegar died. Rhaegar was expecting to win, he could not expect he would lose, KL would be sacked and his entire family killed. Quote It was red, but the parallels were clear given what Aemon and Jon were speaking of at the time. I disagree. If you want to be clear, either make both literal (with actual blood) or both metaphorical (with a color representing fire). Quote I know you don't believe this The things you know that just ain't so... I am an authority on what I believe, and I'm telling you you're wrong. Quote What was people's reaction to Arya fighting Mycah? To blame Mycah! Joffrey upbraided him for threatening Arya, even after Arya insisted she asked him to play with her. Joffrey didn't face any consequence for how he treated Mycah, and the Hound also murdered Mycah (and returned his bisected body to his father) without facing any until the Brotherhood put him on trial. That's the class hierarchy in action. Quote Highborn ladies are not suppose to fight other boys. Lowborn boys aren't supposed to get involved with highborn ladies or they might be murdered for it. The highborn can order around the lowborn (and indeed Mycah had only done as Arya asked). Quote Howland Reed was being bullied by a bunch of squires, it was in no way her duty to fight them off herself Perhaps not herself, but any Stark can intervene to claim that their vassals are untouchable to any Rivermen. Quote And the story never portrayed this as some violent enforcement of feudal law. That's what it is, and her interjection "That's my father's man!" is an explicit example of feudal logic. Quote Remember values were different back then, so things you may find disparaging were considered the moral thing to do. When did I say anything about "moral" or "disparaging"? Violent enforcement of feudal law was "good" in their eyes, I make no moral judgment myself here. Quote Lyanna did what she thought was right, which goes back to the central facet of "kind". Stannis does what he thinks is right, that doesn't make anyone think of him as "kind". Quote You see the latter two cannot be proven, only denied. Therefore we operate on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. This forum thread is not a courtroom. We don't operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I can remain agnostic on the question. Quote And Rhaegar never showed any interest in sexual advances or 'whoring'. You don't know that. At most we have Ned's speculation about him not patronizing brothels, which even in his hand he has no real basis for. Quote Knowing what know of what happens, there is a reason this was put in the story. It was put in the story by HOWLAND, not ELIA. You have to keep in mind those are different characters. Quote Elia did not grow up around morbid or dour people. Perhaps not, but she's been with Rhaegar long enough to give birth to two children despite the rest period after the first recommended by the maesters. Quote Regardless of what she knew of Rhaegar, his lack of emotional response to a newborn child would stand out to her. Both the first and second time. Why the second time? That would be old news. Quote Having a wife at the time was scene as a gift or property. Not fee-simple property that can be alienated, divorce doesn't exist. Once you're married, you can't trade your wife for anything. And since Rhaegar is married already, he can't acquire another wife regardless of price. Quote Worth because of what they offer (example: Dany is worth a Dothraki army) Viserys thought that was a simple exchange, but Illyrio had to explain in ADWD that the Dothraki don't actually think that way. Instead they may give each other gifts as they feel without any obligation. Quote theft because they are a possession of their husband or betrothed (they trade the cloak of their old family for their new family). They don't use the word "theft" for that. Quote We read that from Fire and Blood and are given no explanation. Fire and Blood is written by a maester, and a number of its sources are also maesters... but Septon Eustace & Mushroom are not maesters. They also wrote about dragons being killed. And people could check Fire and Blood against those texts. Quote The first one says his own maester claim neutrality, yet his surname (which maesters hide) connects him to house lannister. Maesters having loyalties to specific houses other than ones they're assigned to is one thing, and there is some evidence for that. Pycelle became a Tywin loyalist at some point (we don't precisely know why, GRRM responded to a question with noting that Pycelle would say he's just the best man for the job) even at the expense of the kings/Hands he served. After Tyrion throws him in a cell, the maesters elect a replacement and the Lannisters don't want to accept him because he's a Tyrell by birth. This would correspond to how some Kingsguard (like Jaime) & Nights Watchmen (like Jon) retain loyalites to their families. But different maesters could thus have different loyalties rather than them being unified toward any cause. Quote There is plenty of evidence that the alchemist has a dragon egg with him. What evidence? Is there a suspiciously egg-shaped bulge in his purse? Quote "“Is it some book you want?” Some of the old Valyrian scrolls down in the locked vaults were said to be the only surviving copies in the world." I was right: he refers vaguely to scrolls but not a specific book. Quote All We have is Elia (who is the actual person) and the Alchemist playing her role. The Alchemist is not "playing her role". He's goading Pate to steal something for him, and then murdering him and stealing his face. There is no parallel between the two, you simply made one up and claimed the dialogue from one pair matched another even though that made no sense for Elia. Quote Like I said above, a wife is a tool for political negotiation and exchange more than she would be a simple romantic interest. That doesn't mean people would use the word "worth" in that way. Quote Similarly theft is done onto the betrothed, not the lady herself. She is taken from the man who possesses her. It doesn't matter WHO it is done to, the point is that they don't use the word "theft". Quote She cannot steal herself away. She would be stolen by another person. Lyonel Baratheon is being deprived of the agreed upon marriage between his daughter & Duncan Targaryen. That is what has been taken, but it would not be described as "theft". Quote We don't know how much he came to value Lyanna, but we do know about how Pate's desires were phrased (which is the important part). Yeah, it was phrased that way for Pate because he was paying a gold dragon in exchange for Rosey. It would not be phrased that way for Rhaegar, because he wasn't paying any money or exchanging anything for her. There isn't the parallel you claim. Quote And the parallel between The Alchemist and Strider as well as Pate and the Swineherd are clear and obvious. Can you find anyone prior to you pointing out this supposed parallel to the Swineherd? If it was "clear and obvious", wouldn't you expect that? Quote The book series use older terminology, but their prose are more contemporary. The book uses the term "raper" even though we'd use "rapist". A bit odd. Quote but not when it conflicts with already established terminology like rape In our society it's established that it's legally possible for a husband to rape his wife. They don't use such terms in Westeros. Quote If the book was trying to communicate theft, then it would say "he took Lyanna" or "he kidnapped Lyanna". Those are indeed words that might be used, but neither of those is "theft" or even "stole". So Rhaegar would need to say "I am no kidnapper" instead. Quote Exactly, which is why it's theft either way. The point is that they wouldn't use the word "theft" for that. Quote We have plenty of perspectives from women who want their husband's love. It's nice to have if you can have it, but optional compared to dynastic duties. Quote Catelyn is bothered by Jon not because Ned cheated on her, but because he must have "loved this woman fiercely" to take in her son as his own (ironically he did, just not in the way she thinks). She's not bothered by Ned loving some other woman (she figured that whoever she was, she's dead, and Cat knows Ned loves her now) nearly as much as Jon's presence in Winterfell. That's much more public than the normally discrete manner in which men normally handle their bastards, and it muddles the distinction between Jon and their trueborn children, which makes Catelyn see him as even more of a threat. Quote Who is the other woman standing between them romantically? Lyanna. If you think Elia's big concern is that Rhaegar loves her less than Lyanna, then WHY is she talking up how Rhaegar "can't do better" than Lyanna and goading him toward her? That's the opposite of what one would expect her to do. Quote Alicent also made sense at the time Marrying her was foreseeable to cause problems (and it did), but Viserys did it anyway because he didn't give enough thought to such things and just wanted everyone to be happy. Quote Elia was not an obvious choice, Cersei was The past two Targaryen royal couples had been siblings. The past three non-incestuous royal couples were to a Blackwood, Dayne & Martell. No Lannisters had ever been part of a royal couple. Aerys tried to father a sibling for Rhaegar to marry but failed, so Elia was the most Targaryen woman available. Quote one of the most beautiful (like Lyanna She's said to have "a certain wild beauty", but not usually given such superlatives. Which doesn't fit with the "you can't do better" line you try to apply. Quote So Elia is a second (or third) choice for marriage Second only to a more purely Valyrian candidate Aerys failed to find. Quote him and his house of their most wanted need Just him, not his house. Aerys was not onboard with Rhaegar's plan. Quote The North had Rickard Stark which was like their own lord Tywin How so? Quote These were resurgent kingdoms, it was not the same political situation as when Daeron II married Myriah Martell. I don't know what you mean by "resurgent kingdoms". Also, how does it compare to Maekar marrying Dyanna Dayne, from a vassal house of the Martells? And if you object that Baelor was initially the heir, he was married to Jena Dondarrion, who hardly seem to outrank the Martells. Quote Obligation and personal desire are not the same things. Elia is not just a machine, she has her own personal interests and desires. Why would she personally desire that Rhaegar replace her for a "better wife"!? Quote And who is to say he would not have cast her aside had she not offered first? Divorce doesn't exist in Westeros. Quote It made sense to him, but he was using the same Logic as Hoster or Rickard. Using the same logic as them doesn't sound crazy. I think you might have gotten mixed-up here. Quote And who is to say what Rhaegar would have do had she not been the one to make the offer. I don't see how not doing so could have been worse. Quote Aegon VI was Rhaegar's heir, so he was (she assumed) safe. She would inherit the throne. Aegon VI was an infant, and child mortality was higher then. And she knows Daemon Blackfyre caused an enormous amount of trouble despite Daeron II clearly being the heir while Daemon was a bastard. Quote Cat had her own reasons, as did Alicent. Both women were different from Elia besides. What is the RELEVANT difference? Each mother prioritizing their own children would result in similar logic. Quote He hasn't spoken of it since Where do you get that from? Quote wouldn't you want to here it from himself I might never want to hear about Lyanna again. Quote She knows what he thinks, and she certainly thinks he must love this woman Certainly!? The only known interaction between the two was that crowning. They hadn't even been in the same place prior to the tourney. Quote He (Jaime) knows something to be true and he needs to hear confirmation (he travels all the way to Castle Darry to hear it) Lancel is no longer with Cersei, and Jaime is not goading him to be with her. Lancel is no longer a rival. Quote you won't do better (he named her queen of love and beauty against his wife and all the other beautiful maidens and ladies at Harrenhall) This is the one that makes the least sense. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to ask "Why?" or "How could you?", not "Of course, she's the best". Quote It will. Unless you believe he is azor ahai reborn So if he's azor ahai reborn then he WON'T be reborn? That doesn't make sense. Quote The three apples are different, but they are meant to clue us in on the three heads of the dragon, this information is translated in different ways, but they all have to do with the identity of the person. Shouldn't all three be translated in a parallel way? I can't help but think of the replication crisis in the social sciences. People get a small data-set and then p-hack it until some analysis reaches statistical significance. No later study can replicate the finding because it was bogus in the first place, but instead for long time people claim there was a "conceptual replication" because some other analysis on another data set can get p < 0.05. If they had pre-registered their hypothesis/analysis rather than coming up with something new to fit their data, then they couldn't get such results. Quote There aren't many, the point of the facelessman is that they are rare. We just don't know. Quote They also don't do recruitment drives from what we know (they aren't corporate America). The closest thing to American capitalism in Planetos actually seems to be Braavos. Quote That's too bad, you would have been treated to some more great evidence as to why Jaqen was acting the part of a false identity. I doubt it, since you've been terrible at providing evidence so far. I invite you to try anyway. Quote If it was a mask, then Jaqen would be a real person, and not just a mummers role. Again, you are assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove. What makes him less real than the Alchemist? Quote No, but it is another parallel between 'Alleras' and 'Jaqen'. Like how the vowels in their names are 'a' & 'e'? Aemon must also be a parallel to all the Aegons! Jaqen is excluded from them though, no 'o'. The Alchemist has the same vowels as Elia, but I don't buy the parallel I just made up. Quote The question is, if it was part of the prophecy, why would it only be said to his wife? Who should it be said to? Rhaegar's plans appear to have been relatively secret, which is people didn't know he was running off to Lyanna and they didn't know where to find him after Lyanna disappeared. Quote Again, I go back to the central point: GRRM needed for us to recognize his character. If GRRM wanted us to think it was the same guy who killed Balon, he should have added another bit where he changed faces for that. Quote If there was no reason for him to change his face after killing Balon, then he wouldn't have to do it. Killing the self-proclaimed king on his own territory would seem like a pretty good reason. You don't want anybody recalling that somebody looking like you arrived recently, was seen near Balon when he died, and is now leaving or just left shortly afterward. Quote Dragon eggs Still just your speculation. Quote So unless you believe the FM are just a cover for some political operation, we must assume the alchemist is working separately from them. I don't think it's "just" a cover, but I do think they get involved in some complicated stuff. For example, I think they caused the Doom of Valyria by assassinating enough mages who were maintaining the spells behind the volcanoes. Quote He knows who Arya of house stark is. So if we were to say he made the specific rule just for Arya because of her heritage, then we must assume the reason is because for a stark, looking into the eyes of those they kill is them passing judgment, which is not what the facelessmen do. No, I already quoted him giving the pragmatic explanation for how they don't want blowback from anyone knowing the FM were behind this. The particular thing about Arya is that she's been raised to regard openly killing someone as far more honorable, so she's less initially inclined toward this pragmatism. But any recruit would be taught the necessity of discreteness first. The Alchemist is in the clear and not risking any blowback. Quote "He was the youngest of the three, slender, fine-featured, always smiling" So younger than Biter & Rorge, but that doesn't really narrow tell us much. Quote Arya is younger than Sansa Arya also isn't comparing anyone to Loras in Clash. Quote Well, unless you believe Jaqen was using a glamor That seems entirely possible. Quote we know the Alchemist was a mask We didn't see him draw any physical mask out of a bag and put it on top of his face. Instead he just drew his finger down his face... like magic. Quote Because of the mask he wore when he left Harrenhall (unless it was a glamor). What makes you think it wasn't a glamor? Quote The future can tell us about the past as much as the past can tell us about the future. How does it tell us that ELIA is thinking of Lyanna specifically? She doesn't know the future! Quote Lyanna is among the most beautiful woman in the world As noted above, I don't concur. Nobody was expecting her to be crowned by anybody. Quote If that is true then he certainly can't do better than her. Not all of Westeros is present at the tourney. Cersei, regarded as more beautiful than Lyanna, isn't. Nor was Catelyn, who you've been listing as one of the most beautiful women (though I don't recall her receiving any such superlative in the text). So it's trivally not "certainly". You are way too prone to certainty. Quote Yes but we don't know, and I find it odd this information had directly been danced around deliberately. Danced around deliberately!? Gregor confessed, and Tywin confessed to Tyrion he'd sent Gregor to do just that (minus the rape, which we know Gregor is prone to do on his own initiative). I know you said earlier Tywin hadn't admitted it, but as with many things you were wrong. It's one reason not to be so certain so often. Quote From Harrenhall there are shorter ways to Oldtown How so? Traveling by land was MUCH slower than by boat in the pre-modern era. Quote also he went to the Iron Islands before You don't know that. Quote She had the coin, that makes her stand out. Yeah, that's like a referral from an existing employee. Quote Otherwise we would see more exceptions than just Arya. When would we expect to see them? Arya isn't manning the door for more potential recruits. Quote They have not been shown to behave this way, or seek out many recruits Jaqen is the one Faceless Man we've seen outside Braavos. We see ones in Braavos engaged in training rather than fieldwork. Quote The fact that Arya is given so much special attention with her one coin is a testament to how rare it is for someone to show up at the house of black and white with one. We don't know that she's being given more attention than any other new recruit. And since you thought they know the coin was Jaqen's specifically, and he's gone rogue, shouldn't they DISCOUNT Arya having a coin since the guy who gave it to her is unreliable? Quote The sighs of maester Ebrose are meant to reflect the kindly man. Multiple people can sigh without that implying anything. There are 228 results for searching "sigh" in the books. Quote Noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals. In an instance of Rhaegar being described as noble, Jorah Mormont brings up the Trident where Rhaegar fought nobly but Rhaegar died. This is after he ran off with Lyanna, so I don't see how him being described that way is inconsistent with him being an adulterer. Quote He is the crowned prince of the seven kingdoms and she is his wife. Yeah she's his wife, she's not a bump on a log. Robert was king, but Cersei didn't just accept whatever he did regardless of whether it harmed her interests. Quote Well Rhaegar did have an affair with Lyanna, but that is from a distinct purpose and attraction We don't know the specifics, even if we think prophecy had something to do with it. Quote Not an idle series of one night stands. We don't know that. Quote And defending Howland Nobody calls Ned "sweet" for sending Beric after the Mountain for raiding the riverlands. He's upholding the feudal order, but that better fits the word "honorable". Quote Not vindictive. I give you wild, but that is different from being emotionally cruel or manipulative. I suppose those are some useful distinctions. Brandon's quote about how "a bloody sword is a beautiful thing" could be an indicator of a certain amount of sadism, but it's physical rather than emotional. Brandon was noted for wild emotional swings, rather than something calculated & deliberate. At the same time, people with borderline personality disorder are known for acting manipulative, and from their perspective it's just because they feel emotions so strongly that they feel they have to behave that way. Quote Howland was bullied by a bunch of squires, she was not suppose to fight them herself. Perhaps some other Stark would have been the optimal one to do it, but just as Cat can act as the lady of Winterfell in Ned's absence (and as she'd been raised to be the lady of Riverrun to the point that Edmure has an inferiority complex) Lyanna can act as her father's representative on the basic rules of feudalism (Stark vassals are not to be messed with by other kingdoms). Probably other girls wouldn't pick up a tourney sword themselves to take on the squires, but the squires merited a hiding (in terms of the norms of feudalism, I'm not giving my peronsal opinion) and if any of them had hurt her they'd be in for the wrath of house Stark. Admittedly, they weren't as lowborn as Mycah and probably wouldn't be killed for merely acting like brats. But as squires, it is their lot to be bossed around by those above them. Quote If we are going off of what she is suppose to do, why would she do something like that by first breaking the rules of impropriety? The story we hear from Howland doesn't involve Lyanna being upbraided at all for her actions with regard to him. It could be that he just didn't observe that or didn't care to mention it, but it's entirely consistent with her actions meriting no rebuke from anyone in a position to deliver it. Quote Defending Howland herself did none of those things How not? House Reed owes fealty to house Stark because the latter will protect them when necessary. If the head of house Reed knows the Starks did nothing to protect him from his traditional enemies south of the Neck, how loyal will he be inclined to be toward them? We know that subsequently Howland has been quite loyal to the Starks. Quote I would hardly classify squires bullying him as "an attack against..." In modern culture our sense of "honor" is mostly a matter of upholding promises. In the past, that was part of it, but a lot of it involved violence. Including being ready to use violence in situations where we moderns would be far more reluctant. You might dismiss their bullying as mere childish roughhousing (which might be Robert's inclination), but you are not a feudal aristocrat. Acting with impunity is an indication that you don't fear punishment, and the instinct of a martial aristocracy is to make damn sure that people DO fear their response to any slight. Like Lyanna said, Howland is her father's man, so the Starks get to determine how he should be treated, especially by southrons. If those squires have a problem with it, they can raise the issue to the knights and lords they serve under (I doubt they did because they were in the wrong and wouldn't receive any backup), just as the raided rivermen alerted the Tullys who in turn sent emmissaries to KL where Ned received them. Quote Interesting link, but we know a few things about Elia's position relative to Rhaegar, and his obsession with the prophecy. The inside view generally does know "a few things" about a specific case, but still tends to be less accurate. Quote Fine, then telling her son not to seek peace near the end of the war (which was a death sentence to him). The point is she did what she thought was right, not always what was right. Alicent & Otto were the ones urging peace early on. Aegon rejected them for Criston & Aemond's more bloodthirsty approach. Alicent agreed to betrothe her granddaughter to Aegon III even before Aegon II had consented, because that seemed the only option at the time. Her reasoning at the end seems entirely plausible: Aegon II was going to be killed if the Blacks took KL, just as all of Alicent's other children had been killed by the Blacks. And we know Cregan Stark wanted lots of executions, though he was held back on some by his allies. Alicent didn't tell him to fight to the death, but instead to use what leverage he had over the Blacks. Quote I think its possible Aegon VI claim was to be challenged, but Elia thought it was a certainty. Why would she think that after the multiple civil wars Westeros had fought over disputed successions? Quote For any reason. It would be as simple as having a pick lock on hand. This is actually a good point. Kudos! Quote They also made Jaqen the kindly man, so they did cut him. The show often consolidated characters. Connington's greyscale was given to Jorah, but despite what seemed to be a death sentence he popped back up no worse for wear. Edric Storm's plotline was given to Gendry, but Gendry wasn't "cut". Jeyne Poole's plotline was given to Sansa, but she certainly wasn't cut either. The mutineers at Crasters were killed by Coldhands, but instead the show had Jon lead a ranging to do that. Jon was most definitely not cut! GRRM has said that Coldhands is not Benjen, on the show they consolidated things so he is. 21 hours ago, talvikorppi said: Think of them as MI6/CIA operatives s organization which is also a death cult highly respected by the people of Braavos. Quote they might want to use her, her warging ability, the wolf pack etc. for some purpose Do they even know about that stuff? 20 hours ago, talvikorppi said: But the only thing that might prove is that the faceless man assuming the identity of Ja'qen H'gar the Lorathi might not be a Lorathi To be fair to butterweedstrover, his argument is not merely that he's not a Lorathi but that the REASON his speech patterns changed is because Arya called him a king. And I think he really was startled by her naming him as the third death owed, but this other stuff is nonsense. He is not dropping the facade, he is still posing as Jaqen of Lorath until he actually discards that face. Quote I'll have egg on my face You used the word "egg", that must be a coded message! 19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said: Of course there is a chance I have gone completely insane, but for some reason it just seems obvious (to me). Obvious to Senua, too! Quote Until there comes another, younger and more beautiful" (than your prince Rhaegar) That's not how language works. Maggie was no longer talking about the prince, she'd moved on to talking about Cersei marrying the king and being a queen. So "younger and more beautiful" is relative to the queen Cersei will be. Quote Yet others don't seem to buy into as a serious possibility, which is surprising to me. Shouldn't you learn from your surprise and update your beliefs? I linked to the LessWrong wiki on that, there's a lot of generally useful advice there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted November 1, 2020 Share Posted November 1, 2020 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: You should tell that to people writing about how the Valyrians magically interbred with dragons, along with similar theories about some First Men with Children of the Forest resulting in greensight/warging. Really? wow, I can't even... he spoke against it so many times, he even wrote stories about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterweedstrover Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't think that's "lying" or being "deceitful". He asked her to make up new names, and those aren't her actual name. Sure, she was inspired by names she knew, but he didn't prohibit that. She was just supposed to stop being "Salty" and choose a Westerosi name. Look at her action (biting her tongue). Arya does that when she is nervous or unsure. Salty is a made up name, but Cat and Nymeria are names in respect to her original identity (Arya of house stark). The kindly man wants her to drop all connection to Arya of house stark, yet here her two names slip past him. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Entirely possible, Jaqen just put a finger on his face rather than pulling an actual mask out of a bag and placing it on himself. But I think that may be a common technique used among Faceless Men with more experience than Arya. Could be. I also believe Jaqen may know how to wear a mask with ease, but there is some evidence for the glamor: "“That’s not how I meant. Jaqen used magic.” “All sorcery comes at a cost, child. Years of prayer and sacrifice and study are required to work a proper glamor.” - AFFC. After Arya mention's Jaqen using magic, the kindly man immediately jumps to the use of "proper glamor". Either way the alchemist is a real identity, or the usage of glamor is more evidence of him not following the strict mannerisms of the facelessmen. On a side note: Do glamors create false identities? The one time we see them used by Melissandre, it switches the real identity of two people. I have not (so far) heard of glamor creating an imaginary identity that was never once real. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How is the bold text an "allusion" to either? Ebrose is the kindly old man who is signified with sighing. Yes other characters sigh, just like other characters bite their lips, but certain characters have a tell. For the kindly man, his tell is when he sighs. Ebrose is identified by that action in Pate's background story. Now the kindly is the one speaks about wine not holding the properties of wisdom (when he cracks his first egg). In the prologue Ebrose is said to have a lecture on the properties of urine when Leo cuts in to say he would much rather have arbor gold than piss. Note that wine symbolizes lies, and the property of urine (opposite to arbor gold but similar look) is truth (the maesters lecture on matters of truth, they are a truth seeking organization). So we have a connection between Ebrose and the Kindly man, but in this scene the kindly man is said to "crack his first egg" which is what the alchemist in the prologue is trying to accomplish. And the alchemist is a disciple of the kindly man just as the acolytes in the prologue are disciples of archmaester ebrose. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Are you saying Varys was showing "extreme frustration" when he killed Kevan and talked about Aegon? Perhaps this was intended as a reply to something else. No, Gregor, when he is being attacked by Oberyn. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I thought it was you who brought that up first. I did, so you knew what the subject was, it was about his speech patterns. And again, Jaqen is from Braavos so he has a foriegn accent regardless. Lorath is not far from Braavos, and besides for the speech pattern we cannot expect Arya to notice a slight change in regional accents (they are all foriegn to her, and these two in particular are from north western Essos). 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I think the first-person possessive is "my" or "mine". Sure. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: R+L=J was a theory then, but I have never heard anybody else raise your theory that Jaqen=Aegon. R+L=J I think was a thing back in 1996, or at least when the first book came out. When the second book came out GRRM said some people had figured out the WHOLE story he was trying to tell (the one about the three heads of the dragon and the others 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The scene for one set of characters, which you try to apply to an entirely different set in a different scene. And I explained why you can't simply assume that as with Howland Reed supposedly fighting Arthur Dayne in single combat. Ahh yes, but the role of Pate as Rhaegar in that situation is what connects the two scenes. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How is he going to do that if whoever attacked him in the dungeons could overpower him? It's not like he's going to call the guards to him while he's secretly conspiring with Illyrio (known by Robert to be protecting the Targaryens) against the throne. He is a trickster, he convinces them to come with him, and then has them locked up in the black cells. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Nobody can be perfect all the time. Besides being locked in their by rugen, why would the gold cloaks find him in a high level crime (few people are locked up in the black cells otherwise) which he would have time to prepare? 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is a "high level arrest"? And how do you know he wasn't arrested prior to that? High level arrest as in one worthy of black cells. And weren't the guards on the battlements when Ned was going to the throne room? And yes, we don't know the earliest time, but we can speculate that had not been there forever (because otherwise he would be taken away or executed). 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is "this point"? We don't know precisely when this happened, if it did. It presumably didn't happen while Rhaegar was gone, unless he sent someone to act on his behalf (which I doubt Elia would accept), but he could have arranged for it before he ran off in the first place. If, as you think, this happened after Connington was exiled, it makes little sense. Robert Baratheon has already won three battles in a single day in the Stormlands. That region is significantly LESS safe than King's Landing. Robert could seize it even without ever meeting Rhaegar in battle. And from the preview chapters for TWOW, we know Griffin's Roost can be seized even with a small force. It would have happen when Rhaegar returned to kingslanding, so before the battle of the trident. Griffin's Roost was only an example, but remember KL wasn't as safe as dragonstone or elsewhere. Any of them would do. Aerys wanted Rhaenys and her mother in KL as insurance, not because KL was the safest place to be. And Aerys was insane, he was ready to kill them all before giving up the throne to Robert. Yes Rhaegar expected to win (he wasn't planning on dying) but he would have an insurance policy incase something went wrong (that he would lose). 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon II was the king. Aegon VI isn't the king or even the heir. Varys was working for Aerys II, which included spying on Rhaegar and alerting Aerys if his own son was plotting against him. Would Rhaegar really trust Varys with his son, given that he was keeping his father (and Varys) in the dark while he was gone? Varys would be the most capable, which was my point about Larys Strong. If I remember right Larys switched sides during the war, but they needed his help for complete secrecy. Rhaegar did not have a spy network of his own, and at that point Aerys vs. Rhaegar wasn't the biggest split, it was them (house Targaryen) vs. Robert. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Viserys & Dany didn't start out in Pentos. They only wound up there after moving from a number of Essosi cities. And YG has been with Jon Connington for years, Illyrio only seems to have had him when he was quite young. Exactly, YG was gone, so why weren't Viserys and Dany sent to Ilyrio's manse? Why did they only arrive a year before AGOT? Because the house was occupied by another. Not YG (he was gone), the person whose personal belongings were in that chest. The real Aegon. Note that at the start of AGOT Aegon VI would be around fourteen years old. A year before that he would be thirteen, which is when he could be sent to the house of black and white. The baby cloths, the ginger, they were all his. YG was only made out to be Aegon VI. Remember the story he tells Tyrion? The 'father' traded the pisswater boy for arbor gold. That is a metaphor for exchanging truth for lies. We have tones of foreshadowing that Aegon VI was alive in the early book (unidentified corpse, the prophecy, the vision, Arya's depiction of marriage under a heart tree, the Valonqar prophecy) but then we are introduced to YG, someone who is foreshadowed to be a fake, and seems to have been added later on into the story. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The clothes don't fit YG, and it seems like she & Connington have both been with YG as he grew up. The version of YG in their heads isn't frozen as the little kid in those clothes. Why would she keep around those clothes? My parents didn't keep mine. Well being given a chest "for the boy" and then having them discarded is poor treatment of sentemantality. YG takes to interest in the candied ginger, and the cloths (note what happens) are destroyed and turned into motely clothing. Tyrion wears part of it I believe, but Septa Lemore is showing blatant disrespect and mockery for the cloths. Because they are not of her child and she knows it (whether you believe her to YG true mother or not, Septa Lemore plays the role of mother and Connington plays the role of father). 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: HOW DOES IT CREATE THE ILLUSION?! He can't even fit into those clothes! Tyrion can, which I don't think would be possible if they were meant for an infant rather than a 5 year old. The cloths were remade to fit Tyrion. They could be for a five year old since the real Aegon was in the manse for at least that long, but Septa Lemore destroys the clothing. Ilyrio gave "the boy" a chest full of things he is suppose to like or connect to, yet he and his mother (real or not) reject all them, for they are not his. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Who? I can't recall anybody talking about what I liked as a baby. Babies drink their mother's milk, and then later consume babyfood because they're limited to things they can't choke on. It's older children who get to express opinions on food. Children like the 5 year old YG would have been when he was handed to Connington by Illyrio. The real Aegon was in the manse for some time before being sent to the house of black and white (when he was old enough). The candied ginger was what he liked to taste, not YG. Otherwise YG would take interest to the contents of the chest. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't agree with that. Perhaps they "don't belong" in the present tense, because he's too old for them, but a teenager sent baby clothes (whether they were his or not) wouldn't care about them. Would parents tear up their baby cloths and turn them into a fools motely for a dwarf? No. Also there was less a variety of cloths back then, they were shopping at Nordstrom Rack for twenty pairs of baby cloths that they could later throw away. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Even if he doesn't marry Lyanna, if he knocks her up that's unnacceptable to Robert (as well as her father). Evidently, but Rhaegar took her anyways. I believe they did get married, but Robert would not have cared at that point. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That level is VERY basic. Every Westerosi aristocrat knows the importance of marriage in politics and that the point of marriage alliances is that there is a shared interest in the offspring. Yes yes yes, and this is the royal family we are talking about. But Elia did not think Rhaegar planned to run off and marry her. Even had he tried to annul the betrothal between Lyanna and Robert, it would have played out better than what he actually did. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If Rhaegar had been in KL, Brandon's decision wouldn't have seemed quite as irrational. Rhaegar would have to answer for his actions, and the Starks would find out what was up with Lyanna. It would still be stupid to go to KL with a few men and demand the death of the crown prince. It was still very stupid. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That was a desperate hail-Mary to save her daughters after she heard Bran & Rickon had been killed (and Tyrion had sent false envoys to free Jaime, so Robb would not accept more envoys negotiating him). Elia does not need to resort to anything like that (at least not BEFORE Rhaegar runs off with Lyanna). Elia was desperate as well. She did not want Rhaegar to do what he did, but she knows the Targaryens have a history of polyamorous marriages. "Do you want her, do you love her, you won't do better." Those were her words, she was appeasing Rhaegar. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Like what? I suppose you could find some examples from Aerys at his most insane. Plenty of people both in fiction and in real life act irrationally at important moments. Humans are irrational beings. Read or watch a documentary about the Jack the Ripper case to see how spectacularly Scotland yard screwed up the case. In Westeros people do things without foresight all the time. Rhaegar 'kidnaps' Lyanna without an explanation, and hides away in the tower of joy as the entire realm is thrown into civil war. To Elia at the time, she was just giving her husband a chance at the third head of the dragon. She is not authorizing his action, that will always be his choice. So he wants Lyanna, and he takes her. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Her mother was a princess, she is not overawed by such titles. Princess of Dorne or crowned prince to the seven kingdoms. Two very different things. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What "claim" might he have made, and how would that prevent conflict? Annul the betrothal officially. That would at least explain the situation better than him 'kidnapping' Lyanna. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Which bit in Jon's chapter are you referring to? The part where he talks about "another woman". "Another woman would have shrieked at him, cursed him, damned him down to seven hells. Another woman might have flown at him in rage, slapped him, kicked him, raked at his eyes with her nails. Another woman might have thrown her defiance in his teeth."- ADWD Note the "the boy will burn" line afterwards. If Aegon VI would stay in KL, Aerys would of had them all burned down together. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why wouldn't he!? He was the eldest son. This is the same thinking Elia had. Her son would be heir, the other child would be no threat to him. But then things happen. I don't know Rhaegar's intentions, but it is possible. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Jon hadn't even been born yet! Rhaegar had returned to KL, meaning the baby was in Lyanna's womb. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robb Stark & Daeron II Targaryen were also heirs, but their bastard brothers were suspected of or proved to be actual threats. Plus I brought up Ramsay earlier. Daeron II was not given Blackfyre, Daemon was. That was the whole conceit of the blackfyre rebellion. Ramsay killed his half brother. Jon was never a real threat to Robb. But most importantly this is all about what Elia thought, not what was true. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What are you talking about? I was only wondering if Rhaegar had planned to replace Aegon VI with his newborn child via Lyanna. I don't think so but its worth considering. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There's no evidence for that specifically. We are given two examples in ADWD: Jon's chapter and Tyrion's chapter. And if Aegon VI is alive as the books were foreshadowing from AGOT, then there needs be a baby swap for the unidentified corpse not to be him. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I only read people other than you saying Jaime is the Valonqar. You're the only one saying it's Aegon. Well yes, that is the confounding part. It also confounding how so many of the fanbase reference the second half of the prophecy as the YAMBQ (Younger and more beautiful Queen) when queen is never mentioned in the prophecy. Nor why it would be Jaime when he only has one hand. But this is where we are. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why? Who's to say. He changed his mind on the PWWP over a red comet in the sky. He could change his mind for any given reason once more. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Rhaenys & Aegon/"pisswater prince" were killed AFTER Rhaegar died. Rhaegar was expecting to win, he could not expect he would lose, KL would be sacked and his entire family killed. He also knew his father was insane and would burn the entire place down before surrendering. He thought he would win of course, no one plans on dying. Insurance policies are made however, that is the whole point of the baby swap. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The things you know that just ain't so... I am an authority on what I believe, and I'm telling you you're wrong. To blame Mycah! Joffrey upbraided him for threatening Arya, even after Arya insisted she asked him to play with her. Joffrey didn't face any consequence for how he treated Mycah, and the Hound also murdered Mycah (and returned his bisected body to his father) without facing any until the Brotherhood put him on trial. That's the class hierarchy in action. Lowborn boys aren't supposed to get involved with highborn ladies or they might be murdered for it. The highborn can order around the lowborn (and indeed Mycah had only done as Arya asked). Perhaps not herself, but any Stark can intervene to claim that their vassals are untouchable to any Rivermen. That's what it is, and her interjection "That's my father's man!" is an explicit example of feudal logic. When did I say anything about "moral" or "disparaging"? Violent enforcement of feudal law was "good" in their eyes, I make no moral judgment myself here. Stannis does what he thinks is right, that doesn't make anyone think of him as "kind". Ok, lets talk about this. Lyanna is acting completely outside of the bounds of the "feudal order" when she decides to go beat up a bunch of squires. So is Arya when she orders Mycah to fight her. Joffrey is a brat, but he knows low born lads are not allowed to strike a lady. The fact that Arya orders it is called a paradox (for Mycah at least). In feudal societies this was often a challenge for the low born. "That's my father's man!" is not so much an enforcement on feudal hierarchy as it is using your own position for the greater good. A lowborn girl/boy could not challenge those squires, but her justification is that she is a stark. In the same way that fact that she is a high born lady challenging three male squires make her be improprietous, yet she does it for Howland's sake. Arya is also a violent individual, but that does not relate to "violently upholding class law". She defends Ned Dayne against Gendry not because she is upholding feudal order, but because she thinks it is the right thing to do. Stannis and the usage of right relate to a concept of upholding the law, not necessarily moral law (which is what we reference when talking about doing the right thing). The feudal era was not so foreign to ours in terms of moral righteousness than you may think, it was often distorted by the enlightment Europeans to make themselves feel superior to the older Europe. Now lets look at Lyanna's westeros.org page: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Lyanna_Stark "Lyanna was present at the tourney at Harrenhal in 281 AC. She happened upon Howland Reed, who was being bullied by three young squires, none older than fifteen. She roared "That's my father's man you're kicking" and attacked them with a tourney sword. The bullies scattered and Lyanna took Howland back to her tent, where she cleaned his wounds and bound them with linen. Then she introduced him to her brothers Brandon, Eddard, and Benjen. That evening, a feast was held to celebrate the start of the tourney. Lyanna persuaded Howland to attend the feast, as he was highborn and had as much right to attend as anyone." You can distort this as much as you want as a girl "violently enforcing feudal order" rather than using her position to help others. The squires were under fifteen, they were children. This was not a series of grown men slighting their house, it was a bunch of kids picking on a bog man. She uses her position as a stark to fight them off, she takes him back to her tent and cleans his wounds. She tells him to come to the feast because was as highborn as anyone else. Meaning just because you are from the bog lands does not make you lesser than anyone else. She doesn't say this to "violently uphold feudal order" but as an olive branch to a boy who was getting bullied. People back then used different terms and justifications, but the inherit desire to help those who can't help themselves has been a consistent theme throughout the medieval ages, same as today. The entire premise of this discussion is that a fifteen years old girl (Lyanna) did not bare ill will towards Elia nor was she ambitious enough to want and over throw her. You are totally off base trying to paint Lyanna in this way. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: This forum thread is not a courtroom. We don't operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I can remain agnostic on the question. When all one side can do is present the absence of evidence, the conversation can not go far. All I can say is that there is not one instance of Rhaegar being insinuated as a serial cheater. Lyanna was about so much more than just a simple one night stand. You can say "we don't know that for sure" just like I can say "we don't know my neighbor is not serial killer for sure". It doesn't go anywhere. Saying you're agnostic about it is insinuating the two sides require the same amount of evidence or both are equally as faulty. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Perhaps not, but she's been with Rhaegar long enough to give birth to two children despite the rest period after the first recommended by the maesters. She has also seen him passionate enough to win a tourney against better jousters to crown another woman the queen of love and beauty. Yet he can not hold enough interest in their newborn child. How is Elia suppose to become accustomed to that? If he is sad at least let him show interest. It is his lack of attention that hurts the most. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why the second time? That would be old news. Because it never gets old, and because this was after he crowned another woman queen of love and beauty. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not fee-simple property that can be alienated, divorce doesn't exist. Once you're married, you can't trade your wife for anything. And since Rhaegar is married already, he can't acquire another wife regardless of price. Sure he can, the entire conceit of the Targaryen dynasty was polygamy in their marriages. And taking a mistress is another form of exchange. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Viserys thought that was a simple exchange, but Illyrio had to explain in ADWD that the Dothraki don't actually think that way. Instead they may give each other gifts as they feel without any obligation. Yes, because the Dothraki do not treat exchange as the westerosi do. Viserys was thinking from a westeros mindset, which is where Elia and Rhaegar were. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They don't use the word "theft" for that. Speaking of theft, here is Dany on the subject: "Daenerys Targaryen believes that Rhaegar had stolen Lyanna away from her betrothed,[31] Stolen, theft. This sort of language is used. Also it makes sense, nothing is bizarre about it. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Fire and Blood is written by a maester, and a number of its sources are also maesters... but Septon Eustace & Mushroom are not maesters. They also wrote about dragons being killed. And people could check Fire and Blood against those texts. The maester publishing the book would not want any negative speculation on their order. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Maesters having loyalties to specific houses other than ones they're assigned to is one thing, and there is some evidence for that. Pycelle became a Tywin loyalist at some point (we don't precisely know why, GRRM responded to a question with noting that Pycelle would say he's just the best man for the job) even at the expense of the kings/Hands he served. After Tyrion throws him in a cell, the maesters elect a replacement and the Lannisters don't want to accept him because he's a Tyrell by birth. This would correspond to how some Kingsguard (like Jaime) & Nights Watchmen (like Jon) retain loyalites to their families. But different maesters could thus have different loyalties rather than them being unified toward any cause. You are right about this, but going back to Barbrey Dustin's speech about the "grey rats", the point is people in westeros are just expected to trust the order at the citadel because they emit a sense of "unbias knowledge". 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I was right: he refers vaguely to scrolls but not a specific book. Yeah, locked away, like the book in Tyrion's chapter, like "the man without a face" who killed Balon. Since you are using the fanbase as regards to Jaime and the Valonqar, please explain why so many believe the alchemist is there with a dragon egg. Or read the symbolism in the prologue to AFFC. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Alchemist is not "playing her role". He's goading Pate to steal something for him, and then murdering him and stealing his face. There is no parallel between the two, you simply made one up and claimed the dialogue from one pair matched another even though that made no sense for Elia. Pate is to Rhaegar. And remember the parallels between the alchemist and Strider (the hidden prince). 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That doesn't mean people would use the word "worth" in that way. Like above with theft, these marriages and woman have their "worth". There is absolutely nothing strange about that language. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It doesn't matter WHO it is done to, the point is that they don't use the word "theft". Again, again, Dany used that same language. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Lyonel Baratheon is being deprived of the agreed upon marriage between his daughter & Duncan Targaryen. That is what has been taken, but it would not be described as "theft". Dany used that word to describe it. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yeah, it was phrased that way for Pate because he was paying a gold dragon in exchange for Rosey. It would not be phrased that way for Rhaegar, because he wasn't paying any money or exchanging anything for her. There isn't the parallel you claim. "Is she worth a dragon?" Not "is she worth a golden dragon?" That type of diction is used throughout the entire prologue. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Can you find anyone prior to you pointing out this supposed parallel to the Swineherd? If it was "clear and obvious", wouldn't you expect that? This is reverse logic, why does it need to have been pointed out before for it to be true? The symbolism is "clear and obvious", I cannot express that in any other way. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The book uses the term "raper" even though we'd use "rapist". A bit odd. It does not once use rapist to signify theft. It uses rapist to signify rape. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: In our society it's established that it's legally possible for a husband to rape his wife. They don't use such terms in Westeros. What is "our" society. There are places in the world where that is still true today. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Those are indeed words that might be used, but neither of those is "theft" or even "stole". So Rhaegar would need to say "I am no kidnapper" instead. Theft is used by Dany. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The point is that they wouldn't use the word "theft" for that. Why, Dany uses that word. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's nice to have if you can have it, but optional compared to dynastic duties. What good is Elia if she can't provide a third son? She knows of her limitations, and how Rhaegar must compensate. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She's not bothered by Ned loving some other woman (she figured that whoever she was, she's dead, and Cat knows Ned loves her now) nearly as much as Jon's presence in Winterfell. That's much more public than the normally discrete manner in which men normally handle their bastards, and it muddles the distinction between Jon and their trueborn children, which makes Catelyn see him as even more of a threat. Actually she is. She cannot stand to look upon Jon or have him live in the same castle of her because he represents that other woman. Not because he is a threat to Robb. That is why she dwells on how he must have loved this other woman "fiercely". That is why it bothers her. Of course she supports her own children's claim first. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If you think Elia's big concern is that Rhaegar loves her less than Lyanna, then WHY is she talking up how Rhaegar "can't do better" than Lyanna and goading him toward her? That's the opposite of what one would expect her to do. Because she knows that's what Rhaegar thinks, otherwise why crown the woman queen of love and beauty? Elia wants to discover what he plans on doing as much as she wants to mitigate her deficiency (no third child). 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Marrying her was foreseeable to cause problems (and it did), but Viserys did it anyway because he didn't give enough thought to such things and just wanted everyone to be happy. Yes, because he thought it was the best match. It made sense at the time given the political situation. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The past two Targaryen royal couples had been siblings. The past three non-incestuous royal couples were to a Blackwood, Dayne & Martell. No Lannisters had ever been part of a royal couple. Aerys tried to father a sibling for Rhaegar to marry but failed, so Elia was the most Targaryen woman available. Elia was poor of health, and could not provide a third child. Meanwhile Cersei was daughter to hand of the king. There is a reason house Martell wasn't pining for a marriage between Elia and Rhaegar. Elia was sent elsewhere to find a match, that is hardly "the most obvious choice" otherwise they would wait for the crowned prince to be avaliable. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She's said to have "a certain wild beauty", but not usually given such superlatives. Which doesn't fit with the "you can't do better" line you try to apply. Because Rhaegar seems to think so, otherwise he would not crown her queen of love and beauty. That quote was from Kevan, Rhaegar obviously thought differently of Lyanna. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Just him, not his house. Aerys was not onboard with Rhaegar's plan. Aegon V believed in the prophecy as well. It was a common Targaryen myth, even if one father did not agree with the plans of one son. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How so? He had southron ambitions. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't know what you mean by "resurgent kingdoms". Also, how does it compare to Maekar marrying Dyanna Dayne, from a vassal house of the Martells? And if you object that Baelor was initially the heir, he was married to Jena Dondarrion, who hardly seem to outrank the Martells. The worth of the woman is also calculated in, not just the rank. And according to what we know, Elia was not considered the "obvious" match. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why would she personally desire that Rhaegar replace her for a "better wife"!? Not replace her, but to have Lyanna for a third child. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Divorce doesn't exist in Westeros. Didn't Ramsay lock away his wife in a tower? There are other ways of casting a wife aside. And marriages can be annulled I think. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Using the same logic as them doesn't sound crazy. I think you might have gotten mixed-up here. *wasn't using the same logic as Rickard and Tywin 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't see how not doing so could have been worse. All she said was "do you want her, do you love her, you won't do better." If he didn't want to do it, I doubt she would try and force him to. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon VI was an infant, and child mortality was higher then. And she knows Daemon Blackfyre caused an enormous amount of trouble despite Daeron II clearly being the heir while Daemon was a bastard. Mistakes from history are made over and over again. And Daeron II wasn't the clear heir. Daemon was given the sword Blackfyre. Rhaenyra was the clear heir (besides the fact that she was a woman and the council at Harrenhall proclaimed otherwise) but there was still war. Elia was not thinking on the lines of "this will start a war" but more on the lines of "this will appease my husband and give him what I can't offer him". 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is the RELEVANT difference? Each mother prioritizing their own children would result in similar logic. Catelyn and Alicent already had other children to deal with (Jon and Rhaenyra) whereas Elia was in a marriage where both her children where her own. She had different factors to consider. Also Cat and Alicent are different from each other as well. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Where do you get that from? Because she would not be left wondering, and because why would he? 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I might never want to hear about Lyanna again. Did she disappear? Rhaegar must still be thinking about her, so if he doesn't bring up Lyanna, Elia certainly will. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Certainly!? The only known interaction between the two was that crowning. They hadn't even been in the same place prior to the tourney. That came for a reason. We are given three events (for a reason): Lyanna beating up the squires Lyanna crying at Rhaegar's music The mystery knight All led up to the final moment. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Lancel is no longer with Cersei, and Jaime is not goading him to be with her. Lancel is no longer a rival. That's besides the point, he want to hear it from his ears, he needs confirmation. Same as Elia, she needs to hear the words "yes, I love her" even if she suspects. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: This is the one that makes the least sense. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to ask "Why?" or "How could you?", not "Of course, she's the best". You're the one talking about feudal propriety. If he was always so distant from her, how could she say to truly know the man (because, as you believe, he must have been nonresponding to the birth of Rhaenys). So why would Elia say "how could you?" And perhaps she did, but now she is asking, "do you love her?" 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: So if he's azor ahai reborn then he WON'T be reborn? That doesn't make sense. No, I am saying if you believe he is Azor Ahai reborn, then that also factors in to Jon being the "reborn" head. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We just don't know. Look at the discussion between LF and the council about finding ways to kill Dany. Using the faceless man is not a common option as the cost is so high. All a man's wealth, his life, etc. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The closest thing to American capitalism in Planetos actually seems to be Braavos. The FM are a religious organization. Accepting contracts from peasants who sacrifice their life isn't helping their bottom line. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I doubt it, since you've been terrible at providing evidence so far. I invite you to try anyway. The bloody mummers, the location relative to Braavos, the smiling, the change in speech pattern, the enjoyment in making up names and backgrounds. This 'Jaqen' enjoys coming up with a false identity, it is all an act for him, a mummers farce. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Again, you are assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove. What makes him less real than the Alchemist? As above. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Like how the vowels in their names are 'a' & 'e'? Aemon must also be a parallel to all the Aegons! Jaqen is excluded from them though, no 'o'. The Alchemist has the same vowels as Elia, but I don't buy the parallel I just made up. The difference is Alleras and Jaqen are both playing a part. They are false identities that were made up. Notice how they both smile all the time? In the prologue it says its because Alleras knows a secret jib, her real identity. She is playing everyone for fools. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Who should it be said to? Rhaegar's plans appear to have been relatively secret, which is people didn't know he was running off to Lyanna and they didn't know where to find him after Lyanna disappeared. The prophecy is not a secret. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If GRRM wanted us to think it was the same guy who killed Balon, he should have added another bit where he changed faces for that. Why? 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Killing the self-proclaimed king on his own territory would seem like a pretty good reason. You don't want anybody recalling that somebody looking like you arrived recently, was seen near Balon when he died, and is now leaving or just left shortly afterward. Oldtown is not the iron islands. We know a facelessman killed Balon "a man without a face" on a bridge according to the ghost of high heart. Now there is a man stealing faces looking for a book on dragons. Connect the dots, that's what GRRM wants us to do. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't think it's "just" a cover, but I do think they get involved in some complicated stuff. For example, I think they caused the Doom of Valyria by assassinating enough mages who were maintaining the spells behind the volcanoes. In the past. If they are so worried about dragon lords or want to destroy dragon eggs, why did they not get involved in Westeros which had 300 years of dragon rule. No, it is the maesters we are told who got involved, not the facelessmen. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, I already quoted him giving the pragmatic explanation for how they don't want blowback from anyone knowing the FM were behind this. The particular thing about Arya is that she's been raised to regard openly killing someone as far more honorable, so she's less initially inclined toward this pragmatism. But any recruit would be taught the necessity of discreteness first. The Alchemist is in the clear and not risking any blowback. Wait, that just amounts to not showing yourself to others. Showing your face to him doesn't matter because he will be dead. I know the kindly man said "it's best you are not noticed", but what does that have to do with showing your face? The alchemist killed Pate in an ally where no one saw. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: So younger than Biter & Rorge, but that doesn't really narrow tell us much. Younger is a curious word. At the age of Rorge and Biter, ages mesh together. Younger is used for children whose age gap creates a more significant difference. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Arya also isn't comparing anyone to Loras in Clash. The point is little girls age people differently than someone like Ned. Ned would never call Beric "old". 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not all of Westeros is present at the tourney. Cersei, regarded as more beautiful than Lyanna, isn't. Nor was Catelyn, who you've been listing as one of the most beautiful women (though I don't recall her receiving any such superlative in the text). So it's trivally not "certainly". You are way too prone to certainty. Look at it from Elia's perspective. He crowned this girl the queen of love and beauty. He must be enamored with her, he must think her prettiest of them all. This is Elia perspective, and it makes sense. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How so? Traveling by land was MUCH slower than by boat in the pre-modern era. By boat, there is no reason to sail all the way north to Braavos. Eastwatch by the sea is already at parity with Braavos. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yeah, that's like a referral from an existing employee. Says who, since when? The FM are not a business. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Jaqen is the one Faceless Man we've seen outside Braavos. We see ones in Braavos engaged in training rather than fieldwork. Yes, the kindly man. Not going out looking for recruits. People come to the house of black and white to offer their services. Their obedience. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't know that she's being given more attention than any other new recruit. And since you thought they know the coin was Jaqen's specifically, and he's gone rogue, shouldn't they DISCOUNT Arya having a coin since the guy who gave it to her is unreliable? Because he is curious about the girl, this Arya of house stark. He has heard of her before. The waif has a slight antagonistic behavior to Arya for that same reason. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: In an instance of Rhaegar being described as noble, Jorah Mormont brings up the Trident where Rhaegar fought nobly but Rhaegar died. This is after he ran off with Lyanna, so I don't see how him being described that way is inconsistent with him being an adulterer. Lyanna was a different case entirely, it was not him "sleeping around". He was no Robert or Aegon IV. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yeah she's his wife, she's not a bump on a log. Robert was king, but Cersei didn't just accept whatever he did regardless of whether it harmed her interests. Cersei's marriage to Robert was very different. He needed her as much as she needed him. Elia also didn't fake bastard children as her true heirs. Elia was trying to fulfil Rhaegar's desire for a third dragon. She regrets it later. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Alicent & Otto were the ones urging peace early on. Aegon rejected them for Criston & Aemond's more bloodthirsty approach. Alicent agreed to betrothe her granddaughter to Aegon III even before Aegon II had consented, because that seemed the only option at the time. Her reasoning at the end seems entirely plausible: Aegon II was going to be killed if the Blacks took KL, just as all of Alicent's other children had been killed by the Blacks. And we know Cregan Stark wanted lots of executions, though he was held back on some by his allies. Alicent didn't tell him to fight to the death, but instead to use what leverage he had over the Blacks. She still told her son not to sue for peace when the war was lost and the offer was made to them. Even before the war was lost Corlys was telling them to marry one of the blacks and unite both sides to end the war. Alicent still told her son to refuse. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The show often consolidated characters. Connington's greyscale was given to Jorah, but despite what seemed to be a death sentence he popped back up no worse for wear. Edric Storm's plotline was given to Gendry, but Gendry wasn't "cut". Jeyne Poole's plotline was given to Sansa, but she certainly wasn't cut either. The mutineers at Crasters were killed by Coldhands, but instead the show had Jon lead a ranging to do that. Jon was most definitely not cut! GRRM has said that Coldhands is not Benjen, on the show they consolidated things so he is. "Cut" also means removing roles for that character. Cersei was given YG's role, and Jon was given Stannis and Aegon's role. And much much more. 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That's not how language works. Maggie was no longer talking about the prince, she'd moved on to talking about Cersei marrying the king and being a queen. So "younger and more beautiful" is relative to the queen Cersei will be. Here is my thread on the prophecy. It is extremely obvious, yet for some reasons the fan base does not consider it a mainstream read (yet they put wieght on ideas like it's Victarion or Jaime (the guy with one hand)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Appleyard Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 "The Dragon Requires Three Books", or at least 2. My copy is one volume, hardback, and due to its weight, its covers have come off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 On 11/1/2020 at 2:23 PM, CamiloRP said: Really? wow, I can't even... he spoke against it so many times, he even wrote stories about it. Could you link to some times he's spoken against it? On 11/1/2020 at 6:02 PM, butterweedstrover said: Look at her action (biting her tongue). Arya does that when she is nervous or unsure. So what? That's not the same as lying, and there wasn't a rule against using names familiar or meaningful to her. Quote The kindly man wants her to drop all connection to Arya of house stark, yet here her two names slip past him. She is supposed to become No One, but temporarily adopting an identity she remembers which will only be discarded doesn't prevent that. Quote or the usage of glamor is more evidence of him not following the strict mannerisms of the facelessmen. How so? It requiring years to do properly doesn't mean Jaqen can't do it. Nor is the kindly man saying it SHOULDN'T be done, he's talking to a new recruit who wants to learn how to do that and explaining how far ahead that would be for her. Quote On a side note: Do glamors create false identities? The one time we see them used by Melissandre, it switches the real identity of two people. I have not (so far) heard of glamor creating an imaginary identity that was never once real. I don't know, it doesn't change for me whether Jaqen & the Alchemist are equally "real" identities. Quote Yes other characters sigh, just like other characters bite their lips, but certain characters have a tell. What does the sigh "tell" in the cases of Ebrose & the kindly man? Quote in this scene the kindly man is said to "crack his first egg" which is what the alchemist in the prologue is trying to accomplish The latter bit is just your assumption. Quote And the alchemist is a disciple of the kindly man He could be, we don't know who trained Jaqen and/or issues him assignments. There are multiple archmaesters in the Citadel, and the HoBaW is also an organization with multiple members. Those members aren't even supposed to have much of an individual identity! Quote No, Gregor, when he is being attacked by Oberyn. He wasn't yelling that out when he was being attacked, but instead once he'd turned the tables and was doing the (successful) attacking. I really don't see why you are arguing this point. Quote R+L=J I think was a thing back in 1996, or at least when the first book came out. I don't think there was as much of an internet following then. Quote When the second book came out GRRM said some people had figured out the WHOLE story he was trying to tell (the one about the three heads of the dragon and the others Are there any claims about Jaqen=Aegon from back then? Quote Ahh yes, but the role of Pate as Rhaegar in that situation is what connects the two scenes. That is what you are trying to prove, so you can't use it as an assumption in your proof. Quote He is a trickster, he convinces them to come with him, and then has them locked up in the black cells. "Why don't you-OW that's my face why-UGH". Varys isn't well suited for someone physically attacking him. If it had been Biter, Varys would have just been eaten. Quote Besides being locked in their by rugen, why would the gold cloaks find him in a high level crime (few people are locked up in the black cells otherwise) which he would have time to prepare? I don't know what "time to prepare" you're referring to. And the job of the FM is to commit crimes, generally only being hired when it's "high level". Although he could have also committed some offenses while already locked up in a different part of the dungeon which got him moved to the Black Cells. Rorge & Biter are wary of him, and one logical source for that is their knowledge of what he did in there. Quote And yes, we don't know the earliest time, but we can speculate that had not been there forever (because otherwise he would be taken away or executed). So he probably wasn't there the previous time Yoren came to recruit people from the dungeons. I don't know how often Ilyn Payne clears them out via executions. Quote It would have happen when Rhaegar returned to kingslanding, so before the battle of the trident. As was pointed out, Aerys was using those children as hostages in KL then. Rhaegar might not have had access to them. Before he abducted Lyanna he had more authority over where his family was. Quote Griffin's Roost was only an example, but remember KL wasn't as safe as dragonstone or elsewhere. And we know why they weren't on Dragonstone: Aerys insisted they be in KL! Quote Any of them would do. Aerys wanted Rhaenys and her mother in KL as insurance, not because KL was the safest place to be. Aerys wanted Aegon as well. Quote Yes Rhaegar expected to win (he wasn't planning on dying) but he would have an insurance policy incase something went wrong (that he would lose). You are awfully sure he would have an insurance policy, stating it as a fact rather than even a probability. But Rhaegar believed in prophetic destiny and his actions were not those of a man who hedged his bets. He did nothing at all to prevent disaster from ensuing after he took Lyanna, even though he knew his father was insane & Brandon would be out for blood. Quote Varys would be the most capable, which was my point about Larys Strong. He was capable of serving Aerys, NOT Rhaegar. Quote If I remember right Larys switched sides during the war, but they needed his help for complete secrecy. Larys hid when Rhaenyra arrived and used Trystane Truefyre to expel her from KL (then betrayed Trystane to the Greens). Once she & Daemon were both dead and armies were marching on the city, he turned on Aegon II as well. But we know from Pycelle that Varys was trying to help Aerys even after the Trident when Tywin was outside the gates. Quote Rhaegar did not have a spy network of his own Which makes me think it less likely he did any of this at all. Quote and at that point Aerys vs. Rhaegar wasn't the biggest split, it was them (house Targaryen) vs. Robert. If Aerys' spymaster is in charge of this, when I expect Rhaegar's kids would go where Aerys wants them. And Aerys wanted them in KL while his own kids were on Dragonstone. Quote Exactly, YG was gone, so why weren't Viserys and Dany sent to Ilyrio's manse? They were involved with a different set of people in other cities. Varys himself seems to have been unaware of things like the Martell marriage pact for Viserys. Quote Why did they only arrive a year before AGOT? Some combination of them running out of other options & Daenerys being close enough to marriageable age for Varys & Illyrio's plan. Quote Not YG (he was gone), the person whose personal belongings were in that chest. The real Aegon. Why would Jaqen be there AFTER Young Griff? Quote Well being given a chest "for the boy" and then having them discarded is poor treatment of sentemantality. The people on that boat have been dealing with the practicalities of young adult YG. Their task is not to indulge in Illyrio's sentimentality with clothes that can't be worn. Quote Tyrion wears part of it I believe, but Septa Lemore is showing blatant disrespect and mockery for the cloths. Because they are not of her child and she knows it (whether you believe her to YG true mother or not, Septa Lemore plays the role of mother and Connington plays the role of father). A mother altering clothes and handing them down to a younger child when the older one outgrows is is entirely normal (especially in pre-modern times before the mass manufacturing of clothes). The different thing here is that Tyrion is Lemore's child in any sense, instead just someone Illyrio sent with her group. Quote The cloths were remade to fit Tyrion. They could be for a five year old since the real Aegon was in the manse for at least that long, but Septa Lemore destroys the clothing. I'm glad you agree they're more fitting for a 5 year old than a baby, as you had claimed. But Aegon wasn't a 5 year old in KL! Nobody in KL will recognize those clothes, or be aware of what candy 5 year old Aegon liked. You seem to be changing your story, so I don't know when your "real" Aegon was in what place vs YG. Quote Ilyrio gave "the boy" a chest full of things he is suppose to like or connect to, yet he and his mother (real or not) reject all them, for they are not his. Illyrio sent a chest of things which Illyrio regards as significant, since that's what YG had as a child in Illyrio's manse. But the people on the boat have moved past that. Illyrio isn't going to send things only connected to someone not even on the boat. Quote Evidently, but Rhaegar took her anyways. And that a disaster resulted was entirely predictable, so Elia shouldn't have approved of anything near that! Quote I believe they did get married Not under the Seven. Quote But Elia did not think Rhaegar planned to run off and marry her. Running off and knocking her up is bad enough. Quote Even had he tried to annul the betrothal between Lyanna and Robert Marriages can be annulled if they aren't consummated, but there's no requirement that a betrothal not be consummated. It instead might be broken, which will often anger some parties to the betrothal, but isn't really a matter of law. Quote It would still be stupid to go to KL with a few men and demand the death of the crown prince He wasn't ordering Aerys to execute his own son, he was demanding to personally face Rhaegar (and recall Brandon had duelled Littlefinger though he spared his life on Catelyn's request). If Rhaegar had been in KL, Brandon would be publicly calling him our for crimes he could answer for. Quote Elia was desperate as well. She did not want Rhaegar to do what he did, but she knows the Targaryens have a history of polyamorous marriages. Not since Maegor! There was another Targaryen in line for the throne named "Maegor" who was denied it, everyone knows he set an unnacceptable example. Elia would not be so "desperate" as to encourage this terrible idea. Quote Those were her words, she was appeasing Rhaegar. Those AREN'T her words, they're the Alchemist's, and you're just placing them in Elia's mouth. Why would she say such things to "appease" Rhaegar? Shouldn't she be saying "This is a terrible idea"? Quote Rhaegar 'kidnaps' Lyanna without an explanation, and hides away in the tower of joy as the entire realm is thrown into civil war. I don't think you can use Rhaegar doing something stupid to show that Elia must have been so stupid as to not see that was an idiotic thing to do. Rhaegar was fixated on prophecy and thought he'd win, Elia didn't spend years fixating on the same things. Quote To Elia at the time, she was just giving her husband a chance at the third head of the dragon. If she knows that's with Lyanna, then she knows neither the Starks nor Baratheons will accept that (and her own kin won't be keen on it either). Quote Annul the betrothal officially Rickard Stark & Robert Baratheon agreed to that betrothal, it's not up to Rhaegar to "annul" it (as I noted, annullments only apply to marriages, not betrothals). Quote If Aegon VI would stay in KL, Aerys would of had them all burned down together. Rhaegar's family DID stay in KL, and they weren't burned: they were killed by Tywin's goons. Quote This is the same thinking Elia had. Her son would be heir, the other child would be no threat to him. Robb was older than Jon Snow, and Daeron II older than Daemon Blackfyre. Rhaenyra was older than Aegon II. Quote Rhaegar had returned to KL, meaning the baby was in Lyanna's womb. Ultrasounds didn't exist then, so he didn't know the sex of the baby. And considering his three heads of the dragon logic, he presumably though the child would be a Visenya to go with his earlier Rhaenys & Aegon (and he was wrong, again). Quote Daeron II was not given Blackfyre, Daemon was. That was the whole conceit of the blackfyre rebellion. Can Elia be sure that once Jon (or whatever the child's name is if it is born male) starts growing up, Rhaegar won't prefer him to Aegon? Quote Jon was never a real threat to Robb. Irrelevant, Cat thought he was and she's not abnormal in that respect. Jon didn't even have a known mother whose family might agitate for him (like the Hightowers for Aegon II), but he was raised in Winterfell and that was enough. Quote But most importantly this is all about what Elia thought, not what was true. And why would she think differently from other mothers who regarded their husband's other offspring as threats to their own sons? Quote I was only wondering if Rhaegar had planned to replace Aegon VI with his newborn child via Lyanna. The child wasn't a "newborn", it was not born at all yet, and he didn't know if it was a male (I think he assumed it was female). Quote We are given two examples in ADWD: Jon's chapter and Tyrion's chapter. I said "specifically" in reference to "when Rhaegar arrived". After Robert won at the Trident, things were headed south & Aerys sent his own family to Dragonstone. Varys would have known that was the time to make last-ditch efforts, including the baby-swap. You bring up Jon swapping babies, but it should be noted that (like Varys, but not like Rhaegar) Jon was not the father of either! Craster was dead, and Mance was supposedly killed by Stannis ("Rattleshirt" wasn't the one doing the swapping either, and his wife was dead anyway). Quote And if Aegon VI is alive as the books were foreshadowing from AGOT, then there needs be a baby swap for the unidentified corpse not to be him. The simplest way to resolve that is for YG to be Aegon. Quote Well yes, that is the confounding part. Only for you! Quote It also confounding how so many of the fanbase reference the second half of the prophecy as the YAMBQ (Younger and more beautiful Queen) when queen is never mentioned in the prophecy. It's not "confounding" at all: "Queen you shall be, the old woman had promised, with her lips still wet and red and glistening, until there comes another, younger and more beautiful, to cast you down and take all that you hold dear." It's all in that one sentence! "Another" means "another queen" in the simplest parsing of that sentence. Quote Nor why it would be Jaime when he only has one hand. He's got one hand made of gold and another made of flesh. Quote He also knew his father was insane and would burn the entire place down before surrendering. NO. Jaime makes clear that Aerys kept that a complete secret. Even most of the alchemist guild didn't know, and they discover hidden caches only by accident. You keep basing your reasoning off assumptions that the text contradicts. Quote He thought he would win of course, no one plans on dying. Insurance policies are made however, that is the whole point of the baby swap. Prophetic heroes don't have insurance for their own failure. Varys is the one actually said to have swapped the baby, and he didn't believe in all that prophecy stuff (he also already knew Rhaegar had lost at the Trident prior to the fall of KL). Quote Lyanna is acting completely outside of the bounds of the "feudal order" when she decides to go beat up a bunch of squires. No, the squires were violating the protection the Starks offer their vassals when they decided to go after a Reed. Lyanna rectified that order, and she faced no repercussions for her actions justified in her society. It is instead the squires who have to flee and then later get upbraided by the knights they serve. Quote So is Arya when she orders Mycah to fight her You are sort-of correct: Mycah is TOO lowborn to interact with Arya, and his life becomes forefeit. The order Arya gave him transgresses the class boundary, although Arya herself doesn't really get punished for that (it's on Mycah to know not to obey such an order). The squires weren't obeying any order from Lyanna, rather they were violating House Stark's protection until Lyanna intervened. Quote "That's my father's man!" is not so much an enforcement on feudal hierarchy as it is using your own position for the greater good. It's not "the greater good", it's a parochial good of House Stark and their vassals (a subset of the feudal hierarchy). If the squires had been beating up some southron she would have had no standing to intervene. Quote A lowborn girl/boy could not challenge those squires, but her justification is that she is a stark. True, but if she had been an Arryn, Baratheon, Lannister etc she would have had no standing. A Tully would have standing, because they can order their own vassals around and tell them not to cause trouble with the Starks (although we know some lords like Tywin are entirely happy to order their men to raid other lands and deny responsibility). Quote Arya is also a violent individual, but that does not relate to "violently upholding class law". She defends Ned Dayne against Gendry not because she is upholding feudal order, but because she thinks it is the right thing to do. Gendry was just talking, not actually doing anything to Ned. Arya violently upheld northern social order when she killed Daeron for deserting the Nights Watch. That's the same thing her father did in the beginning of the first book. But since you brought up her interactions with Ned Dayne, Arya gets angry when Ned repeats his aunt Allyria's claim that Ned Stark fell in love with Ashara at Harrenhal. She insists her father only loved her mother. She was not some 21st century hipster who thinks jealousy is a backward emotion and polyamory is the wave of the future. Do you think Arya would be happy as the mistress to a married man who still insisted he loved his wife? How about Lyanna? Quote Stannis and the usage of right relate to a concept of upholding the law, not necessarily moral law (which is what we reference when talking about doing the right thing). Stannis thinks that his upholding of the law is the right thing. He's quite morally judgmental, but that doesn't make him "kind". Quote The squires were under fifteen, they were children. This was not a series of grown men slighting their house, it was a bunch of kids picking on a bog man. And Lyanna is a teen herself. The fact that they were young people makes it all the more proper for them to be ordered around even though she's a teen. Young people get bossed around, that's part of patriarchy. Quote She tells him to come to the feast because was as highborn as anyone else. And indeed he was, unlike Mycah. These are aristocratic values in action, and we don't hear about anyone in the feast having a problem with Howland's presence. Quote Meaning just because you are from the bog lands does not make you lesser than anyone else. Something to keep in mind: these were not an assortment of northerners picking on someone from the bogs. These were the traditional enemies of the crannogmen from across the boundary of the Neck. If you're at all familiar with Peter Turchin's writing on "meta-ethnic frontiers", you'll know why that's important. This is like if a Martell was intervening to stop a stony Dornishman from being attacked by marchers. Quote She doesn't say this to "violently uphold feudal order" but as an olive branch to a boy who was getting bullied. Why would she need to extend an "olive branch" to her own family's vassal? Had he been rebelling against her up until this point of reconciliation? Quote People back then used different terms and justifications, but the inherit desire to help those who can't help themselves has been a consistent theme throughout the medieval ages, same as today. They helped those who couldn't help themselves... if they were vassals owed such help. The justification for vassals paying homage to their liege lords is precisely because those lords are supposed to help them. The oath Howland's kids swear makes this clear. Quote The entire premise of this discussion is that a fifteen years old girl (Lyanna) did not bare ill will towards Elia nor was she ambitious enough to want and over throw her. We don't get an alternate timeline where Lyanna & Elia both have sons by Rhaegar and we see whether that causes problems between them. Instead Elia just has prior history to go by, and you denying she'll act like any other mother would because Lyanna is "kind". Quote Lyanna was about so much more than just a simple one night stand. A mistress is more of a threat to a wife than a one-night stand. Quote just like I can say "we don't know my neighbor is not serial killer for sure". It doesn't go anywhere. Serial killers are a LOT more rare than adulterers, and we know Rhaegar was an adulterer. Quote Saying you're agnostic about it is insinuating the two sides require the same amount of evidence or both are equally as faulty. I'm saying I don't need to take a position, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Quote She has also seen him passionate enough to win a tourney against better jousters Rhaegar was an excellent jouster (one of the reasons he's so highly regarded), I don't think he needed some "passion" to come ahead as some underdog. He lost only to Arthur Dayne in the final tilt of the Lannisport tourney, and he defeated Arthur in the tourney at Storm's End. Quote Yet he can not hold enough interest in their newborn child. He proclaimed their newborn child to be the prince that was promised! That sounds like "interest". Quote How is Elia suppose to become accustomed to that? She already had a child with Rhaegar before, I think she could have. Quote It is his lack of attention that hurts the most. You sure are confident in your ability to get inside her head. Quote Sure he can, the entire conceit of the Targaryen dynasty was polygamy in their marriages. NO IT WASN'T. Aegon I adopted the Faith of the Seven, which doesn't conduct polygamous marriages. His own were grandfathered in because it predated his conversion, and that still caused problems with the son of one wife usurping the line of his other wife. Quote And taking a mistress is another form of exchange. No it isn't. He's not giving up anything for that! Quote Speaking of theft, here is Dany on the subject: Daenerys never uses the word "thief" or "theft" in her chapters. And a person who "steals" a baseball plate, or a glance, is not called a "thief". One of her chapters does contain the quote "The garrison had been prepared to sell them to the Usurper, but one night Ser Willem Darry and four loyal men had broken into the nursery and stolen them both, along with her wet nurse, and set sail under cover of darkness for the safety of the Braavosian coast", but I don't think she considers Willem Darry to be a "thief". Quote Stolen, theft. This sort of language is used. Also it makes sense, nothing is bizarre about it. Is English your first language? Quote The maester publishing the book would not want any negative speculation on their order. Eustace & Mushroom are not maesters and not bound by such considerations in their own writings. Quote Yeah, locked away, like the book in Tyrion's chapter, like "the man without a face" who killed Balon. You're saying Balon's assassin was caught & incarcerated? Quote Since you are using the fanbase as regards to Jaime and the Valonqar, please explain why so many believe the alchemist is there with a dragon egg. I've come across speculation that the Alchemist killed Balon, but nobody before you I can recall saying that he has a dragon egg in Oldtown. I don't need to explain the existence of something that doesn't exist. And I bring up the fanbase because you keep insisting these things are "obvious" and how GRRM mentioned people figuring things out in 1999. Quote Pate is to Rhaegar. No, you simply made that up and then tried to use that assumption in order to prove the same assumption. Quote Like above with theft, these marriages and woman have their "worth". They HAVE "worth", but people do not say they are "worth X" where X is some thing they provide. If you say something is "worth X", that indicates willingness to trade X in exchange for that thing. So when Henry of Navarre said "Paris is worth a mass" it meant "I am willing to attend mass in order to obtain Paris", not "Paris will produce a mass for me" (he was a Huguenot and would prefer to attend a Protestant service rather than a Catholic mass). Quote Again, again, Dany used that same language. NO, WRONG. Quote Dany used that word to describe it. No, she never uses the words "thief" or "theft" to describe it or anything else! Click those two lines I posted in the above line. Quote "Is she worth a dragon?" Not "is she worth a golden dragon?" It's entirely normal to shorten common terms. Like I said, listen to some linguists on the subject. There's lots of slang associated with money specifically. Here is a quote from the first book "Just to be sure, Catelyn paid the oarmen herself, a stag to each man, and a copper to the two men who carried their chests halfway up Visenya's hill to the inn that Moreo had suggested." It's not a secret message that she says "stag" rather than "silver stag" here, nor when Brienne proclaims she has "a hundred stags" (not 100 actual mammals), although Tyrion does intend a double-meaning joke when he brings up "A host of dragons and stags" (OMG he said "dragon", that means he must really be Pate!). Quote This is reverse logic, why does it need to have been pointed out before for it to be true? I'm saying a LOT of people have read the same words, so if it was "clear and obvious" it would have been understood earlier. If you're the only one tilting at the windmills of your particular theory, then it's not "clear and obvious". Quote Theft is used by Dany. Quote Why, Dany uses that word. No, I linked to A Search of Ice and Fire, there were no results for that word in her chapters. You are unreasonably confident for someone wrong so often. Quote What good is Elia if she can't provide a third son? She just provided a son, there isn't a requirement that she provide THREE sons. Quote She knows of her limitations, and how Rhaegar must compensate. Henry VIII caused the English reformation by divorcing his wife because he had ZERO sons, and that was a highly unusual & disruptive move. Rhaegar has one son, he's in a better position than many royals have been. Quote Actually she is. She cannot stand to look upon Jon or have him live in the same castle of her because he represents that other woman. Not because he is a threat to Robb. Jon joining the Nights Watch has no bearing on Ned's love for some other woman... but it does remove Jon as a threat. When Robb wants to name Jon heir in his will, that also has no bearing on Ned's love for Jon's mother... but it makes Jon back into a threat. Quote That is why she dwells on how he must have loved this other woman "fiercely". She thinks to herself that doesn't matter now because the woman is dead. Quote Because she knows that's what Rhaegar thinks, otherwise why crown the woman queen of love and beauty? Elia has no reason to say what she thinks is in Rhaegar's head if that's detrimental to her, including talking up how Lyanna is the best Rhaegar could have. She should instead be disparaging Lyanna. Quote Elia wants to discover what he plans on doing as much as she wants to mitigate her deficiency (no third child). Usually you talk as if she already knows everything in his head. Quote Yes, because he thought it was the best match. It made sense at the time given the political situation. No, the best match is none at all if he wants Rhaenyra as heir! Quote That quote was from Kevan He might be a bit biased in favor of Cersei, but Cersei really is regarded as beautiful by others. Perhaps Robert Baratheon would say Lyanna was the most beautiful and that justified Rhaegar's crowning of her, but he's fixated on creating a marriage alliance with his best friend's family. Arya is said to bear some resemblance to Lyanna, and she's not considered as beautiful as Sansa. Quote Aegon V believed in the prophecy as well. It was a common Targaryen myth, even if one father did not agree with the plans of one son. Elia isn't depriving Aegon V of anything, he died at Summerhall. And he wanted his children married to Baratheons & Tyrells, but his son Jaehaerys II defied him in favor of an incestuous marriage and then insisted on the same thing for his son Aerys II because of a prophecy about their lineage. Quote The worth of the woman is also calculated in, not just the rank. And according to what we know, Elia was not considered the "obvious" match. What makes those earlier Martell, Dayne & Dondarrion ladies "worth" more or more "obvious"? Quote Not replace her, but to have Lyanna for a third child. You are the one who used the phrase "better wife" as something you think Elia believed Rhaegar deserved. Quote Didn't Ramsay lock away his wife in a tower? And Rodrik executed Reek (thinking he was Ramsay) as punishment for that. Quote And marriages can be annulled I think. It's awful hard to argue a marriage was never consummated after the SECOND child it produces. Quote If he didn't want to do it, I doubt she would try and force him to. Why is she goading him toward it with "you won't do better" at all!? It makes no sense. Quote And Daeron II wasn't the clear heir. Daemon was given the sword Blackfyre. Daemon was a bastard, which made Daeron the clear heir. He was also Prince of Dragonstone. Quote Elia was not thinking on the lines of "this will start a war" but more on the lines of "this will appease my husband and give him what I can't offer him". As I already told you, neither the Starks nor Baratheons would accept Rhaegar fathering a child on Lyanna. She's not one of the Florent sisters that can be married off to a household knight, she's Rickard's only daughter and betrothed to Robert. Quote Catelyn and Alicent already had other children to deal with (Jon and Rhaenyra) whereas Elia was in a marriage where both her children where her own. Rhaegar's child-to-be is the "other" child Elia will have to "deal with". Cat & Alicent were also in marriages where their children were their own, so what is the difference? Quote Because she would not be left wondering, and because why would he? It hasn't been established that she was "left wondering", you are again assuming something you are trying to prove. Quote Did she disappear? From Elia & Rhaegar's sight, yes. They wouldn't expect to see her again before Robert marries her. Quote so if he doesn't bring up Lyanna, Elia certainly will. Not "certainly" at all, you must be one of the most poorly calibrated people I've come across. Quote We are given three events WE are but ELIA isn't. Quote That's besides the point No it's not! It affects the incentives of Jaime vs Elia! Quote So why would Elia say "how could you?" Everyone was shocked. Rhaegar was not abiding by the norms of their social order. You don't seem to understand those norms at all though. Quote Look at the discussion between LF and the council about finding ways to kill Dany. Using the faceless man is not a common option as the cost is so high. All a man's wealth, his life, etc. The waif tells us about her father hiring one to kill his wife (stepmother of the waif). He didn't have nearly as much money as LF/the crown have at their disposal, but the FM charge a sliding scale of money (as in the anecdote about the first slave killed by an FM). The Doylist explanation is that the FM would be constantly interfering in politics if people could just always pay some fixed rate, and charging an exorbitant amount to those who have more "nerfs" them enough for GRRM's purposes. Quote The bloody mummers That applies to a lot of people other than Jaqen, and thus "proves too much". Quote the location relative to Braavos I expect claiming a location near Braavos is easier for him... but the FM are also more likely to have acquired a real face nearer to home. Quote As above. So the lack of detail for the Alchemist makes him more "real"? That's hardly an obvious interpretation. Quote Notice how they both smile all the time? Theon was also known for smiling, as was the Smiling Knight. That proves nothing. Quote The prophecy is not a secret. Rhaegar's plans were. Aemon is the one other person we see reference Rhaegar's belief in prophecy, and he notes how Rhaegar changed his mind on TPTWP. "The prophecy" may be fixed, but not Rhaegar's interpretation of it. Quote Why? Because otherwise it seems like Jaqen changed his face to the Alchemist and went right to Oldtown without doing anything notable in between. Quote Oldtown is not the iron islands. So he would have changed his face to the Alchemist at Harrenhal, gone to the Iron Islands, killed Balon and changed his face to cover his tracks in some ordering we're unaware of, then gotten off Pyke and gotten to Oldtown and changed his face back to the Alchemist figuring that nobody would recognize him in this new city? I expect rather that the Alchemist face is one he had planned specifically for Oldtown. Arya uses one face to spy on a target and then another to carry out the assassination all within one job in one city, there doesn't seem to be a need to keep one face over multiple jobs. Quote Now there is a man stealing faces looking for a book on dragons. You assume the latter bit. Quote No, it is the maesters we are told who got involved, not the facelessmen. The nature of the FM is that people don't know they are responsible. Having anything pointing back to them is considered a failure on their part. Quote Showing your face to him doesn't matter because he will be dead. I know the kindly man said "it's best you are not noticed", but what does that have to do with showing your face? The old man was in public, where other people had been seeing Arya (hence the need for her to use a new face for the actual assassination). If he's staring at this girl others can see and then suddenly drops dead, she becomes a lot more suspicious and risks the sort of blowback the kindly man warned against. Quote The alchemist killed Pate in an ally where no one saw. Precisely! The normal pragmatic considerations don't apply. Quote Ned would never call Beric "old". Ned isn't disparaging his friend's pick of which <strike>Beatle</strike> knight is the cutest. Quote This is Elia perspective, and it makes sense. No, it's your perspective and hardly anything you say makes sense coming from her. Quote By boat, there is no reason to sail all the way north to Braavos. Eastwatch by the sea is already at parity with Braavos. You said that in response to "How so? Traveling by land was MUCH slower than by boat in the pre-modern era" which was in turn a response to "From Harrenhall there are shorter ways to Oldtown". You still haven't explained the shorter way to Oldtown from Harrenhal. Quote Says who, since when? I'm saying it. Jaqen is an FM, which is how he can change his face and why he has that iron coin. The HoBaW takes Arya seriously and starts training her because of that coin, just as a company would if someone was referred to them by a trusted employee. Quote The FM are not a business. They're a cross between a business and a death cult. Quote Yes, the kindly man. Not going out looking for recruits. Where would recruits go to if there wasn't someone to receive them? Quote Because he is curious about the girl He's curious enough about the girl to recruit her even though he regards the guy who sent her as a rogue agent? Shouldn't he be trying to extract information from her about Jaqen in order to stop him? Quote Lyanna was a different case entirely, it was not him "sleeping around". What's the relevant difference? Does he get a pass for the first time committing adultery, but not a second time? Quote He was no Robert Robert did seem to be implicitly regarded as noble here: "The puppet lions grow greedy and arrogant as this treasonous tale proceeds, until they begin to devour their own subjects. When the noble stag makes objection, the lions devour him as well, and roar that it is their right as the mightiest of beasts." That could be Renly, but the Lannisters were nowhere near him, and Stannis is still alive rather than devoured. Of course, Robert's infidelities didn't cause political problems, since they were generally with lower ranking women. Ned is famously regarded as honourable, though he openly acknowledges Jon as his bastard. Quote Elia also didn't fake bastard children as her true heirs Cat & Alicent didn't fake bastard children either, but like Cersei they looked after the interests of their own children rather than other offspring of their husband. Quote She still told her son not to sue for peace when the war was lost and the offer was made to them. You haven't established that accepting the offer would have worked out for him. Cregan executed a number of people for the assassination, the belief that there was a norm against such a regicide would be reason to make the same choice as Aegon. Quote Even before the war was lost Corlys was telling them to marry one of the blacks and unite both sides to end the war. Alicent still told her son to refuse. Alicent agreed to betrothing Aegon II's daughter to Aegon III. That was an attempt to unite both sides. Aegon II was going to marry a daughter of Borros Baratheon, who had become one of their most valuable allies (even though that House had been among the minority which previously voted for a female-line claimant) because Aemond agreed to a marriage alliance. Corlys conspired to murder the king and had previously betrayed Rhaenyra (which is how he wound up in a dungeon and then the Green council), I hardly think his advice represented the king's best interests. Quote It is extremely obvious, yet for some reasons the fan base does not consider it a mainstream read If you're the only one to believe something, even after you give your best shot at preseting the evidence, it's not obvious. Get used to it and stop being surprised or thinking of such things as "obvious". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Could you link to some times he's spoken against it? Oh, where you arguing against it? sorry if I came off a little dickish, I didn't realise. I know he has talked about this other times as well, but I could only find this video, I don't know how to link to a specific time stamp, but it's around the 4:20 mark (lol). He also wrote about similar things in Dark, Dark Where The Tunnels, where two different subsets of humans find each other but realize they are too genetically different to breed. And also in Dying Of The Light we learn that humans who genetically engineered themselves to the point they can no longer breed with base human are called not-man. (Which means that if the Others are indeed capable of breeding with humans, they would be not-not-man) From the wiki: Quote Some humans evolved or mutated so far that they were no longer interfertile with the rest of humanity; such beings are colloquially referred to as "not-men." Now, I know this is a sci-fi concept and ASOIAF is a fantasy series, but GRRM thinks they are one and the same: Quote "We can make up any definitions of science fiction, fantasy and horror that we want. We can draw our boundaries and make our labels, but in the end it's still the same old story, the one about the human heart in conflict with itself.The rest my friends is funiture.The House of Fantasy is built of stone and wood and furnished in High Medieval. Its people travel by horse and galley, fight with sword and spell and battle-axe, communicate by palantir or raven, and break bread with elves and dragons.The House of Science Fiction is built of duralloy and plastic and furnished in Faux Future. Its people travel by starship and aircar, fight with nukes and tailored germs, communicate by ansible and laser, and break protein bars with aliens.The House of Horror is built of bone and cobwebs and furnished in Ghastly Gothick. Its people travel only by night, fight with anything that will kill messily, communicate in screams and shrieks and gibbers, and sip blood with vampires and werewolves. " And also he famously used two legged dragons (commonly known as wyburns) in ASOIAF over the more famous four legged dragons, just because it was more scientifically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Appleyard Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If, after the Night King and his army are dead, Others come back, will those Others be hostile to men? Or will they help men to explore in the white ice-lands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Anthony Appleyard said: If, after the Night King and his army are dead, Others come back, will those Others be hostile to men? Or will they help men to explore in the white ice-lands? (there is no Night King in the books) I think that if the current Other forces are killed by humanity, they have no reason to want to help them, and they would probably be hostile to eachother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 20 hours ago, CamiloRP said: Oh, where you arguing against it? sorry if I came off a little dickish, I didn't realise. I'm not arguing against it, just curious what he had to say. Quote I don't know how to link to a specific time stamp, but it's around the 4:20 mark (lol). You can link to a specific time by pausing the video, right-clicking and selected "Copy url at current-time". Doing that for that video results in https://youtu.be/PWETMOnlKFA?t=260 with the value of that t query parameter being set to the number of seconds. That's intuitive to a computer, but a human can instead use "t=4m20s", which results in the same thing. As for the video itself, he says cross-species breeding is not permitted in "hard" scifi. Soft scifi is closer to fantasy, whereas hard scifi tries to adhere closer to science fact with only a limited number of deviations in the premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'm not arguing against it, just curious what he had to say. You can link to a specific time by pausing the video, right-clicking and selected "Copy url at current-time". Doing that for that video results in https://youtu.be/PWETMOnlKFA?t=260 with the value of that t query parameter being set to the number of seconds. That's intuitive to a computer, but a human can instead use "t=4m20s", which results in the same thing. Thanks a lot! Quote As for the video itself, he says cross-species breeding is not permitted in "hard" scifi. Soft scifi is closer to fantasy, whereas hard scifi tries to adhere closer to science fact with only a limited number of deviations in the premise. He doesn't say that, he says "if you're a hard science fiction writer this makes no fucking sense" and he is a hard science fiction writer. Also Star Trek is soft sci-fi, and it bothers him nonetheless. ASOIAF is a fantasy series, true, but many of the fantasy elements appear in George's sci-fi works. Telepathy, Hive-minds, consciousness-storing organisms, telepathy enhancing and suppressing drugs, reanimating corpses, and I'm willing to say there might be more examples that I'm either forgetting or not aware about. And even those who don't appear in his stories (glamours, again, that I'm aware) he tries to somewhat explain in a scientific way 'it's like bending light'. Also genetics plays a big-ass role in the story, and breeding with another species is an issue of genetics, chromosomes and such. I really doubt GRRM would include something in his story that he considers as possible as humans breeding with Wombats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 On 11/3/2020 at 6:06 PM, CamiloRP said: He doesn't say that, he says "if you're a hard science fiction writer this makes no fucking sense" and he is a hard science fiction writer. Did he say he was a hard scifi writer in that clip? I only listened to a small portion of it. I wouldn't expect a hard scifi writer like Hal Clement to elide the differences between scifi, fantasy & horror. Quote Also Star Trek is soft sci-fi, and it bothers him nonetheless. At the timestamp you specified, he was praising Star Trek for having Spock be half-Vulcan at a time prior to Loving v. Virginia. Quote Also genetics plays a big-ass role in the story GRRM's genetics in this series has been a complete fantasy. Super-dominant Baratheon black hair and extreme incest which doesn't result in the things we know actually happens to humans. Children tending to have the "look" of just one parent rather than being a blend of both. It is NOT "hard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Did he say he was a hard scifi writer in that clip? I only listened to a small portion of it. I wouldn't expect a hard scifi writer like Hal Clement to elide the differences between scifi, fantasy & horror. Nope, he didn't, but he is, as he has written many hard sci-fi stories, he's also a horror writer, and a fantasy writer, a hard fantasy writer even. Even in the way he says it it's implied he's talking about himself, as there is no other hard science fiction writer in the room and Stark Trek is soft sci-fi. (Disclaimer: genre is permeable and ever evolving, but I'll use the somewhat accepted definitions both for the sake of clarity and brevity, but my personal opinion is that neither sci-fi nor fantasy are genres, they're more like aesthetic proposals, horror is tho, again, IMHO) Quote At the timestamp you specified, he was praising Star Trek for having Spock be half-Vulcan at a time prior to Loving v. Virginia. Yes, because politically it's a good thing, scientifically it bothers him, and that's why he goes into that mini-rant. Quote GRRM's genetics in this series has been a complete fantasy. Super-dominant Baratheon black hair and extreme incest which doesn't result in the things we know actually happens to humans. Children tending to have the "look" of just one parent rather than being a blend of both. It is NOT "hard". Yes, I agree with you, but it still plays a part in the story, the story is, partially, about genetics, and I doubt that a guy that cares that much about that specific problem, going as far as to mention it in at least two of his works and going in this mini-rant would be making the same 'mistake'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.