Lord Varys Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He was close to Rhaenyra specifically, I don't think he would have been in the loop with someone like Daemon. If it was just "a few" spreading the rumor, I don't think you can conclude Cole heard and/or took it seriously. Daemon has nothing to do with that, since he wasn't even a Black at that time. He only joined Rhaenyra's party when he married her in 120 AC (although he may have been loosely associated with her party when Laena and Rhaenyra got close and arranged the betrothals of their children). But we can obviously expect that Criston Cole not only heard every rumor about Alicent Hightower that was told at court prior and after her marriage - he was at very heart of things. In fact, he could have been one of the people inventing and/or spreading such rumors. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Eustace Osgrey is a representative of the aristocratic class, not a "weirdo". To that we can add the rumors about Aenys not being the Conqueror's child because he wasn't a natural warrior like Maegor (who managed to usurp the throne from Aenys' son via force). Aenys was at best "adequate" with sword & lance and remembered poorly, whereas Jaehaerys was "fine" martially speaking and well-respected as the best Targaryen king. Aegon IV is hated in the present, but he was well-liked when young in part because he was skilled with the lance. Osgrey compares two princes to each other - a bookish prince with spindly limbs and the Warrior Incarnate. Criston Cole does nothing of that sort. You have the weirdo idea that Cole didn't like the fact that the dragonriding son of a princess was knighted. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Sandor is Joffrey's sworn shield, and regards it as his duty to protect Joffrey (up until he deserts in a battle Joffrey left). He does not have much respect for Tyrion, who does not fit the martial mold. Criston was not Laenor's sworn shield, nor was Laenor a child when he was married. Tyrion is an ugly dwarf, not handsome scion of House Velaryon. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You seem to be using a completely different definition of "on a whim". They were not nearly indifferent, swaying this way and that as various flights of fancy popped into their heads from moment to moment. The idea to crown Aegon first came up at the council session. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon II bears responsibility for his own actions. We get no indication that Cole "turned [him] into his pawn", it's just something you repeat without evidence from the text. Aegon and Aemond went along with Criston dangerous and stupid plans multiple times. They rarely made plans of their own. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No it isn't, which is why Gyldayn repeatedly makes note of whether a source (including Mushroom) was present. It is irrelevant, because Mushroom's stories makes it clear that him being there doesn't mean the stories he tells (or rather: invents) are accurate. Gyldayn's own judgment that Mushroom might be mistaken about something because he wasn't there is very poor judgment, actually, in light of the weird and internally contradictory stories Mushroom spread about the folks he hung out with. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What makes you think Eustace doesn't? We know he had a close relationship with Alicent. We know he was her confessor - that's not 'a close relationship'. But then - Alicent Hightower married into House Targaryen. She was queen for 23 years. She and her father are not 'the Hightowers'. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM can give Barth perfect memory if he feels like it LOL, and you think George gave Barth 'perfect memory', do you? 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Gyldayn discussed the manuscript industry as part of his critique of a source. And I don't know why his "empirical firsthand knowledge" is more relevant for A Caution than the Testimony. It is equally valid in both cases. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'm thinking things like Maester Norren's "Chronicles of Maidenpool". No evidence Gyldayn consulted it directly. He could have just given his quotes from that from Eustace's or Munkun's book, assuming they also gave those quotes. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He's dinged for relying on Orwyle for "the inner workings of the court". But Orwyle wasn't part of Dragonstone's court. So what? Doesn't mean Orwyle couldn't have also written about the inner workings of the Dragonstone court. Mushroom and Eustace also both wrote about the court they were not a part of. Bottom line is - unless we have confirmation that a source/historian consulted actual archives and letters which may or may not have survived to the present day we cannot expect that they did. Somebody quoting a letter in a medieval-style history book doesn't mean the letter actually existed. That the nature of the genre - and George is aware of that. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Raising up Mysaria is tantamount to that. Nope. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A queen piece on a chessboard is still a "pawn" in the exact same sense that it is moved around by the player rather than by its own initiative. If a person is called a "pawn" nobody assumes that means they can only move one step forward (or diagonally if someone else is there). Aegon accepted the Hand he started with, until he got fed up and replaced him. That's normal king rather than "pawn" behavior. Nope. Normal king behavior is to actually decide the policies of your Realm and not to have your granddad or your Kingsguard guy do that for you. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Being present in front of the SC does not make you a member. She had no title associated with it, like all the members have. Just reread the books. Plenty of people are members of the SC without having an actual named office. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Nobody indicates the Hightowers told Cole to kill Lyman. Who cares? Otto and Alicent later told him who to arrest, told him to summon the council members to the queen's apartments, etc. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Those are randos looking for a publicly announced reward, and they face no punishment for delivering the wrong head. Killing some dwarf traveling the roads doesn't take much, whereas Blood & Cheese penetrated somewhere few could get to. Blood had killed a member of the royal family - just as the randos had killed a dwarf. The parallel is rather obvious. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Some time passes between that and the Muddy Mess, and the marriage between Aegon III & Jaehaera (which was part of the deal making the former heir) happens directly after Aegon II dies. It's not Corlys' original proposal that gets adopted, but Larys' version. That's a separate issue from whether Aegon III is actually proclaimed heir. Larys' reasoning to Aegon II is that naming him heir won't actually imply he must become king. Just give me a quote where Aegon II actually names an heir. It isn't there. They agree that this will be done, but we don't actually hear that it happens. We can also expect that Corlys no longer pushed to rush the betrothal after he and Larys had agreed to murder Aegon II. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: When has the Iron Throne ever had that? Where would they both sit? Who cares? Aegon and his sisters also ruled more or less jointly, and innovation is a thing, too. Britain had two joint rulers after the Glorious Revolution, for instance. The obvious fact here is that Corlys' original suggestion was a betrothal and joint heirs in combination with pardons to restore peace. That didn't happen. Aegon II continued the war, lost, was murdered, and then Aegon III was proclaimed king by the victorious Blacks. Jaehaera is later included into the marriage as part of Corlys' peace deals, but they do not become joint rulers and Aegon III himself crowns little Jaehaera, making it very clear she is nothing but a queen consort. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Winterfell is distinctive in never having a ruling Lady, but the Vale had one during the Dance. The Lannisters became an Andal house when their king died without issue and his only daughter married an Andal who took the Lannister name. That is all irrelevant since it doesn't tell us anything about the royal houses prior to the Conquest. If only the Reach had a single queen regnant prior to the Conquest, then it makes no sense that 'Andal laws' demanded that daughters should come more distant male relations since they obviously didn't come before them, since if they had come before, there would have been more ruling queen. We don't even know how the Gardener queen took the throne. Could have been a usurpation or a case where no male claimants could be found. After all, the strife in the last years of Garth X shows that there was no clear succession if a king had fathered only daughters. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He pointed out there were no males available to come ahead of the females, but they still didn't designate a female heir because Munkun "put an end to the debate". That they didn't name an heir doesn't mean that Aegon III's half-sisters weren't his only remaining heirs. There was no designated heir, but two possible heirs. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He was a child under a regency that Munkun referred to as "dead inside", interested in nothing, and only friends with Gaemon. His regents reversed his attempts to make decisions, and the claimed bastards had all been dismissed at the last Great Council (with Gaemon having already had his paternity attributed to a Lysene sailor by his own mother). Gaemon might have been better adjusted mentally than Aegon III, but nobody was going to take him seriously as a candidate. Sure, during his minority Aegon III couldn't have named Gaemon his heir ... but what once he was ruling in his own right? 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He had enough followers to kill all the dragons in KL, which was an impressive feat. I mentioned "multiple groups", and you have completely ignored the camps of Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair or Wat the Tanner (except when blaming the Greens for that last one). You didn't, you talked about 'team smallfolk'. The other rebels were irrelevant. What drove Rhaenyra out of the city was the Shepherd and his successful destruction of all the dragons, including Syrax. If Rhaenyra's dragon had remained in the Red Keep nobody would have attacked the castle and they wouldn't have fled. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Hearing is not knowing. Arya heard Illyrio, but she didn't understand what he was saying. Then prove to me that Sansa didn't understand. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Bipolar & schizophrenia often go together as schizoaffective disorder. Who cares? We are making analogies - Aerys II doesn't look like a person who is responsible for his actions, never mind what you say. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It was "for" her child. When Ned is annoyed by all the spending for the Hand's tourney, he's right, while Robert is irresponsible. Apples and oranges. Robert is massively in debt - Rhaenyra isn't. It is also a pretty big joke to complain about double taxation and stuff - Aegon II was a false king, so everybody supporting him can be viewed as a traitor by Rhaenyra's faction, and vice versa. It might not be wise to antagonize people in that way - but it is not wrong or bad as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 On 1/19/2022 at 11:27 AM, Loose Bolt said: There is a chance that he did not want to share his reward. After all if Cheese had died Blood could keep all the money they earned by doing that wet work. Like I said, not even the body was found. If Blood is leaving the city quickly, he doesn't need to care if it turns up a little later. Additionally, he didn't reveal anything about that even after he confessed everything else. 22 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Daemon has nothing to do with that, since he wasn't even a Black at that time. Daemon was known for doting on Rhaenyra, being opposed by Otto, and notoriously made that quip about Viserys' "heir for a day". So it would be in character for him to be among the "few" (implied to be among those who opposed Otto) who said such things about Alicent, even if (as I said) Criston would not be in the loop for them. Quote he may have been loosely associated with her party when Laena and Rhaenyra got close and arranged the betrothals of their children That's more than "loosely" associated, marriage alliances are foundational in that world. Quote In fact, he could have been one of the people inventing and/or spreading such rumors. No one says that of him. Quote Osgrey compares two princes to each other - a bookish prince with spindly limbs and the Warrior Incarnate. You said those standards are irrelevant to "royalty" which Daeron surely was. Quote Criston Cole does nothing of that sort. Yeah, Criston didn't fight a civil war on behalf of some non-existent person claiming Laenor's seat. Instead he beat Laenor's lover to death and then denounced Laenor himself for his sexuality after his death. It should indeed be noted that, as SLAL wrote, "this fixation on the black’s sexuality is unmatched by any other character in the green camp" and Criston's unusual origins compared to the other prominent members of that camp are a clue to why he had that different perspective. His identification with an ideal which includes sexual purity is what elevates him above being a "nobody", as you said. Quote You have the weirdo idea that Cole didn't like the fact that the dragonriding son of a princess was knighted. Quote Knighthood is seen as primarily a martial position, so even the sons of powerful lords are not necessarily knighted if they are incapable of fulfilling the requirements. Doing otherwise would lose honor rather than gain it, and would make a lord and his family be held up to ridicule Quote Tyrion is an ugly dwarf, not handsome scion of House Velaryon. Even if he were handsome, he'd still be a dwarf, which is what Sandor mocks him for. And he's a scion of House Lannister (the very people the Cleganes have long served), one of the wealthiest families who happen to be in-laws to the king. Quote The idea to crown Aegon first came up at the council session. Being announced there does not mean it was "on a whim". The Hightowers spoke of it as a life-or-death matter. Quote Aegon and Aemond went along with Criston dangerous and stupid plans multiple times. They rarely made plans of their own. Aemond refused to join Criston when he marched away from Harrenhal, which doomed his army. Aegon & Aemond participating in Criston's earlier plan resulted in a Green victory which took out a Black dragon & rider (something the Greens really needed to do given how many fewer of those they had). Quote It is irrelevant, because Mushroom's stories makes it clear that him being there doesn't mean the stories he tells (or rather: invents) are accurate. There are no guarantees in life, but being present gives Mushroom greater access & knowledge compared to when he's not. Hence not "irrelevant". Quote We know he was her confessor - that's not 'a close relationship'. Not only confessor but also "confidant". The recently deceased Betty White was on a show whose theme song used that word, but I guess the Golden Girls weren't supposed to be close. Quote LOL, and you think George gave Barth 'perfect memory', do you? It's not any kind of restriction for GRRM. Barth can do whatever GRRM wants him to. Quote It is equally valid in both cases. So when he talks about how valuable the Testimony is, how great it is for maesters that they have copies available, how much truth there is in it, that's valid? Quote No evidence Gyldayn consulted it directly. What kind of evidence would you expect if he had vs hadn't? He lists it right after the Testimony, a source he consulted directly. And with Eustace in particular, I don't recall him citing the writings of any maesters. Quote Doesn't mean Orwyle couldn't have also written about the inner workings of the Dragonstone court. Mushroom and Eustace also both wrote about the court they were not a part of. Orwyle is cited on that when he actually visited Dragonstone. Mushroom & Eustace are both more willing to discuss rumors (whereas Orwyle/Munkun stays out of Jeyne Arryn's bedchambers). Orwyle was effectively writing a confession/apologia. Quote unless we have confirmation that a source/historian consulted actual archives and letters which may or may not have survived to the present day we cannot expect that they did Where do you expect to get any such "confirmation" for anything? Is GRRM going to mock up library records showing what Gyldayn or any other historian checked out? GRRM had Gyldayn cite that specific work, which GRRM invented for this very history, and there's a very simple takeaway for the reader which doesn't require any of your imagination. Quote Somebody quoting a letter in a medieval-style history book doesn't mean the letter actually existed. That the nature of the genre - and George is aware of that. Are you going to claim none of the documents cited in F&B actually existed? Why is GRRM having Gyldayn quote from such a letter if it isn't actually supposed to exist? Quote Nope. Mysaria was known for being the one who hired Blood & Cheese, and she was brought into the Red Keep once Rhaenyra took over. The riots were explicitly linked to the death of Helaena and people remembering what happened to her sons, and once Rhaenyra was overthrown Mysaria was whipped to death in the streets. Quote Normal king behavior is to actually decide the policies of your Realm and not to have your granddad or your Kingsguard guy do that for you. Joffrey let his granddad decide the policies because his granddad was Hand (and, yes, Joffrey was under a regency). Aegon's granddad shouldered responsibility for Viserys I, who hated dissension and was known to be pliable (except on a few matters). Aerys I was checked out of ruling and let Bloodraven handle everything. Robert Baratheon wanted no responsibility and thus fobbed all the work onto Jon Arryn and later Ned Stark. In contrast, Aegon II removed his granddad as Hand and personally fought in the war. Of course he had to let others take up the slack after he was so severely injured at Rook's Rest, "normal kings" are generally not in that condition. Prior to that there's no evidence he was a "pawn" of Criston's rather than just being of likeminded belligerence. Quote Plenty of people are members of the SC without having an actual named office. When was she named to the SC? When we get a listing of "the members of that small council on the eve of the great events of 129 AC", she's not there. Quote Who cares? You should, as it's relevant as to whether he was "just a little Hightower goon" during the coup or acting on his own initiative. Quote Blood had killed a member of the royal family - just as the randos had killed a dwarf. The parallel is rather obvious. The anti-parallels are obvious. Those randos were not specifically hired by Cersei or anyone in her chain of command, rather nobody had even heard of them prior to them showing up with the head. None of them were ever going to face any punishment, unlike Blood who died after being caught with the head. So there's no selection for non-"morons" in terms of applicants (unlike with the Lord of Flea Bottom knowing of the rare person in low places who could penetrate the Red Keep), and the risk-reward calculation entirely favors delivering the head. Quote Just give me a quote where Aegon II actually names an heir. It isn't there. They agree that this will be done, but we don't actually hear that it happens. I gave you the quote where it explained what happened. GRRM does not need to hold your hand by reiterating what the earlier section establishes. Corlys was reconciled by Aegon II agreeing to the heir, and if Aegon had simply welched on that agreement Corlys wouldn't have put up with it. Nor did he have reason to welch, since he'd agreed that merely naming the heir wouldn't mean Aegon III would actually become king. Quote We can also expect that Corlys no longer pushed to rush the betrothal after he and Larys had agreed to murder Aegon II. Why not? They went right ahead with the wedding after the murder was not merely agreed to but carried out! Quote Who cares? You should, you're the one bringing up this unprecedented idea as a real possibility. Quote Aegon and his sisters also ruled more or less jointly They were not co-monarchs, Aegon specifically was king and sat on the Iron Throne. Quote innovation is a thing, too It's not popular in feudal political systems. Someone opposing a policy would be apt to call it an "innovation" while its defenders would instead claim it's in line with custom & precedent. Quote Britain had two joint rulers after the Glorious Revolution, for instance. The Glorious Revolution occurred after they'd already had a civil war in which Parliament defeated the king, then the leader of the New Model Army ended the monarchy and declared himself Lord Protector of a Commonwealth. This was well after the medieval era, and the GR was another move by Parliamentary forces trying to constrain the monarchy. Quote The obvious fact here is that Corlys' original suggestion was a betrothal and joint heirs in combination with pardons to restore peace. That didn't happen. Yeah, Corlys' original suggestion was never agreed to by Aegon II. Larys' was. Quote Jaehaera is later included into the marriage as part of Corlys' peace deals We don't hear of any such later deal being made. Right after Aegon II dies Corlys proclaims Aegon III to be the new king, the war ends, and in the very next sentence after that's declared we get the marriage. Since Corlys had already favored the marriage and Aegon III didn't have any other guardian figures around to arrange things on his behalf I don't know who would actually need to agree to such a deal. Quote That is all irrelevant since it doesn't tell us anything about the royal houses prior to the Conquest. Yes it does. The late Gerold Lannister III having the crown pass to his daughter's husband because he had no male issue predates the Conquest (it was instead during the rise of the Andals). Winterfell never having a ruling Lady includes both before and after the Conquest. The "She Wolves of Winterfell" story was supposed to involve a succession dispute after a lot of "fairly recent Lords" died, but the result still wasn't to elevate a woman. Quote If only the Reach had a single queen regnant prior to the Conquest We don't have a list of every single monarch before the Conquest. Quote then it makes no sense that 'Andal laws' demanded that daughters should come more distant male relations since they obviously didn't come before them, since if they had come before, there would have been more ruling queen I just mentioned Gerold III Lannister. He was not succeeded by a "more distant male relation". Instead the completely unrelated (by blood) husband of his eldest daughter was crowned. That's not a queen, but it's still proceeding based on a primogeniture ordering which includes daughters. Otto warned that if Rhaenyra was crowned "it will be Lord Flea Bottom who rules us", and Joffrey Lydden was an example of explicitly making the daughter's husband ruler. Quote There was no designated heir, but two possible heirs. If a "possible heir" is anyone who hasn't been named yet, that would be everyone. Neither of them were named heir, nor was there a plan to name any of them heir, and no heir would be named until another male turned up. Quote Sure, during his minority Aegon III couldn't have named Gaemon his heir ... but what once he was ruling in his own right? I suppose he could try. For that matter, he could also try naming his horse. Primogeniture & the naming of an heir both serve to create a Schelling point: if everyone expects & accepts the same person to rule, they can avoid fighting over it. A Great Council (or democratic election) work even better to total up who all would support which candidate. But once a king dies, they can no longer enforce any of their edicts and have to rely on people choosing to go along with them. Quote You didn't Quote there were actually multiple groups involved in the uprising, some of which followed the Shepherd, but those were still smallfolk Right there, "multiple groups". Quote you talked about 'team smallfolk'. That's a phrase used by Steven Attewell, and you should read him to understand it. Quote The other rebels were irrelevant. Perkin the Flea killed the LC of the KG, took over the Red Keep, publicly had Mysaria whipped to death, then later put down both Gaemon & the Shepherd's camps. Before then he had "four of the city’s seven gates and more than half of the towers along its walls". Prior to that, Wat killed Rhaenyra's Master of Coin. GRRM talks about all of them during the riot because they weren't "irrelevant". Quote If Rhaenyra's dragon had remained in the Red Keep nobody would have attacked the castle and they wouldn't have fled. Why wouldn't the Shepherd attack Syrax in the Red Keep after first attacking the Dragonpit? Quote Then prove to me that Sansa didn't understand. I don't know what would constitute "proof" in your eyes. Sansa has no training in medicine or poisons, and doesn't even have an accurate take on what Sandor did to her during the Blackwater. Quote Who cares? You should care. I gave an example of a real person with bipolar disorder (and who is prescribed antipsychotic medication) who torpedoed himself while in the throes of a manic state, and that person has always reiterated that he bears responsibility for his own actions at that time. Quote Aerys II doesn't look like a person who is responsible for his actions, never mind what you say. Do you mean he literally looks weird with his unkempt beard? That's not how we determine responsibility. Quote Apples and oranges. Robert is massively in debt - Rhaenyra isn't. Not apples & oranges at all. When the coffers are empty, it's time to tighten your belt. Robert was able to borrow money, and thus did not have his Master of Coin killed & mutilated by a tanner. Quote It is also a pretty big joke to complain about double taxation and stuff - Aegon II was a false king, so everybody supporting him can be viewed as a traitor by Rhaenyra's faction, and vice versa. It might not be wise to antagonize people in that way - but it is not wrong or bad as such. The whole point of that material is to show what awful rulers both Rhaenyra & Aegon were to cause their own downfalls. We the readers are presumed to live in democratic societies where all governmental authority is supposed to be derived from the consent of the governed in order to protect our rights. Rulers who think they just have a right by birth and can dump on everyone else get their comeuppance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Like I said, not even the body was found. If Blood is leaving the city quickly, he doesn't need to care if it turns up a little later. Additionally, he didn't reveal anything about that even after he confessed everything else. Who cares? A body isn't obligatory. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Daemon was known for doting on Rhaenyra, being opposed by Otto, and notoriously made that quip about Viserys' "heir for a day". So it would be in character for him to be among the "few" (implied to be among those who opposed Otto) who said such things about Alicent, even if (as I said) Criston would not be in the loop for them. Just reread the books. Daemon never doted on Rhaenyra - her father doted on her and she liked her uncle Daemon because he gave her many gifts, not the other way around. Daemon wasn't even at court when Viserys I chose a new queen - he left court when Rhaenyra was declared Heir Apparent. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: That's more than "loosely" associated, marriage alliances are foundational in that world. Nope, because Laena and Daemon were not even in Westeros during the first years of their marriage. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: You said those standards are irrelevant to "royalty" which Daeron surely was. The example you gave had a martial prince and a bookish prince in comparison - Laenor isn't compared to any other prince, and Criston Cole himself isn't even remotely in his league. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yeah, Criston didn't fight a civil war on behalf of some non-existent person claiming Laenor's seat. Instead he beat Laenor's lover to death and then denounced Laenor himself for his sexuality after his death. It should indeed be noted that, as SLAL wrote, "this fixation on the black’s sexuality is unmatched by any other character in the green camp" and Criston's unusual origins compared to the other prominent members of that camp are a clue to why he had that different perspective. His identification with an ideal which includes sexual purity is what elevates him above being a "nobody", as you said. I don't care about any of that, since we cannot even take those lines of Criston's seriously. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Being announced there does not mean it was "on a whim". The Hightowers spoke of it as a life-or-death matter. It was done on a whim since it wasn't premediated or else there wouldn't have been a discussion. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: There are no guarantees in life, but being present gives Mushroom greater access & knowledge compared to when he's not. Hence not "irrelevant". It is irrelevant because Mushroom isn't trustworthy at all. Him being physically close doesn't change the fact that he lies a lot. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's not any kind of restriction for GRRM. Barth can do whatever GRRM wants him to. LOL, and where did GRRM give Barth perfect memory? 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: So when he talks about how valuable the Testimony is, how great it is for maesters that they have copies available, how much truth there is in it, that's valid? Where does he say it is 'great' that the maesters still have copies of that work? As I said - Gyldayn's comments on the manuscript industry are based on empirical knowledge about that industry - it is like a maester telling us about in-universe ravencraft. Gyldayn's interpretations and opinions on the validity of a lying court jesters alleged accounts about events nearly 200 years in the past do not have even remotely the same credibility. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: What kind of evidence would you expect if he had vs hadn't? He lists it right after the Testimony, a source he consulted directly. And with Eustace in particular, I don't recall him citing the writings of any maesters. It is not for me to make this work better than it is, you know. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Orwyle is cited on that when he actually visited Dragonstone. Mushroom & Eustace are both more willing to discuss rumors (whereas Orwyle/Munkun stays out of Jeyne Arryn's bedchambers). Orwyle was effectively writing a confession/apologia. Eustace and Orwyle and Orwyle/Munkun all offer accounts on things they did not personally witness or were close to. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Where do you expect to get any such "confirmation" for anything? Is GRRM going to mock up library records showing what Gyldayn or any other historian checked out? GRRM had Gyldayn cite that specific work, which GRRM invented for this very history, and there's a very simple takeaway for the reader which doesn't require any of your imagination. LOL, if the work included a line or two stating that Gyldayn actually went to Dragonstone to consult the letters and records kept there - assuming there is an actual archive on Dragonstone - that would be enough for me to, perhaps, assume that this or that letter he quotes was actually consulted by him directly and may thus be an accurate quote. But since we get no such lines I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt there. And neither should you. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Are you going to claim none of the documents cited in F&B actually existed? Why is GRRM having Gyldayn quote from such a letter if it isn't actually supposed to exist? For the hundredth time - because that's often done in medieval history books. They invent letters, they invent speeches, conversations, dialogues, etc. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mysaria was known for being the one who hired Blood & Cheese, and she was brought into the Red Keep once Rhaenyra took over. The riots were explicitly linked to the death of Helaena and people remembering what happened to her sons, and once Rhaenyra was overthrown Mysaria was whipped to death in the streets. Again: nope. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Joffrey let his granddad decide the policies because his granddad was Hand (and, yes, Joffrey was under a regency). Aegon's granddad shouldered responsibility for Viserys I, who hated dissension and was known to be pliable (except on a few matters). Aerys I was checked out of ruling and let Bloodraven handle everything. Robert Baratheon wanted no responsibility and thus fobbed all the work onto Jon Arryn and later Ned Stark. In contrast, Aegon II removed his granddad as Hand and personally fought in the war. Of course he had to let others take up the slack after he was so severely injured at Rook's Rest, "normal kings" are generally not in that condition. Prior to that there's no evidence he was a "pawn" of Criston's rather than just being of likeminded belligerence. A monarch who doesn't decide policy himself but is led around by his advisers is a pawn. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: When was she named to the SC? When we get a listing of "the members of that small council on the eve of the great events of 129 AC", she's not there. LOL, she is there in the first session of the Green Council. And, it seems, at pretty much any session of that council thereafter. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The anti-parallels are obvious. Those randos were not specifically hired by Cersei or anyone in her chain of command, rather nobody had even heard of them prior to them showing up with the head. None of them were ever going to face any punishment, unlike Blood who died after being caught with the head. So there's no selection for non-"morons" in terms of applicants (unlike with the Lord of Flea Bottom knowing of the rare person in low places who could penetrate the Red Keep), and the risk-reward calculation entirely favors delivering the head. LOL, what nonsense. So random murders are not going to be punished? Cersei nearly punishes one of the murderers showing up... 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I gave you the quote where it explained what happened. GRRM does not need to hold your hand by reiterating what the earlier section establishes. Corlys was reconciled by Aegon II agreeing to the heir, and if Aegon had simply welched on that agreement Corlys wouldn't have put up with it. Nor did he have reason to welch, since he'd agreed that merely naming the heir wouldn't mean Aegon III would actually become king. Again, where is the quote where Aegon II actually names Aegon III his heir? It isn't even clear that there was a betrothal since Jaehaera remained at Storm's End and Cregan Stark later fears that Lady Baratheon might proclaim Jaehaera queen. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why not? They went right ahead with the wedding after the murder was not merely agreed to but carried out! Nope, they did not. Weeks passed between Aegon II's murder and the wedding of Aegon III. There is an entire chapter between those events called 'The Hour of the Wolf'. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: They were not co-monarchs, Aegon specifically was king and sat on the Iron Throne. Aegon was 'the head monarch' if you will, but Rhaenys and Visenya also sat on the throne. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't hear of any such later deal being made. Right after Aegon II dies Corlys proclaims Aegon III to be the new king, the war ends, and in the very next sentence after that's declared we get the marriage. Since Corlys had already favored the marriage and Aegon III didn't have any other guardian figures around to arrange things on his behalf I don't know who would actually need to agree to such a deal. Just read before you write. Aegon's wedding is a result of Cregan Stark not continuing his war which was contingent on the remaining Greens accepting Corlys' peace terms. And they stipulated that Jaehaera be married to Aegon III who was already proclaimed king - which is why Cregan Stark served as 'the Hand of the Uncrowned King'. If the war had continued there wouldn't have been a wedding ... and then Jaehaera would have likely be crowned queen to serve as a figurehead/pretender against Aegon III. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes it does. The late Gerold Lannister III having the crown pass to his daughter's husband because he had no male issue predates the Conquest (it was instead during the rise of the Andals). Winterfell never having a ruling Lady includes both before and after the Conquest. The "She Wolves of Winterfell" story was supposed to involve a succession dispute after a lot of "fairly recent Lords" died, but the result still wasn't to elevate a woman. LOL, this doesn't establish anything about whether a daughter comes before an uncle in Andal countries - not on the royal level nor on the lordly level. It is completely meaningless prattle. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't have a list of every single monarch before the Conquest. We don't need one to know that to our knowledge only the Reach had one ruling queen. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I just mentioned Gerold III Lannister. He was not succeeded by a "more distant male relation". Instead the completely unrelated (by blood) husband of his eldest daughter was crowned. That's not a queen, but it's still proceeding based on a primogeniture ordering which includes daughters. Otto warned that if Rhaenyra was crowned "it will be Lord Flea Bottom who rules us", and Joffrey Lydden was an example of explicitly making the daughter's husband ruler. LOL, that has nothing to do with anything. Joffrey Lydden took the crown himself - in part by right of his wife, but mostly because a council proclaimed him king. Nobody said that daughters were no included in the succession at all - simply that nothing actually indicates that the Andals had as liberal or inclusive a succession custom as to allow daughters to succeed when there were other male relations around. Because in the histories we know this never happened. There is no indication that Gerold III had any male heirs left, just as there is no indication that the Gardener queen had any surviving uncles, cousins, etc. who could have challenged her ascension. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: If a "possible heir" is anyone who hasn't been named yet, that would be everyone. Neither of them were named heir, nor was there a plan to name any of them heir, and no heir would be named until another male turned up. LOL, no. There are presumptive heirs and Heirs Apparent. Baela and Rhaena and their children were presumptive heirs - like Tommen was Joff's presumptive heir without ever being named heir. You can also acknowledge a specific presumptive heir as a monarch if you still plan or hope to have children of your own - which is what the regency council considered to do for Aegon III - but you don't have to do that. If Aegon III had died before Viserys' return the throne would have gone to one of his presumptive heirs. And the most popular of those were his half-sisters, not the lackwit Queen Jaehaera. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Perkin the Flea killed the LC of the KG, took over the Red Keep, publicly had Mysaria whipped to death, then later put down both Gaemon & the Shepherd's camps. Before then he had "four of the city’s seven gates and more than half of the towers along its walls". Prior to that, Wat killed Rhaenyra's Master of Coin. GRRM talks about all of them during the riot because they weren't "irrelevant". Again, read before you write. Borros Baratheon dealt with those people ... and in the name of Aegon II, not Trystane Truefyre. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why wouldn't the Shepherd attack Syrax in the Red Keep after first attacking the Dragonpit? I guess they could try, but the castle was an actual castle with men manning and defending the walls. And Syrax was a dragon with a rider who could have unleashed her on the attackers in a more, well, effective manner. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not apples & oranges at all. When the coffers are empty, it's time to tighten your belt. Robert was able to borrow money, and thus did not have his Master of Coin killed & mutilated by a tanner. Who said anything about any coffers when those plans were made? Lord Celtigar did fill Rhaenyra's coffers with his methods. And that happened before she made plans for the celebration. 42 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The whole point of that material is to show what awful rulers both Rhaenyra & Aegon were to cause their own downfalls. We the readers are presumed to live in democratic societies where all governmental authority is supposed to be derived from the consent of the governed in order to protect our rights. Rulers who think they just have a right by birth and can dump on everyone else get their comeuppance. Nope, this shows how rulers and governments can fail simply because the circumstances put them at a very strong disadvantage. Rhaenyra had no ready coin, so she had to raise the taxes - just like the governments of Joffrey and Tommen did or might have to, due to the bad financial position they find themselves in. Rhaenyra was more popular that Alicent's brood ... she grew unpopular with the Kingslanders because of her fiscal policies. But she, like the Lannister-run government of Joff and Tommen, didn't have the luxury of Jaehaerys I - who could fill his empty treasury with taxes on luxury goods and crenelations - she had to fight a war. She certainly made mistakes but there weren't any alternatives to her tax policies. And her mistakes, etc. didn't cause her downfall, it was Tyland stealing the money: Quote By moving three-quarters of the Crown’s gold from King’s Landing whilst Aegon II’s master of coin, Tyland Lannister had sown the seeds of Queen Rhaenyra’s downfall, a stroke of cunning that would in the end cost him his eyes, ears, and health, and cost the queen her throne and her very life. Yet it must be said that he served Rhaenyra’s son well and faithfully as Hand. And that strikes me as a very accurate assessment of her downfall. If she had had the money, she could have butchered a hundred royal children, could have killed all her advisers thrice over, could have driven a dozen lords into the arms of her enemies. The Kingslanders wouldn't have rioted if they had been fat and happy. This why the whole Helaena and Blood and Cheese thing doesn't really matter. People might care to a point about the lives of highborn and royal children and women ... but if all that's bad just that some other royal has them butchered then they will just shrug. But if they can also blame the same royal for their own very real problems - if they have no jobs, no money, have to pay taxes they consider to be to high, etc. then chances are pretty high that the situation becomes explosive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 On 1/20/2022 at 7:01 PM, Lord Varys said: Who cares? A body isn't obligatory. You should care about absence of evidence as a kind of evidence of absence, and Blood had no reason to withhold the fact that he killed Cheese when he was admitting to so much else. Quote The example you gave had a martial prince and a bookish prince in comparison - Laenor isn't compared to any other prince, and Criston Cole himself isn't even remotely in his league. Laenor isn't a prince, the example showed that even people more royal than Laenor were expected to adhere to the martial aristocratic ideal of manhood. Criston is not angling for any position Laenor was born into, but as a knight he's going to have opinions of other knights. We get plenty from Jaime's POV, usually thinking he's better than others (at least when he has two hands). Jaime respects Loras Tyrell, one of the most accomplished tourney knights of his generation, but there are others who speak of him derisively as "Renly's little rose" or "Knight o' Pansies" (the latter quote from someone even more lowborn than Criston). In another time, the tourney at Whitewalls was supposed to result in a victory for Daemon II Blackfyre (also subject to a same-sex love-triangle among knights resolved via homicide) via rigged opponents. Bittersteel, the most important supporter of the Blackfyre cause over the long run, refused to have anything to do with it, and this is taken as confirmation that the young Daemon is not "his father's son" (which would be "a warrior, not a dreamer"). Quote I don't care about any of that, since we cannot even take those lines of Criston's seriously. There were multiple survivors of that Green Council meeting, one of whom was Orwyle. GRRM wrote those lines for a reason, and they fit with Criston directing a surprising amount of rage toward Joffrey (unless you want to claim we can't believe that happened). Quote It was done on a whim since it wasn't premediated or else there wouldn't have been a discussion. Quote Noun whim (countable and uncountable, plural whims) A fanciful impulse, or whimsical idea. Noun whimsy (usually uncountable, plural whimsies) A quaint and fanciful idea; a whim; playfully odd behaviour. Otto had long pushed for Aegon to be the heir, which was why he'd been removed as Hand. It's not a "whim" for him to push for the same thing again. The council as a whole was not fanciful, they were deadly serious. Otto & Criston both supported Aegon until they died. Quote It is irrelevant because Mushroom isn't trustworthy at all. You yourself have said that Mushroom sometimes comes to correct conclusions based on public knowledge. Why would his private knowledge be irrelevant? Quote Him being physically close doesn't change the fact that he lies a lot. It changes what he can know. Quote where did GRRM give Barth perfect memory? His memory isn't discussed. If we were supposed to doubt it, GRRM could have noted it. Quote Gyldayn's comments on the manuscript industry are based on empirical knowledge about that industry - it is like a maester telling us about in-universe ravencraft. Gyldayn's interpretations and opinions on the validity of a lying court jesters alleged accounts about events nearly 200 years in the past do not have even remotely the same credibility. But you object to Mushroom's Testimony based on what Gyldayn says about the manuscript industry (applied to A Caution, not the Testimony). If Gyldayn has that reliable knowledge of the manuscript industry, why does Gyldayn not give that as a reason to doubt the Testimony when he himself expressed doubt about multiple passages in it? Quote It is not for me to make this work better than it is, you know. GRRM had Gyldayn cite the contents of it. To basically every other reader that conveys the idea, ensuring that you personally can't engage in denial is not the criteria by which he judges if his work is "better". Quote if the work included a line or two stating that Gyldayn actually went to Dragonstone to consult the letters and records kept there That would be for Daemon's letter, whereas the quote you are responding to was about the Chronicles of Maidenpool (which you also don't accept as evidence). Quote But since we get no such lines I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt there. Everything "Gyldayn" writes was written by GRRM. WHY does GRRM have him write those things if we're supposed to dismiss it? Quote For the hundredth time - because that's often done in medieval history books. They invent letters, they invent speeches, conversations, dialogues, etc. GRRM isn't doing something just because other people did certain things (otherwise he would have given a LOT more focus on religion & politics relative to sex). He's writing the book for his own reasons. Everything was done deliberately by him, so everything that exists must be explained by reasons that would fit GRRM. If he wanted to cast doubt on the letter, he could have done so. But instead it's stated as a fact, like so many other facts in F&B that you actually do consider reliable. Quote Again: nope. You're not going to argue against anything I said? Quote A monarch who doesn't decide policy himself but is led around by his advisers is a pawn. Aegon II specifically removed his Hand because he disagreed with his approach to the war. That's not a pawn. Your notion that he removed Otto because he was a pawn of Criston is supported nowhere in the text, unlike Daemon being the one behind Mysaria hiring Blood & Cheese to kill one of Aegon's sons. Quote So random murders are not going to be punished? Yeah, Cersei didn't want to discourage rando murders of dwarves in case one was of Tyrion. Similarly, the murderers figured they might as well kill the dwarf (in a context in which even clergy were already being killed without consequence, hence the rise of the sparrows). Quote Again, where is the quote where Aegon II actually names Aegon III his heir? The quote says that Aegon II agreed with Larys to name Aegon III his heir. GRRM does not need to say that he then proceeded to do the thing he had just agreed to do, rather if he hadn't there would need to be an explanation that this didn't happen. Furthermore, Aegon II was not agreeing for that to happen at some point off in the future (rather he was hoping that Aegon III being heir wouldn't prevent someone else from taking his place in the future), rather he'd been told that Corlys wanted it now as a condition for support. Quote Nope, they did not. Weeks passed between Aegon II's murder and the wedding of Aegon III. Weeks is indeed "after", and Jaehara needed time to travel there at any rate. Quote There is an entire chapter between those events called 'The Hour of the Wolf'. That very chapter says "A lavish coronation was planned for the boy, to be followed by his wedding to the Princess Jaehaera" right in the middle. We hear of the betrothal being agreed to in the previous chapter (which goes right from the death of the king to saying when the wedding took place), in this chapter the wedding is still expected, and nowhere is there any indication that Corlys changed his mind at all about it. Quote Aegon was 'the head monarch' if you will, but Rhaenys and Visenya also sat on the throne. Only when Aegon was absent. Ned Stark also sat on it in Robert's absence. Quote Just read before you write. Quote The war was over (though the peace that followed would soon prove to be far from peaceful). On the seventh day of the seventh moon of the 131st year after Aegon’s Conquest, a date deemed sacred to the gods, the High Septon of Oldtown pronounced the marriage vows as Prince Aegon the Younger, eldest son of Queen Rhaenyra by her uncle Prince Daemon, wed Princess Jaehaera Quote Aegon's wedding is a result of Cregan Stark not continuing his war Cregan is coming into a situation that already existed before he got there. He could decide to kill both bride & groom, which would trivially prevent the wedding, but there's no sense in saying that the wedding is actually the result of him not doing that. Cregan is not badgering Corlys into agreeing to the wedding, rather the wedding is what Corlys already wanted. Ravens had already been sent out by the survivors of Aegon II's council before Cregan arrived. Quote Joffrey Lydden took the crown himself - in part by right of his wife, but mostly because a council proclaimed him king. Why did they proclaim him king? Because he was married to the previous king's only daughter. Quote simply that nothing actually indicates that the Andals had as liberal or inclusive a succession custom as to allow daughters to succeed when there were other male relations around Catelyn was Hoster's heir while her uncle lived, but not after her younger brother was born. And when Alys Karstark is her brother's heir despite her uncle being alive, that doesn't indicate her family are "liberal or inclusive", rather her uncle tries to marry her to his son to claim her inheritance via marriage (as happened with Joffrey Lydden & the Lannisters). Quote Baela and Rhaena and their children were presumptive heirs - like Tommen was Joff's presumptive heir without ever being named heir. A single heir, even if not named, is different from multiple people who might attempt to make a claim while none are clearly the next in line. Quote Again, read before you write. Fair enough on one bit: LC Lorent Marbrand is killed in the same section discussing Perkin's seizure of the Mudfoot garrison & Torrhen's retreat, but he died in Flea Bottom. Quote Borros Baratheon dealt with those people No, Mysaria was killed before Baratheon arrived. When Borros arrived he allied with Perkin to put down the others. Quote and in the name of Aegon II, not Trystane Truefyre Perkin's "gutter knights" gave him power. They had joined in the first place for Trystane, but continued to be useful after he was executed. Quote Lord Celtigar did fill Rhaenyra's coffers with his methods. Those methods resulted in him being castrated. Quote And that happened before she made plans for the celebration. Celtigar was talking about taxing bastards well after such plans "to replenish the Crown's coffers". He was continually trying to collect money (by "ever more exacting taxes" alongside the "fresh heads [...] appearing daily"), not just doing it all in one fell swoop. Quote Nope, this shows how rulers and governments can fail simply because the circumstances put them at a very strong disadvantage. Because GRRM is writing fiction he can stack the deck to make it nigh-impossible to miss the point, but it seems he underestimated you. Her downfall comes shortly after she orders the arrests (or death) of her dragonseeds and alienates her Velaryon supporters. That's not something she was forced to do, that's an error. The proximate cause of the riots is the death of Helaena, after which the deaths of her sons (again, not something Rhaenrya was forced to do, or to condone by raising up Mysaria) is brought up as a reason to oppose Rhaenyra. This goes together with her hated taxes. And GRRM didn't have to add that Rhaenrya was planning that "lavish celebration" for Joffrey, thus showing Rhaenyra didn't give a damn about how her people were straining under her taxes. But he did. Quote just like the governments of Joffrey and Tommen did or might have to, due to the bad financial position they find themselves in The Lannister regime in the main series also makes numerous errors that turn people against them. Joffrey shooting people begging for help with a crossbow and later siccing his KG on the people after a cowpie sparks a riot. And the party they throw for Joffrey's nameday (and later his wedding) shows how little they care for the smallfolk. Quote Rhaenyra was more popular that Alicent's brood Quote Rhaenyra was hated; Helaena had been loved. Nor had the common folk of the city forgotten the cruel murder of Prince Jaehaerys by Blood and Cheese, and the terrible death of Prince Maelor at Bitterbridge. Quote she grew unpopular with the Kingslanders because of her fiscal policies She was called "a grasping and vindictive woman [...] a queen as cruel as any king before her", and as I just quoted people recalled things other than her fiscal policies on the night the riots broke out. Quote She certainly made mistakes but there weren't any alternatives to her tax policies. There are always alternatives. They just would have likely resulted in less money. Not enough money for a "lavish celebration". Quote And her mistakes, etc. didn't cause her downfall Turning against the dragonseeds & Velaryons was quite closely related to that. And, as I keep having to remind you, the proximate cause of the riots was the death of Helaena which was in turn linked to the deaths of her sons. Quote This why the whole Helaena and Blood and Cheese thing doesn't really matter. You need to understand how causality works. When Daniel Drezner accused some other IR theorists of "piss-poor monocausal social science", it was a real dig because sensible people know multiple causes contribute to outcomes. You are choosing to focus on one causal factor and explicitly dismiss the others, even though the text itself tells us they all contributed to the outcome. It would be asinine to claim that oxygen or a spark "doesn't really matter" for some combustion, because that combustion wouldn't happen without hydrocarbons. There are many ingredients that can go in a dish, and many straws that can add up to break a camel's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You should care about absence of evidence as a kind of evidence of absence, and Blood had no reason to withhold the fact that he killed Cheese when he was admitting to so much else. Blood also didn't give away his true name, so the torture didn't seem to have been particularly effective. But, you know - I never made a positive claim that Cheese was dead. I just said that Blood may have killed him. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Laenor isn't a prince, the example showed that even people more royal than Laenor were expected to adhere to the martial aristocratic ideal of manhood. Criston is not angling for any position Laenor was born into, but as a knight he's going to have opinions of other knights. We get plenty from Jaime's POV, usually thinking he's better than others (at least when he has two hands). Jaime respects Loras Tyrell, one of the most accomplished tourney knights of his generation, but there are others who speak of him derisively as "Renly's little rose" or "Knight o' Pansies" (the latter quote from someone even more lowborn than Criston). In another time, the tourney at Whitewalls was supposed to result in a victory for Daemon II Blackfyre (also subject to a same-sex love-triangle among knights resolved via homicide) via rigged opponents. Bittersteel, the most important supporter of the Blackfyre cause over the long run, refused to have anything to do with it, and this is taken as confirmation that the young Daemon is not "his father's son" (which would be "a warrior, not a dreamer"). Look, I don't really care on your points here since I don't care about your original point. I don't think it is a good or reasonable interpretation that Criston Cole may have loathed Laenor for any of his personality traits or sexual preferences, in part because as I said - the very structure of the work does not allow us to pretend that the dialogues given at the Green Council are actually accurate. And as we all know - this whole interpretation doesn't really explain why Cole beat up Harwin Strong as hard as he did. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Otto had long pushed for Aegon to be the heir, which was why he'd been removed as Hand. It's not a "whim" for him to push for the same thing again. The council as a whole was not fanciful, they were deadly serious. Otto & Criston both supported Aegon until they died. The Small Council of Viserys I isn't identical with Otto Hightower, you know. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You yourself have said that Mushroom sometimes comes to correct conclusions based on public knowledge. Why would his private knowledge be irrelevant? Even a broken watch gives you the correct time twice a day. If you have a source spurting as much contradictory nonsense as Mushroom, then the rational way to deal with his claims isn't 'well, he was in the vicinity, so it could be true' but 'Mushroom says that, so we should dismiss it out of hand unless there is a good positive reason why we should consider it.' Mushroom clearly knew that certain things he said are DEAD WRONG yet he still claims them to be true. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It changes what he can know. It actually doesn't. Mushroom not being at a place doesn't mean a buddy of his who was at that place told him stuff later. Mushroom/Eustace being at Dragonstone/KL doesn't mean either of them actually had firsthand knowledge about event E he talks about. At best it makes it more likely that they were told earlier what was going on - but since they wrote/dictated their stuff years or decades later it doesn't actually when exactly they first learned about the event. Even if they witnessed it firsthand their memory would be pretty dim years or decades later. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: His memory isn't discussed. If we were supposed to doubt it, GRRM could have noted it. Man, George writes about people here. We are supposed to treat them like *real people* not magical people with perfect memories. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: But you object to Mushroom's Testimony based on what Gyldayn says about the manuscript industry (applied to A Caution, not the Testimony). If Gyldayn has that reliable knowledge of the manuscript industry, why does Gyldayn not give that as a reason to doubt the Testimony when he himself expressed doubt about multiple passages in it? Because Gyldayn apparently likes to entertain his readers with Mushroom's little stories instead of behaving like a more professional historian and omitting or dismissing most of his claims. Gyldayn isn't George's voice here. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That would be for Daemon's letter, whereas the quote you are responding to was about the Chronicles of Maidenpool (which you also don't accept as evidence). That isn't relevant. Like with the letter, we have no clue whether Gyldayn actually quotes those chronicles. They could be a work Gyldayn only knows by ways of Eustace or Munkun - like is the case with a lot of ancient works we, today, only know fragments of by way of quotes given in other works. I'm not saying this is the case - what I'm saying is that we cannot assume that Gyldayn actually consulted or had access to a text he quoted. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Everything "Gyldayn" writes was written by GRRM. WHY does GRRM have him write those things if we're supposed to dismiss it? Because George wrote a work we can basically dismiss almost completely. And he deliberately wrote such a work. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM isn't doing something just because other people did certain things (otherwise he would have given a LOT more focus on religion & politics relative to sex). He's writing the book for his own reasons. Everything was done deliberately by him, so everything that exists must be explained by reasons that would fit GRRM. If he wanted to cast doubt on the letter, he could have done so. But instead it's stated as a fact, like so many other facts in F&B that you actually do consider reliable. I only consider facts reliable which, by their very nature, would be well-attested within the fictional world, e.g. that the various members of the royal family, the lords and ladies, etc. were born, lived, married, had children, and died. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The quote says that Aegon II agreed with Larys to name Aegon III his heir. GRRM does not need to say that he then proceeded to do the thing he had just agreed to do, rather if he hadn't there would need to be an explanation that this didn't happen. Furthermore, Aegon II was not agreeing for that to happen at some point off in the future (rather he was hoping that Aegon III being heir wouldn't prevent someone else from taking his place in the future), rather he'd been told that Corlys wanted it now as a condition for support. Weeks is indeed "after", and Jaehara needed time to travel there at any rate. That very chapter says "A lavish coronation was planned for the boy, to be followed by his wedding to the Princess Jaehaera" right in the middle. We hear of the betrothal being agreed to in the previous chapter (which goes right from the death of the king to saying when the wedding took place), in this chapter the wedding is still expected, and nowhere is there any indication that Corlys changed his mind at all about it. Again, give me the quote where it is made clear that Aegon III actually was named Aegon II's heir. It isn't there - which means this could have happened or not. The crucial fact is that Aegon III is made king not because he is Aegon II's heir but because the men who make him king murder Aegon II and install a king who has already been the pretender of Aegon II's enemies. And it is made crystal clear that whatever 'informal arrangement' Larys Strong made earlier with Aegon II and Alicent wasn't binding to Lady Baratheon and Jaehaera Targaryen or any of the Greens who might have answered the murder of Aegon II with fire and sword. Aegon III is married to Jaehaera as a result of the Greens (most notably Elenda Baratheon) agreeing to the terms given to her by Corlys Velaryon - and because Cregan Stark agrees to not continue the war. But Aegon III was already proclaimed king at the time - and would have been crowned king even if the Greens had refused the peace terms and the war had continued. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Cregan is coming into a situation that already existed before he got there. He could decide to kill both bride & groom, which would trivially prevent the wedding, but there's no sense in saying that the wedding is actually the result of him not doing that. Cregan is not badgering Corlys into agreeing to the wedding, rather the wedding is what Corlys already wanted. Ravens had already been sent out by the survivors of Aegon II's council before Cregan arrived. I'm still right there - if Cregan had continued the war Aegon III - who was already proclaimed king - wouldn't have married Jaehaera. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why did they proclaim him king? Because he was married to the previous king's only daughter. That was, presumably, part of the reason. Another part would have been that the Andals were taking over the West and wanted to have an Andal king. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Catelyn was Hoster's heir while her uncle lived, but not after her younger brother was born. And when Alys Karstark is her brother's heir despite her uncle being alive, that doesn't indicate her family are "liberal or inclusive", rather her uncle tries to marry her to his son to claim her inheritance via marriage (as happened with Joffrey Lydden & the Lannisters). Give us the quote that Cat was actually Hoster's heir. She was his eldest daughter and thus may have been perceived as his presumptive heir, but we don't actually know whether Hoster ever bothered to name her his heir. Most lord wouldn't do something like that unless they really expected to never have a son. They would only confirm or name a daughter their heir when they are on their deathbed (think Rohanne's father) or expect to die in battle (like Stannis or Robb). And - no, the Karstark situation is different. Arnolf Karstark has already claimed the lordship of Karhold. He doesn't marry Alys herself, he wants to marry her to his heir to strengthen his claim. Joffrey Lydden's kingship was given to him by an unspecified council - and we have no clue what their actual deliberations and decisions and decrees were. We don't know, for instance, whether Joffrey's Lannister wife had any uncles or male cousins who may have challenged her own claim or the claim of her husband. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A single heir, even if not named, is different from multiple people who might attempt to make a claim while none are clearly the next in line. As long an heir isn't named there is just no clear heir. For instance, in your Tully example it is not, in fact, clear who Hoster's heir is while he hasn't named one. Cat, Lysa, and Brynden could all put forth their claims if Hoster suddenly died. How irrelevant something like that primogeniture actually is in Westeros you see when the regency council discusses the succession of Aegon III - or when the Great Council even accepts and discusses ridiculous claims like those of a distant descendant of Gaemon the Glorious, unacknowledged bastard children, etc. - since the men there do not actually say 'Baela Targaryen is the next in line since she is the young king's eldest living half-sister' but put forth ridiculous points like 'who is/was a dragonrider', 'who is more tractable/popular', etc. If those are serious arguments when an unclear succession is discussed then the Westerosi succession customs are, quite frankly, very flexible and something like 'a daughter comes before an uncle' isn't more important than something 'but, I, personally, do like this person better than the other.' 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, Mysaria was killed before Baratheon arrived. When Borros arrived he allied with Perkin to put down the others. I didn't talk about Mysaria, I meant the other pretenders. They were not put down by Perkin the Flea but by Borros Baratheon in the name of Aegon II. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Those methods resulted in him being castrated. And that is an argument for what? You don't deny that Celtigar was successful in filling the coffers, do you? That this made him unpopular as hell isn't in doubt. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Celtigar was talking about taxing bastards well after such plans "to replenish the Crown's coffers". He was continually trying to collect money (by "ever more exacting taxes" alongside the "fresh heads [...] appearing daily"), not just doing it all in one fell swoop. It is still made clear by the text that Rhaenyra already had filled her coffers when she started to make plans for Joff's investiture celebration. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Because GRRM is writing fiction he can stack the deck to make it nigh-impossible to miss the point, but it seems he underestimated you. Her downfall comes shortly after she orders the arrests (or death) of her dragonseeds and alienates her Velaryon supporters. That's not something she was forced to do, that's an error. The proximate cause of the riots is the death of Helaena, after which the deaths of her sons (again, not something Rhaenrya was forced to do, or to condone by raising up Mysaria) is brought up as a reason to oppose Rhaenyra. This goes together with her hated taxes. And GRRM didn't have to add that Rhaenrya was planning that "lavish celebration" for Joffrey, thus showing Rhaenyra didn't give a damn about how her people were straining under her taxes. But he did. The point is that we are at first led to believe all those secondary issues caused her downfall ... until Gyldayn finally discusses Tyland and his accomplishments. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There are always alternatives. They just would have likely resulted in less money. Not enough money for a "lavish celebration". Any such lavish ceremonies are also for the benefit of the smallfolk - like the Golden Wedding or Aegon III's own lavish coronation. Chances are that bad that if Rhaenyra could have entertained her people well enough at Joff's investiture she may have regained some of her popularity. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Turning against the dragonseeds & Velaryons was quite closely related to that. And, as I keep having to remind you, the proximate cause of the riots was the death of Helaena which was in turn linked to the deaths of her sons. I don't care about that. That's just an in-universe interpretation of events. 17 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You need to understand how causality works. When Daniel Drezner accused some other IR theorists of "piss-poor monocausal social science", it was a real dig because sensible people know multiple causes contribute to outcomes. You are choosing to focus on one causal factor and explicitly dismiss the others, even though the text itself tells us they all contributed to the outcome. It would be asinine to claim that oxygen or a spark "doesn't really matter" for some combustion, because that combustion wouldn't happen without hydrocarbons. There are many ingredients that can go in a dish, and many straws that can add up to break a camel's back. LOL, just stop using scientific comparisons here. There are claims that rumors about Helaena's death were important among some of the rioteers, but it is very obvious that the actual cause of all the riots was the immense fear and panic among the Kingslanders that they and their city would suffer the same fate as Tumbleton and its people. Anything else is just ridiculous. The common people don't give two cents about the fate of royalty when things are going well for them. Even something as heinous as the Red Wedding - an event where tens of thousands of common people were also slaughtered - doesn't cause a widespread rebellion against the Lannisters or Freys. What makes their situation more and more dire is the general state in which the Riverlands actually are. People continue to suffer, the Red Wedding didn't end it. It can serve as a rallying point to the enemies of the Lannisters and Freys, but it didn't cause anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 On 1/23/2022 at 3:56 PM, Lord Varys said: Blood also didn't give away his true name He had good reason not to do that considering the retaliation his family would face. Quote I never made a positive claim that Cheese was dead. I just said that Blood may have killed him. All sorts of things "might" be the case in that they are not logically impossible, but there's no reason to believe that's the case considering Blood said nothing about that and he had no reason to withhold it. Quote I don't think it is a good or reasonable interpretation that Criston Cole may have loathed Laenor for any of his personality traits or sexual preferences, in part because as I said - the very structure of the work does not allow us to pretend that the dialogues given at the Green Council are actually accurate. Orwyle was there. A confessor to Eustace who confided in him was there. There's disagreement over some parts of that meeting but NOT what Criston said. GRRM gives no indication that we should distrust that passage, rather we are told that if both Eustace & Mushroom agree on something it's probably reliable. Aside from all that, Criston loathing Laenor for his sexuality fits very well with him beating Laenor's lover to death! You can selectively dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit your headcanon and preferred narrative, but to everyone else there is your regular responsen "lol don't care". Quote And as we all know - this whole interpretation doesn't really explain why Cole beat up Harwin Strong as hard as he did. In the same paragraph where he denounced Laenor for his sexuality he already denounced Rhaenyra for having bastards with Harwin, who was already her lover by the time of that tourney. Quote The Small Council of Viserys I isn't identical with Otto Hightower, you know. The council was not flipping coins or saying "Oh, sure, whatever". They swore a blood oath. That's about as far from a whim as you can get! Quote 'well, he was in the vicinity, so it could be true' A claim "could be true" regardless of whether he was in the vicinity. Him being in the vicinity means he has access to information that others wouldn't. Quote 'Mushroom says that, so we should dismiss it out of hand Which is not the approach Gyldayn takes, or says readers should take. Rather, it would be very strange for GRRM to devote so much to Mushroom's Testimony when we're just supposed to "dismiss it out of hand". There is another phrase for information that it is to be used, though not too credulously: "taken with a grain of salt". Quote It actually doesn't. Mushroom not being at a place doesn't mean a buddy of his who was at that place told him stuff later. Mushroom being at a place means he can know things directly WITHOUT the mediation of "a buddy of his". Quote Mushroom/Eustace being at Dragonstone/KL doesn't mean either of them actually had firsthand knowledge about event E he talks about. There are events they claim to be eyewitnesses to. That's firsthand knowledge. Quote We are supposed to treat them like *real people* not magical people with perfect memories. They're fictional characters, not real people. This is a work of fiction. A work of fiction by a man without much consideration for the gap in timing between events. When GRRM wants to give a character imperfect memory, he can do so and has talked about doing so for a reason. We the readers can know that Sansa misremembers her interaction with Sandor because we have her earlier POV material to compare to her later memory, and reason based on what we know of Sansa why she would misremember in that particular way. If Sansa's POV had been absent from ACoK, we readers would just accept her memory, just as we accept the things remembered in lots of other POV chapters in the main series. Quote Because Gyldayn apparently likes to entertain his readers with Mushroom's little stories instead of behaving like a more professional historian and omitting or dismissing most of his claims. He can entertain readers by quoting Mushroom's stories while also dismissing them, just as Eustace would raises rumors he dismissed. Instead he takes a number (thought not all) of Mushroom's claims seriously and says the evidence supports some of them. Quote Gyldayn isn't George's voice here. GRRM wrote the entire thing as Gyldayn. Gyldayn himself doesn't have much of a character, so there isn't an easy way for the reader to adjust for his perspective, particularly without any other historian to provide a contrasting POV. Quote we have no clue whether Gyldayn actually quotes those chronicles Quote the Chronicles of Maidenpool as set down by Lord Mooton’s maester. Maester Norren writes that “the prince and his bastard girl” supped together every night, broke their fast together every morning, slept in adjoining bedchambers, that the prince “doted upon the brown girl as a man might dote upon his daughter,” That is him quoting the chronicle. Your view is that Gyldayn might just be lying and that Norren didn't actually write that, even though we are given no reason whatsoever to believe that might be the case. Quote They could be a work Gyldayn only knows by ways of Eustace When does Eustace ever cite a maester's chronicle? Quote like is the case with a lot of ancient works we, today, only know fragments of by way of quotes given in other works The Dance of the Dragons was fought less than two centuries before Gyldayn wrote F&B. During that time there was no collapse of civilization, and the literate order of maesters continued their writing uninterrupted. Quote we cannot assume that Gyldayn actually consulted or had access to a text he quoted. Why would GRRM have him quote it otherwise? Quote Because George wrote a work we can basically dismiss almost completely. And he deliberately wrote such a work. WHY would he write a work we can "basically dismiss almost completely"? That would seem to be an enormous waste of time for someone already behind on writing a number of other works in the same universe! Quote Again, give me the quote where it is made clear that Aegon III actually was named Aegon II's heir. I already gave you the quote where Aegon II agreed to it. What you are demanding is a redundancy. Quote The crucial fact is that Aegon III is made king not because he is Aegon II's heir but because the men who make him king murder Aegon II Larys & Corlys conspired to kill Aegon II AFTER the latter had agreed to make Aegon III heir. All that material involving that agreement would seem rather pointless if he was never actually named heir, but you seem to think F&B is mostly to be dismissed anyway. Quote And it is made crystal clear that whatever 'informal arrangement' Why is that in quotes? That phrase appears nowhere in F&B, so I don't know who you're supposed to be quoting. Quote with Aegon II and Alicent wasn't binding to Lady Baratheon and Jaehaera Targaryen It's true that dead people can't enforce their edicts, but Jaehaera was married to Aegon III, as per the earlier agreement. Quote Another part would have been that the Andals were taking over the West and wanted to have an Andal king. There are lots of Andals who could have a lot of different preferred kings, but we aren't told any Andals were on that council. What Andals wanted isn't discussed there. Quote the Karstark situation is different Quote My brother Harry is the rightful lord, and by law I am his heir. A daughter comes before an uncle. Uncle Arnolf is only castellan Quote A daughter comes before an uncle too. If her brother is dead, Karhold belongs to Lady Alys. Quote Arnolf Karstark has already claimed the lordship of Karhold. Quote Karstark was no lord in truth, Asha had been given to understand, only castellan of Karhold for as long as the true lord remained a captive of the Lannisters. He certainly can't be lord if the current lord is still alive. Quote Cat, Lysa, and Brynden could all put forth their claims if Hoster suddenly died. On what basis could Lysa make a claim when she is the younger sister? Quote or when the Great Council even accepts and discusses ridiculous claims like those of a distant descendant of Gaemon the Glorious, unacknowledged bastard children The point of the GC was to have candidates evaluated. We are told "The tenuous claims of nine lesser competitors were considered and discarded (one such, a hedge knight who put himself forward as a natural son of King Jaehaerys himself, was seized and imprisoned when the king exposed him as a liar)". That's not "accepting" all such claims, that's hearing them. Quote the men there do not actually say 'Baela Targaryen is the next in line since she is the young king's eldest living half-sister' Quote Ser Tyland pointed out that Baela had been the first from her mother’s womb. Recall also that the Great Council of 101's precedent implied not only that males inherit before females, but that succession does not even travel through the female line, so half-siblings would only count if their father was also Daemon. Quote ridiculous points like 'who is/was a dragonrider' Not ridiculous at all for Targaryens. Aegon I didn't become king via inheritance but because his dragons were enough to make the Westerosi submit to him and acclaim him king. Aenys' legitimacy was doubted early on, and his bond with Quicksilver helped turn things around. The Targaryen "doctrine of exceptionalism" is based on them riding dragons, and it's implied their incestuous practices help bind their bloodline to said dragons. Quote something like 'a daughter comes before an uncle' isn't more important than something 'but, I, personally, do like this person better than the other.' The lack of "I, personally" makes the former more of a Schelling point. Which is how such norms of succession emerge. Quote They were not put down by Perkin the Flea but by Borros Baratheon in the name of Aegon II. Quote The Clubfoot promised that Ser Perkin and his gutter knights would join the stormlanders in restoring King Aegon II to the Iron Throne [...] Lord Borros led his knights up the hill from the west, whilst Ser Perkin and his gutter knights climbed the steeper southern slope from Flea Bottom. They joined together for that. Quote You don't deny that Celtigar was successful in filling the coffers, do you? Celtigar himself thought more taxes were necessary to "replenish the crown's coffers". I won't deny he raised some revenue, but the "lavish celebration" Rhaenyra planned placed a higher burden on him. Quote It is still made clear by the text that Rhaenyra already had filled her coffers when she started to make plans for Joff's investiture celebration. You could quote the text rather than just giving us your spin on it. Quote The point is that we are at first led to believe all those secondary issues caused her downfall ... until Gyldayn finally discusses Tyland and his accomplishments. Gyldayn told us about Tyland hiding the gold and the taxes Celtigar enacted prior to Helaena's death. Quote Any such lavish ceremonies are also for the benefit of the smallfolk - like the Golden Wedding or Aegon III's own lavish coronation. No, all taxes* depend on changing consumption. And in the premodern era all business cycles are real business cycles. What Rhaenyra wants to do is to redirect resources that her subjects would have used on themselves, and instead use them for her "lavish celebration". The SC tries to tell Ned that the Hand's Tourney is good for the city, but they don't actually give a damn about the smallfolk. What it does is alter consumption in wasteful ways that result in people like Anguy getting very drunk. *The linked example there is wrong in the specific that taxation can alter that person's consumption, but right in its general point. Quote I don't care about that. That's just an in-universe interpretation of events. The riots broke out ON THE VERY NIGHT Helaena died. How much more obvious could GRRM make the importance of that? Quote LOL, just stop using scientific comparisons here. I brought up social science specifically. And analyzing the sources of riots in the real world would be in the domain of social science. I brought up the natural sciences to make it extra obvious how multiple factors can contribute to an outcome. Quote There are claims that rumors about Helaena's death were important among some of the rioteers The timing of the riots makes it not just speculation, although the recollection that "rioters spread throughout the city, shouting for justice for the dead princes and their murdered mother" makes it extra obvious. As does the Shepherd's quote "this unnatural queen who sits bleeding on the Iron Throne, her whore’s lips glistening and red with the blood of her sweet sister" Quote it is very obvious that the actual cause of all the riots was the immense fear and panic among the Kingslanders that they and their city would suffer the same fate as Tumbleton and its people. Elsewhere you were saying the real cause was Tyland hiding the money so Rhaenyra had no choice but to raise taxes. And there you had Wat killing Celtigar and explicitly venting against the taxes. It's only "obvious" in your mind because you decide to ignore all the other factors the text itself highlights. Quote The common people don't give two cents about the fate of royalty when things are going well for them. But things AREN'T going well for them, thanks to those taxes. So your point is irrelevant. Quote Even something as heinous as the Red Wedding - an event where tens of thousands of common people were also slaughtered - doesn't cause a widespread rebellion against the Lannisters or Freys. The Brotherhood Without Banners are rebelling against the Freys, killing a number of them already and with more planned in the future. And Qyburn relays that the Sparrows demand justice for the RW (resulting in Cersei trying to shift all the blame onto Walder Frey). Quote It can serve as a rallying point to the enemies of the Lannisters and Freys, but it didn't cause anything. It changed the nature of the BWB. Before Beric did things like give Sandor a trial and permit him to live. They are in a much darker place now, just killing as many Freys as they can to fill Stoneheart's insatiable desire for vengeance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He had good reason not to do that considering the retaliation his family would face. LOL, so he had good reason to not give his own name but he should have talked about his comrade? 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: All sorts of things "might" be the case in that they are not logically impossible, but there's no reason to believe that's the case considering Blood said nothing about that and he had no reason to withhold it. You know, he could even have told them, I don't really care. All we know is that Gyldayn and his sources either don't know or don't talk about it. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Orwyle was there. A confessor to Eustace who confided in him was there. There's disagreement over some parts of that meeting but NOT what Criston said. GRRM gives no indication that we should distrust that passage, rather we are told that if both Eustace & Mushroom agree on something it's probably reliable. Aside from all that, Criston loathing Laenor for his sexuality fits very well with him beating Laenor's lover to death! You can selectively dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit your headcanon and preferred narrative, but to everyone else there is your regular responsen "lol don't care". I don't care only about Gyldayn's assessments. He is a faulty and not very good historian. I also care about common sense assessment of the general situation and there you are far beyond rational discourse if you ever want to sell anyone the idea that a record of the first Green Council session could actually be accurate insofar as literal quotes are given. At best, there might be a reconstruction of events. Pointing out that Eustace could know any actual quotes is laughable unless you want to claim that somebody confessing his sins to Eustace would actually give him accurate quotes from his memory ... and Eustace would then write them down before he would forget them. That Eustace's memory isn't worth much can be drawn from his speculation about Sunfyre being the Swann dragon - if you think it must have been Syrax. You are making a fool of yourself here. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: In the same paragraph where he denounced Laenor for his sexuality he already denounced Rhaenyra for having bastards with Harwin, who was already her lover by the time of that tourney. LOL, what? Are we know claiming that Criston Cole magically knew that Rhaenyra may have had an affair with Harwin Strong at Rhaenyra's wedding tourney? What's your basis for such an outlandish claim? We don't have very strong textual evidence for an affair ... but even if we buy that then the main 'evidence' for such an affair is the looks of Rhaenyra's sons - who were born long after her wedding. The obvious way to make sense of Criston's issues with Harwin is to assume that Criston was pissed that Harwin had replaced him as Rhaenyra's companion and sworn shield. But, of course, for that you would have to jump off the Mushroom bandwagon and actually go with the Eustace narrative which you simply won't do. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The council was not flipping coins or saying "Oh, sure, whatever". They swore a blood oath. That's about as far from a whim as you can get! They swore a blood oath after they decided that they would crown Aegon II, not before. You are aware that they originally expected the council session to start preparations for the coronation of Rhaenyra, right? 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: A claim "could be true" regardless of whether he was in the vicinity. Him being in the vicinity means he has access to information that others wouldn't. It means somebody can have access to information others might not. But this is not a necessity, just increased likelihood. You basically make the silly case that 'physicial closeness = more reliability of narrative given' and that's just nonsense, especially in Mushroom's case. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Which is not the approach Gyldayn takes, or says readers should take. Rather, it would be very strange for GRRM to devote so much to Mushroom's Testimony when we're just supposed to "dismiss it out of hand". There is another phrase for information that it is to be used, though not too credulously: "taken with a grain of salt". LOL, no, Mushroom's Testimony should be taken with a bag of salt, not a grain of salt. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mushroom being at a place means he can know things directly WITHOUT the mediation of "a buddy of his". You really don't get it, do you? Mushroom is a guy who doesn't have the interest to give us reliable information. He wants to entertain and to mock and insult the important people he once worked for. He is about as reliable as a broken watch. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: There are events they claim to be eyewitnesses to. That's firsthand knowledge. And whenever Mushroom claims to be an eyewitness we should basically stop listening because he is likely to tell us about the importance of his member. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: They're fictional characters, not real people. This is a work of fiction. A work of fiction by a man without much consideration for the gap in timing between events. When GRRM wants to give a character imperfect memory, he can do so and has talked about doing so for a reason. We the readers can know that Sansa misremembers her interaction with Sandor because we have her earlier POV material to compare to her later memory, and reason based on what we know of Sansa why she would misremember in that particular way. If Sansa's POV had been absent from ACoK, we readers would just accept her memory, just as we accept the things remembered in lots of other POV chapters in the main series. LOL, man, this is still a history book involving sources that are *like real people*. And eyewitness testimony is unreliable shit as we well know. There are countless studies about that. If George wanted us to take this history book seriously to the degree you desperately seem to want to take it seriously he should have established that folks have perfect memory, that the historians and sources had access to transcripts of council sessions and the like, meaning that we can assume that quotes of conversation given might be actually accurate. But we know from the main books that nobody actually writes down what's said at a Small Council meeting, so such a scenario would be at odds with how things are done in the novels. Instead, the books is nothing more than a fun little side project. It gives us the gist of the Targaryen history, and some funny anecdotes. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He can entertain readers by quoting Mushroom's stories while also dismissing them, just as Eustace would raises rumors he dismissed. Instead he takes a number (thought not all) of Mushroom's claims seriously and says the evidence supports some of them. But that's just Gyldayn's opinion. We don't have to agree with him, do we? 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM wrote the entire thing as Gyldayn. Gyldayn himself doesn't have much of a character, so there isn't an easy way for the reader to adjust for his perspective, particularly without any other historian to provide a contrasting POV. You do know how literature works, right? The author isn't part of the work in any case. That would be narrator, an artificial construct. Gyldayn is the narrator of FaB and he is obviously not an omniscient narrator, so his assessment doesn't have to be taken at face value - unlike, you know, when the narrator of ASoIaF says that this or that character wears a dress, that the sun is going up right now, or a crossbow bolt has just pierced Tywin's guts. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: That is him quoting the chronicle. Your view is that Gyldayn might just be lying and that Norren didn't actually write that, even though we are given no reason whatsoever to believe that might be the case. When does Eustace ever cite a maester's chronicle? Nope, my point was pretty easy to understand. It is that we don't know how Gyldayn knows the chronicle. Did he himself investigate the Nettles story, doing original research at Maidenpool with the chronicle (or wherever it was kept at the time)? Or were Munkun and Eustace doing research on the Nettles thing, causing them to go to Maidenpool to consult the chronicle and giving quotes from it in their works and Gyldayn later quoted Norren by ways of Eustace or Munkun? The latter is actually what I would consider to be no unlikely. We cannot pretend just because somebody quoted something he gives an accurate quote or a quote from the original work and not from a book which gave the same quote before. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Dance of the Dragons was fought less than two centuries before Gyldayn wrote F&B. During that time there was no collapse of civilization, and the literate order of maesters continued their writing uninterrupted. Who cares? That's not necessary. Gyldayn could be just a lazy archmaester working at the Citadel. I mean, you are aware that those folks actually do have teaching jobs, right? They are not paid to travel to Maidenpool or Dragonstone or KL to write a popular history about the royal family. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: WHY would he write a work we can "basically dismiss almost completely"? That would seem to be an enormous waste of time for someone already behind on writing a number of other works in the same universe! Because the entire point of the book is that it is a faulty in-universe history book and not something that's as reliable as one of the novels. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I already gave you the quote where Aegon II agreed to it. What you are demanding is a redundancy. It isn't a reduncancy since we already saw Alicent and Corlys coming to the same understanding before ... and then nothing came of that. Meaning we cannot pretend it must have happened the second time it was 'agreed' that this would be done. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Larys & Corlys conspired to kill Aegon II AFTER the latter had agreed to make Aegon III heir. All that material involving that agreement would seem rather pointless if he was never actually named heir, but you seem to think F&B is mostly to be dismissed anyway. Actually, the entire point of that thing is to explain why the hell Aegon II didn't just kill the future Aegon III. I do not deny that this whole deal laid the groundwork for the eventual marriage of Aegon and Jaehaera and the terms Corlys later offered the remaining Greens ... but this still doesn't mean or confirms that Aegon II actually named Aegon III his heir or that Jaehaera was formally betrothed to him. It is, for instance, possible that they planned to officially do that once Jaehaera was finally brought back to court - which also didn't happen in Aegon II's lifetime. And as I said - Aegon III didn't become king because Aegon II named him his heir or wanted him to succeed him - but because Aegon II was murdered and Aegon III proclaimed king in his stead. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's true that dead people can't enforce their edicts, but Jaehaera was married to Aegon III, as per the earlier agreement. Nope, she was married to Aegon III as per the terms of a newer agreement made by Corlys Velaryon, Cregan Stark, and Elenda Baratheon. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: There are lots of Andals who could have a lot of different preferred kings, but we aren't told any Andals were on that council. What Andals wanted isn't discussed there. What?! The whole point of the Lydden story is to explain how the Lannisters became andalized, how the Andals took over the West and Casterly Rock. We don't know who was part of that council but the fact that they made the Andal husband of the Lannister daughter their ruling king rather than crowning the woman their queen regnant makes it pretty clear that this was an Andal power grab - although of lesser degree than what happened in some of the other kingdoms. That there was strife going on there is also hinted at by the fact that there was a council since Gerold III having only a single child would have indicated that she was his only heir ... and he married her to an Andal. It seems that not all Lords of the West were happy with the prospect of having an Andal king - or queen with an Andal consort. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He certainly can't be lord if the current lord is still alive. And Alys Karstark's opinions on the matter should concern us ... why exactly? 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: On what basis could Lysa make a claim when she is the younger sister? On the basis that her father was the Lord of Riverrun? 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The point of the GC was to have candidates evaluated. We are told "The tenuous claims of nine lesser competitors were considered and discarded (one such, a hedge knight who put himself forward as a natural son of King Jaehaerys himself, was seized and imprisoned when the king exposed him as a liar)". That's not "accepting" all such claims, that's hearing them. If you hear something in such a setting you accept them simply by that act. You accept that those claims exist. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Recall also that the Great Council of 101's precedent implied not only that males inherit before females, but that succession does not even travel through the female line, so half-siblings would only count if their father was also Daemon. There is no such implication, simply an interpretation by some radicals ... who were summarily ignored in 105 AC. If the female line was completely invalid then the half-sisters would have no claim at all, meaning the Iron Throne would have to remain empty in absence of a male heir from the male line. Which is why Munkun's point is completely ridiculous. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not ridiculous at all for Targaryens. Aegon I didn't become king via inheritance but because his dragons were enough to make the Westerosi submit to him and acclaim him king. Aenys' legitimacy was doubted early on, and his bond with Quicksilver helped turn things around. The Targaryen "doctrine of exceptionalism" is based on them riding dragons, and it's implied their incestuous practices help bind their bloodline to said dragons. That's just nonsense on your point. Nobody ever said anything about anyone having a legal claim to anyone because they are or were a dragonrider. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Celtigar himself thought more taxes were necessary to "replenish the crown's coffers". I won't deny he raised some revenue, but the "lavish celebration" Rhaenyra planned placed a higher burden on him. Well, perhaps Corlys would have paid for the entire thing. We don't even know she wanted to pay it with her own money. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: You could quote the text rather than just giving us your spin on it. Oh, so you don't have a perfect memory yourself? 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Gyldayn told us about Tyland hiding the gold and the taxes Celtigar enacted prior to Helaena's death. No, all taxes* depend on changing consumption. And in the premodern era all business cycles are real business cycles. What Rhaenyra wants to do is to redirect resources that her subjects would have used on themselves, and instead use them for her "lavish celebration". The SC tries to tell Ned that the Hand's Tourney is good for the city, but they don't actually give a damn about the smallfolk. What it does is alter consumption in wasteful ways that result in people like Anguy getting very drunk. *The linked example there is wrong in the specific that taxation can alter that person's consumption, but right in its general point. That's mostly nonsense considering that in this medieval setting the money of the Crown and the tax revenue of the Crown would only be consumed by the Crown, and not the general public. Rhaenyra needed money for herself, her court, and her war effort, not to maintain public life in KL. The Greens stole the money in the treasury Rhaenyra could have used to spend on the smallfolk ... which is why she had to raise the taxes. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The riots broke out ON THE VERY NIGHT Helaena died. How much more obvious could GRRM make the importance of that? By actually establishing that people do care about the lives of royalty in those books. Which rarely happens on the personal level (for instance, we can assume that the man Bean volunteering for Maegor's Trial of Seven actually loved House Targaryen) and literally never in relation to popular uprising. At best we can say that Helaena's death was used by the people inciting folks to riot as a pretext. Keep in mind that both the Shepherd and Perkin the Flea/Larys Strong arranged those riots. There were not spontaneous uprisings by the smallfolk. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I brought up social science specifically. And analyzing the sources of riots in the real world would be in the domain of social science. I brought up the natural sciences to make it extra obvious how multiple factors can contribute to an outcome. Something like the ruling class ripping each other apart is literally never the cause or reason why the lower classes revolt. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Elsewhere you were saying the real cause was Tyland hiding the money so Rhaenyra had no choice but to raise taxes. And there you had Wat killing Celtigar and explicitly venting against the taxes. It's only "obvious" in your mind because you decide to ignore all the other factors the text itself highlights. The taxes - to which there was no alternative - were the reason why Rhaenyra was unpopular - if she hadn't been unpopular she would have never been overthrown. The fear and panic thanks to the threat of the Green army and the Green dragons is the actual cause of the riots - without that pretty much nobody would have listened to the Shepherd, pretty much nobody would have followed Ser Perkin, etc. 13 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Brotherhood Without Banners are rebelling against the Freys, killing a number of them already and with more planned in the future. And Qyburn relays that the Sparrows demand justice for the RW (resulting in Cersei trying to shift all the blame onto Walder Frey). Because by now they are literally run by a woman who was killed at the Red Wedding. And they are not 'rebelling' against the Freys, they are clandestinely murdering Freys. That's literally the opposite of rebellion. By comparison, something as mad as the riots in KL during the Dance can only be explained by people working themselves into such a frenzy because they were so afraid for their lives that they would do something as mad as storm the Dragonpit, getting themselves killed by the hundreds or thousands. The Riverlanders do not even remotely consider storming the Twins in a similar manner - which is the point I was making. Something like the death of a queen cannot trigger the kind of behavior the Kingslanders show in 130 AC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 On 1/25/2022 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said: so he had good reason to not give his own name but he should have talked about his comrade? What negative consequence would he face for saying that he killed somebody they themselves wanted to find & kill alongside him? Quote he could even have told them, I don't really care. All we know is that Gyldayn and his sources either don't know or don't talk about it. They do talk about it. It's not a mere absence of evidence, it's evidence of absence: "no trace of Cheese or the White Worm was ever found". Aegon kills the ratcatchers of KL out of frustration. Quote I also care about common sense assessment of the general situation and there you are far beyond rational discourse if you ever want to sell anyone the idea that a record of the first Green Council session could actually be accurate insofar as literal quotes are given. What makes your personal opinion "common sense"? Is this what most readers believe? Quote Pointing out that Eustace could know any actual quotes is laughable unless you want to claim that somebody confessing his sins to Eustace would actually give him accurate quotes from his memory ... and Eustace would then write them down before he would forget them. It's not like the quotes we have are as long as Barth's account of Aerea. A short quote could be remembered reasonably (you might have an unusual definition of "reasonable") accurately. Quote That Eustace's memory isn't worth much can be drawn from his speculation about Sunfyre being the Swann dragon - if you think it must have been Syrax. Eustace didn't even include that in his history. That was in a later letter, and it's described as him "suggest[ing]" rather than remembering. Quote You are making a fool of yourself here. Someone is Quote Are we know claiming that Criston Cole magically knew that Rhaenyra may have had an affair with Harwin Strong at Rhaenyra's wedding tourney? What's your basis for such an outlandish claim? He knew Laenor was having an affair with Joffrey without needing any offspring to look like Joffrey. He knew Rhaenyra better than Laenor, having served her for years, and in this account he knew even more about her desire to sleep with her sworn shield to spurn her husband. Quote We don't have very strong textual evidence for an affair Come on. You can insist all you want that all three kids looking like someone other than the father isn't "strong textual evidence", but GRRM himself made that sufficient evidence for the correct (even if outlandish) deduction in the first book of the series. Quote assume that Criston was pissed that Harwin had replaced him as Rhaenyra's companion and sworn shield. But, of course, for that you would have to jump off the Mushroom bandwagon and actually go with the Eustace narrative which you simply won't do. No, I actually do think Criston regarded it as a snub that he was replaced. Criston had risen to prominence as Rhaenyra's sworn shield, and in his mind deserved such a high position for exemplifying KG ideals. A knight like Harwin who "lacked Ser Criston's scruples" was less deserving of such a position, and for him to receive it precisely BECAUSE of his unscrupulous willingness to help Rhaenyra make a mockery of her marriage would be the most hateful thing possible. If Criston had no reason to think Harwin was having an affair with her, and instead he was just some other knight who happened to be around, he would merit less spite. Quote They swore a blood oath after they decided that they would crown Aegon II, not before. They didn't flip a coin or shrug before the oath either. Quote You are aware that they originally expected the council session to start preparations for the coronation of Rhaenyra, right? Orwyle did. But he didn't change on a "whim" either, he did after seeing how much of the SC vociferously opposed Rhaenyra. Quote You basically make the silly case that 'physicial closeness = more reliability of narrative given' I did not express it as an equation, nor do I think every case of a person being physically close is reliable (I think Orwyle lied about Beesbury). Rather, that source is more reliable than they could be absent that closeness. It's not irrelevant, even if it's also not a guarantee. Quote LOL, no, Mushroom's Testimony should be taken with a bag of salt, not a grain of salt. We can debate what quantity of salt is reasonable. But Gyldayn clearly places Mushroom's work within the domain of "bounded distrust": there are parts where he can guess "just Mushroom being Mushroom" and others to take more seriously. Your stance is that we should discount basically all of it by default, along with huge swathes of F&B as a whole. To me that doesn't make sense because GRRM wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing all of that and even having a maester talk about which parts are reliable vs doubtful and give a method for detecting reliability (seeing where different accounts agree). Quote Mushroom is a guy who doesn't have the interest to give us reliable information. He wants to entertain and to mock and insult the important people he once worked for. He is about as reliable as a broken watch. Mushroom wants to entertain AND dish the info he was privileged to have access to. There are repeated instances where Gyldayn notes Mushroom's claim is independently supported, moreso than Eustace. I don't think it's just chance that the one claim from Munkun which came pre-debunked in ADWD was corrected by "broken clock" Mushroom. Quote And whenever Mushroom claims to be an eyewitness we should basically stop listening because he is likely to tell us about the importance of his member. If Mushroom said something like "Lyonel Strong gifted King Viserys a valyrian steel dagger which the king praised as a great gift, at which I whipped out my own member and scoffed that it was not nearly so great in size as my own" I would guess that the gifting was probably real even if the phallic demonstration was not. Quote this is still a history book A fake history book, written by a non-historian. Quote involving sources that are *like real people* Only as much like reality as GRRM likes them to be. A guy who wrote "Reality is plywood and plastic, done up in mud brown and olive drab. [...] Reality is beans and tofu, and ashes at the end. Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. [...] Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines. Why do our dreams become so much smaller when they finally come true?" You are making F&B "smaller" by saying it should mostly be dismissed because you demand a match against real historiography GRRM is uninterested in. Quote And eyewitness testimony is unreliable shit as we well know. There are countless studies about that. Do you think GRRM wants his writing to reflect those "countless studies"? Or does he write POV characters specifically to give his readers access to info they wouldn't otherwise have? Quote If George wanted us to take this history book seriously to the degree you desperately seem to want to take it seriously he should have established that folks have perfect memory, that the historians and sources had access to transcripts of council sessions and the like, meaning that we can assume that quotes of conversation given might be actually accurate. He's writing fantasy, not realism, so he doesn't need to bother. And he would not have bothered writing all that material if we were supposed to just dismiss it. Quote Instead, the books is nothing more than a fun little side project. All of the books are supposed to be fun. They're fantasy. F&B has a page-count comparable to a novel in the main series, even though it's only part 1. And it's going to be adapted into yet another TV series! Quote But that's just Gyldayn's opinion. We don't have to agree with him, do we? GRRM wrote everything Gyldayn "writes". He wrote it all deliberately. There's a reason GRRM has Gyldayn take some things seriously and expresses skepticism toward others. On a topic like magic where readers know maesters are overly skeptical, we can use that "bounded distrust" to skeptically evaluate the skeptic himself. Otherwise the default should be to take him seriously. Quote You do know how literature works, right? Let's talk about narrative art generally. If you consume a story and want to discuss it with me, and I say "None of that happened in-universe, it was all just the dream of a magic beetle", you would need some very solid evidence for my beetle theory before discarding your presumption that the narrative is to be taken seriously. Quote Gyldayn is the narrator of FaB and he is obviously not an omniscient narrator Yes, he himself says there are cases where the truth is ambiguous or just completely unavailable! Quote his assessment doesn't have to be taken at face value - unlike, you know, when the narrator of ASoIaF For me it goes the other way. A POV in the main series can get things wrong, and it's acceptable because another POV can contradict them and thus tip the audience off that they were wrong. With the profusion of POVs we can learn their distinct traits and the ways they might be unreliable. With Gyldayn we didn't get that, we aren't going to get that, and GRRM knew it when he wrote it (his substitute instead was to have conflicting sources and a narrator who admits uncertainty). Gyldayn is not personally involved in any of the events, he's just writing at a sholarly remove without much of a character for himself. So what can the audience do with that? Quote were Munkun and Eustace doing research on the Nettles thing, causing them to go to Maidenpool to consult the chronicle and giving quotes from it in their works and Gyldayn later quoted Norren by ways of Eustace or Munkun? When does Eustace quote any maester's account? Why privilege the hypothesis that Eustace was the actual source rather than the one Gyldayn cites? Why would GRRM secretly have that be what actually happened but give no such indication to the reader? Quote We cannot pretend just because somebody quoted something he gives an accurate quote or a quote from the original work and not from a book which gave the same quote before. GRRM is the source of ALL the quotes, as well as the surrounding text quoting them. It's all as accurate as he wants it to be. If he wants to destroy part of a text to deprive readers, as in that account of the Tragedy of Summerhall, he can do so. Quote Who cares? You should care. If it was thousands of years ago and civilization collapsed, went through a dark age, and then re-emerged you would have more reason to doubt how much information was passed down. Quote Gyldayn could be just a lazy archmaester working at the Citadel. Why privilege that hypothesis either? Quote They are not paid to travel to Maidenpool or Dragonstone or KL to write a popular history about the royal family. Marwyn seems to travel whenever he feels like it. Quote Because the entire point of the book is that it is a faulty in-universe history book and not something that's as reliable as one of the novels. Couldn't he deliver that "point" with a lot less effort & pages? Wouldn't the point be better delivered if it explicitly contradicted things we know from the main series rather than just your headcanon? Quote It isn't a reduncancy since we already saw Alicent and Corlys coming to the same understanding before ... and then nothing came of that. It's explicitly up to Aegon to name his heir, not Alicent (although Alicent's POV is worthwhile since the conflict goes back to "The Princess and the Queen"). And rather than "nothing", that's the setup for Aegon eventually agreeing to it, and then it becoming reality. Alicent's accord with Corlys is explicitly noted to avert a Velaryon attack, and afterward Aegon must agree to ensure continued Velaryon support. Quote Actually, the entire point of that thing is to explain why the hell Aegon II didn't just kill the future Aegon III. At the time he agreed to it, he was not yet in imminent danger of death. And Aegon III was already his hostage on Dragonstone well before he ever heard of this plan! We got an explanation then for him remaining as a hostage rather than just being killed as Alfred Broome advocated. Quote It is, for instance, possible that they planned to officially do that once Jaehaera was finally brought back to court - which also didn't happen in Aegon II's lifetime. Aegon II doesn't need his daughter there to proclaim a new heir. Nor to betroth her, for that matter. Quote Nope, she was married to Aegon III as per the terms of a newer agreement made by Corlys Velaryon, Cregan Stark, and Elenda Baratheon. What "newer agreement"? The ravens had already been sent to Jaehaera before Cregan arrived. What Cregan agreed to was not disrupting the agreement already made. Quote The whole point of the Lydden story is to explain how the Lannisters became andalized Yes, it's a story of that family rather than the collective political aspirations of the Andals. Quote We don't know who was part of that council but the fact that they made the Andal husband of the Lannister daughter their ruling king rather than crowning the woman their queen regnant makes it pretty clear that this was an Andal power grab - although of lesser degree than what happened in some of the other kingdoms. Who is the active party? The council. We don't hear of Andals actually doing anything other than marrying into the family beforehand (with their own kin given as hostages to ensure good behavior). Quote That there was strife going on there is also hinted at by the fact that there was a council since Gerold III having only a single child would have indicated that she was his only heir ... and he married her to an Andal. It seems that not all Lords of the West were happy with the prospect of having an Andal king - or queen with an Andal consort. F&B itself has examples of councils being used to anoint an heir/king. Normally a Lannister directly inherits, but they were in the unusual situation of not having male heirs so a council arranged for Joffrey Lyden to be King Joffrey Lannister. Quote And Alys Karstark's opinions on the matter should concern us ... why exactly? I quoted from Asha's chapter (whereas Alys was in Jon's chapters) before stating the obvious that the current lord not yet going through the formality of dying precludes anyone else from being lord. Alys' own view is that Arnolf declared for Stannis in the hopes that this would result in Harrion's death, and we know from Theon that Arnolf was meeting with the Boltons despite his professed support for Stannis as well as statements from captured Karnolf men backing up Alys' interpretation of Arnolf's motive. Quote On the basis that her father was the Lord of Riverrun? Catelyn's father is the same man, and she's older than Lysa. Quote If you hear something in such a setting you accept them simply by that act. You accept that those claims exist. Ok, Viserys accepted the existence of a man claiming to be his bastard son and then punished the man for making a false claim that was never accepted as having any validity. Quote There is no such implication, simply an interpretation by some radicals The text never refers to them as "radicals", only you do. Instead it says "In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants". When Otto was trying to get Daemon displaced as heir Gyldayn refers to that precedent as a "formidable hurdle". Quote meaning the Iron Throne would have to remain empty in absence of a male heir from the male line. Which is why Munkun's point is completely ridiculous. The position of heir did in fact remain empty after Munkun "put an end to the debate", and rather than anyone saying Munkun was ridiculous we end with him resolving to research who could be the male heir. Quote That's just nonsense on your point. Nobody ever said anything about anyone having a legal claim to anyone because they are or were a dragonrider. During the Dance itself Rhaenyra's first three sons make the claim that riding dragons shows their legitimacy (although their descent from Rhaenyra specifically was never in doubt). Even an unhatched egg can be used as a claim to legitimacy, as with the second Blackfyre "rebellion" and Illyrio's wedding gifts. Those characters did not (or have not yet) sat on the Iron Throne, but then the point was to lend legitimacy to people making a claim against the status quo. During a situation of uncertain succession supporters of a claimant can point to a number of factors rather than everyone just going with the obvious Schelling point established by precedent. Quote Well, perhaps Corlys would have paid for the entire thing. Probably not when he was locked up, and recall he and his wealth had already been party to the war from the beginning. Quote We don't even know she wanted to pay it with her own money. How do you think it would have been paid for? Quote Oh, so you don't have a perfect memory yourself? I'm not a fictional character written by GRRM And I'd like for you to get in the habit of making more arguments from the text, which is the same for everyone, rather than from your own headcanon. Quote That's mostly nonsense considering that in this medieval setting the money of the Crown and the tax revenue of the Crown would only be consumed by the Crown, and not the general public. I agree entirely. But I say this ALSO applies to her "lavish celebration". Actually, even moreso than something like paying for goldcloaks, who can at least protect the denizens of KL from each other to some extent. Quote The Greens stole the money in the treasury Rhaenyra could have used to spend on the smallfolk Why would you characterize Rhaenyra's spending as being "on the smallfolk" when you JUST said the consumers would be "not the general public"? Quote By actually establishing that people do care about the lives of royalty in those books. During the riots he had people, including the Shepherd, blasting Rhaenyra for the deaths of her royal kin. In the main series, we have Jaime reviled as a kingslayer despite the king he killed being an enemy of the currently ruling regime (and a madman to boot). Quote literally never in relation to popular uprising It is explicitly in this one. How many popular uprisings do you need? Quote At best we can say that Helaena's death was used by the people inciting folks to riot as a pretext. So you know what was truly in the Shepherd's heart-of-hearts? How do you know it was a "pretext" for him? Quote Keep in mind that both the Shepherd and Perkin the Flea/Larys Strong arranged those riots. There were not spontaneous uprisings by the smallfolk. And Rosa Parks was an NAACP member who had planned to sit in a whites-only seat of that bus. You can't dismiss social movements as phony "astroturf" because there are leaders. For "team smallfolk" I linked to Steven Attewell, a historian of politics as well as a labor activist (and descendant of both a medieval smallfolk rebel & a Labour MP). He contextualized the riots against Rhaenyra as part of a larger tradition of the smallfolking exercising agency and resisting authority. If you want to argue that he & I are wrong about the riots, you need to actually provide a real argument rather than just asserting that Rhaenyra's opponents should all be thoughtlessly dismissed because you don't like them. Quote Something like the ruling class ripping each other apart is literally never the cause or reason why the lower classes revolt. Was WW1 not the cause of the Russian revolution? Is the War of the Five Kings not the cause of the BWB and Sparrows rising up? Did the common people of Stony Sept not hide Robert when Jon Connington was looking for him? Quote The fear and panic thanks to the threat of the Green army and the Green dragons is the actual cause of the riots The Greens weren't actually about to arrive imminently at the time of the riots, which was why the Moon of Three Kings got to go for a while. The Greens never even took their few remaining dragons out of Tumbleton. You are simply asserting it was the "actual cause", rather than the text (which explicitly highlights the death of Helaena) saying so. Quote without that pretty much nobody would have listened to the Shepherd, pretty much nobody would have followed Ser Perkin, etc. Like I said before, you can't remove a single factor and then say if it was necessary it must be the one "actual" cause. Multiple factors went into what happened, and the text lays them out. In academic science there is something called "researcher degrees of freedom" in which people after the fact construct a narrative which fits the data but depends on choices other researchers might not share. To prove your argument you need to show that the "data" (which is to say the text) actually constrains the answer to be just yours, rather than it just being one you chose that others don't have to share. Asserting any argument to the contrary is ridiculous does not cut it. Quote And they are not 'rebelling' against the Freys, they are clandestinely murdering Freys. That's literally the opposite of rebellion. The opposite of rebellion would be loyal support. And they aren't hiding their responsibility, which the Freys & Lannisters are fully aware of. Quote By comparison, something as mad as the riots in KL during the Dance can only be explained by people working themselves into such a frenzy because they were so afraid for their lives that they would do something as mad as storm the Dragonpit, getting themselves killed by the hundreds or thousands. Couldn't an unusually extreme event be explained by an unusual confluence of contributing factors? Quote The Riverlanders do not even remotely consider storming the Twins in a similar manner The Lannister regime would just take the Twins back even if a revolt seized them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: What negative consequence would he face for saying that he killed somebody they themselves wanted to find & kill alongside him? I don't have to answer that. I never said that Cheese is dead or that he was murdered by Blood - I just pointed out that this could be the case. To pretend that FaB gives a complete account on him is silly. Why not insist that Archmaester Vaegon or Septon Rhaella or Jocelyn Baratheon or Princess Saera are still alive and kicking in the main series? Gyldayn never says that they died, and wouldn't he have done that if George wanted us to believe they are dead? 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: They do talk about it. It's not a mere absence of evidence, it's evidence of absence: "no trace of Cheese or the White Worm was ever found". Aegon kills the ratcatchers of KL out of frustration. Just because some fools allegedly didn't find somebody doesn't mean he survived and lived happily ever after. All we know is that our sources believe he wasn't found. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: What makes your personal opinion "common sense"? Is this what most readers believe? It is common sense that folks don't remember stuff like that in detail years after. And George never gives the impression any of the characters mentioned in FaB have (nearly) perfect memory or any other such nonsense. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's not like the quotes we have are as long as Barth's account of Aerea. A short quote could be remembered reasonably (you might have an unusual definition of "reasonable") accurately. That might be the case if we could assume that either Eustace or Orwyle wrote down their accounts shortly after the event. But they didn't. Orwyle - the earwitness - only started writing his account at the very end of the Dance in preparation for his defense at the trial Cregan Stark was conducting against him. There isn't even any indication that Orwyle was given access to his papers and whatever he wrote down during the war, so his entire account on the first Green Council would have been something he constructed from memory alone - two years after the fact. And Eustace wrote his entire account even later. He may have even based his version of the first Green Council session on Orwyle's account since as the castle septon he could have had access to Orwyle's original writings in his cell. He may have even visited him quite often to hear his confessions in preparation for his ultimate execution. And about the accuracy of the quotes given by Gyldayn from Orwyle/Eustace's accounts: We just have short quotes, we don't know how long or detailed the actual dialogues in Eustace/Orwyle were - and can thus not make conclude the quotes given by Gyldayn were so brief that they might have been remembered accurately even after all that time. But you might recall that I never argued that all the quotes must have been invented completely. I just said it is pretty much impossible that they are accurately remembered. They might still get across the general stance of what this or that character actually said or expressed. But this doesn't have to be the case. And while Orwyle tried to exonerate himself of the beginning of the Dance ... we have no clue who Eustace's source on his account was, nor what motivations this/those people had when they talked to him in confidence. Did they want him to know what actually happened? Or were they also driven by a desire to exonerate themselves? We have no clue. If you want my take on the Green Council all we can safely conclude happened there is what is confirmed as consequences thereafter, i.e. the arrest of many innocent people, the culling of the City Watch, and the coronation of Aegon II. Who suggested what at the council, etc. is not even remotely confirmed. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Eustace didn't even include that in his history. That was in a later letter, and it's described as him "suggest[ing]" rather than remembering. But on the basis of his knowledge of events, right? Eustace was at KL so he should have known about Syrax-Swann, no? 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: He knew Laenor was having an affair with Joffrey without needing any offspring to look like Joffrey. He knew Rhaenyra better than Laenor, having served her for years, and in this account he knew even more about her desire to sleep with her sworn shield to spurn her husband. Neither Criston Cole nor anyone else actually 'knows' that Laenor and Joffrey had an affair. It may have been the case, but it is not an established historical fact. All we actually know is that Laenor seemed to like Joffrey Lonmouth very much. Mushroom later gives us salacious stories about Laenor and Qarl Correy, but never about Laenor and Joffrey Lonmouth. We also don't know if Rhaenyra Targaryen ever wanted to sleep with Criston Cole, actually. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Come on. You can insist all you want that all three kids looking like someone other than the father isn't "strong textual evidence", but GRRM himself made that sufficient evidence for the correct (even if outlandish) deduction in the first book of the series. LOL, them not looking like Laenor may very well indicate they weren't his sons, but that doesn't make Harwin their father. It could have been somebody else. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, I actually do think Criston regarded it as a snub that he was replaced. Criston had risen to prominence as Rhaenyra's sworn shield, and in his mind deserved such a high position for exemplifying KG ideals. A knight like Harwin who "lacked Ser Criston's scruples" was less deserving of such a position, and for him to receive it precisely BECAUSE of his unscrupulous willingness to help Rhaenyra make a mockery of her marriage would be the most hateful thing possible. If Criston had no reason to think Harwin was having an affair with her, and instead he was just some other knight who happened to be around, he would merit less spite. LOL, what is the textual basis for any of those claims? Where is it stated that Criston Cole viewed Harwin Strong as lacking his own scruples? That's from Gyldayn's summary of Mushroom's account, not something from Criston Cole. You cannot silently transfer the judgments/opinion of Gyldayn or his sources to historical figures who don't give any indication they actually agreed with them. More importantly, you are internally contradictory here - if Mushroom's account of Criston-Rhaenyra were accurate he would have cut his ties with the royal whore, not the other way around. We would have no reason to assume he was angry he was replaced by Harwin. The idea that Cole would have issues with Rhaenyra sleeping around is also questionable - Cole himself swore specific vows of chastity, after all. Normal knights are not bound by that silliness. Adultery or fornication are certainly sins in the eyes of the Faith - and Cole would be free to not approve of that -, but that would be not as bad as breaking the vows of the Kingsguard. But again - Cole would have had no reason to believe Harwin Strong was Rhaenyra's lover at the wedding tourney - and even if he had been her lover before it wouldn't even have been adultery up until she was actually married to Laenor - which only happened at the wedding. The idea that Cole would have been as angry as he was just because two unmarried people may have had sex is, quite frankly, ridiculous. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: I did not express it as an equation, nor do I think every case of a person being physically close is reliable (I think Orwyle lied about Beesbury). Rather, that source is more reliable than they could be absent that closeness. It's not irrelevant, even if it's also not a guarantee. Oh, you think Orwyle lied about Beesbury, do you? What's the basis for this? 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: We can debate what quantity of salt is reasonable. But Gyldayn clearly places Mushroom's work within the domain of "bounded distrust": there are parts where he can guess "just Mushroom being Mushroom" and others to take more seriously. Your stance is that we should discount basically all of it by default, along with huge swathes of F&B as a whole. To me that doesn't make sense because GRRM wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing all of that and even having a maester talk about which parts are reliable vs doubtful and give a method for detecting reliability (seeing where different accounts agree). That is not my take. If Mushroom tells us something that's corroborated by other sources we don't have to dismiss it just because he is the aource. But if he is our only source for something then that's either not really important (like that he allegedly tried to mount Silverwing) or suspect by default. But, of course, even two or more sources agreeing on stuff that was spoken behind closed doors (like the first Green Council) is in doubt by default, especially insofar as the accuracy of details is concerned. I don't share your silly presupposition that George wouldn't have written the book if huge chunks of it were factually incorrect. Gyldayn's assessment of his sources is as much subject of doubt as the veracity of his sources. And to be clear: I can still enjoy FaB - and do enjoy it - even if I doubt view large sections are actually *historically accurate*. If I enjoy fiction I can just as well enjoy fiction within fiction, you know. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: If Mushroom said something like "Lyonel Strong gifted King Viserys a valyrian steel dagger which the king praised as a great gift, at which I whipped out my own member and scoffed that it was not nearly so great in size as my own" I would guess that the gifting was probably real even if the phallic demonstration was not. But that is bad methodology - it is like the fools in the 19th centuries taking the gospels and saints' lives, etc., ignore the miracles, and pretend everything else is or must be accurate. That completely overlooks that a story with miracles in it is a very particular genre of literature - and the entire work might be crafted or constructed around a miracle. All the other historical details might be just invented to serve the religious message you actually want to get across. In relation to you Mushroom example there Mushroom might have just invented Lyonel Strong's dagger to have an opportunity to feature his member and compare it to something else. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Only as much like reality as GRRM likes them to be. A guy who wrote "Reality is plywood and plastic, done up in mud brown and olive drab. [...] Reality is beans and tofu, and ashes at the end. Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. [...] Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines. Why do our dreams become so much smaller when they finally come true?" You are making F&B "smaller" by saying it should mostly be dismissed because you demand a match against real historiography GRRM is uninterested in. Sorry, but that's about history vs. (fantasy) fiction, not about how reliable fake medieval-style historiography should be. If FaB met modern academic standards I'd deem it much more reliable since large sections of it would have actually included methodology, source criticism, etc. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Do you think GRRM wants his writing to reflect those "countless studies"? Or does he write POV characters specifically to give his readers access to info they wouldn't otherwise have? I don't care what George wants to do. Any author writing in this world is subject to the empirical knowledge we as a society accumulated. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM wrote everything Gyldayn "writes". He wrote it all deliberately. There's a reason GRRM has Gyldayn take some things seriously and expresses skepticism toward others. On a topic like magic where readers know maesters are overly skeptical, we can use that "bounded distrust" to skeptically evaluate the skeptic himself. Otherwise the default should be to take him seriously. Actually, Gyldayn never actually argues against magic in his book. He includes the entire Aerea episode and doesn't tell us that Barth is telling nonsense there. He doesn't tell us that Alys Rivers was no sorcerer or that she didn't use a spell on the guy who killed himself or that she didn't blew up the head of the other guy. Yandel is dismissive of magic more often than not, but not Gyldayn. George himself has gone on record that a history book written by a maester isn't necessarily accurate. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: For me it goes the other way. A POV in the main series can get things wrong, and it's acceptable because another POV can contradict them and thus tip the audience off that they were wrong. With the profusion of POVs we can learn their distinct traits and the ways they might be unreliable. With Gyldayn we didn't get that, we aren't going to get that, and GRRM knew it when he wrote it (his substitute instead was to have conflicting sources and a narrator who admits uncertainty). Gyldayn is not personally involved in any of the events, he's just writing at a sholarly remove without much of a character for himself. So what can the audience do with that? You don't seem to understand the kind of narrator we have in ASoIaF. It is third-person omniscient narrator, not a first-person narrator. The narrator is simply very rigid in what he reveals to the reader (e.g. we do have the thoughts of a lot of POVs so far who should have known a lot about Rhaegar and Lyanna but the narrator decided he would not reveal anything about that). At times we get the outside world filtered through the eyes of a POV character (e.g. when we have a thought in italics telling us how a POV character views something or somebody he or she perceive) but whenever we get a description of the outside world or read dialogue our POV listens to ... then those are objective facts about the fictional world, not something filtered through the subjective point of view of the POV (unless we get concrete qualifier like 'Tyrion thought the food tasted bad'). You can best illustrate this, perhaps, when looking at the Varys/Illyrio conversation Arya overhears. We, the readers, get the words as spoken by Illyrio and Varys, not the words as heard and misinterpreted by Arya's young mind. It is similar in Bran's or Sansa's POV. The POVs might not understand the adult talk completely, but we, the readers, do, so things are not filtered through the mind of a child. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: When does Eustace quote any maester's account? Why privilege the hypothesis that Eustace was the actual source rather than the one Gyldayn cites? Why would GRRM secretly have that be what actually happened but give no such indication to the reader? Because we cannot expect that kind of academic professionalism from a medieval-style 'historian'. But I don't privilege anything here. I just pointed out that the very nature of FaB doesn't allow us to conclude that Gyldayn read all the accounts he gives us firsthand. In fact, he may not even have read Munkun or Eustace or Mushroom in full or the original ... he could have stolen all his quotes from an already existing popular history on House Targaryen he never mentions because he is plagiarizing it. I'd go as far as to assume that Munkun's True Telling - a work actually mentioned in ASoIaF to be still in circulation at the time of the main series - is likely as farspread a work that Gyldayn had access to and read it. But neither Eustace's nor Mushroom's work has never been mentioned to have survived to 297 AC, so we don't know. At this point it is even unclear when exactly Archmaester Gyldayn lived - TWoIaF had him as a maester serving at Summerhall, indicating he may have died there, but FaB (and George himself) made it clear that Gyldayn's full history extends until the downfall of Aerys II, so the work would have to have been written during the reign of Robert Baratheon - or perhaps later still. [The way I'd resolve this is to have Gyldayn as the maester at Summerhall, to survive the tragedy there, and to then be raised to the position of archmaester afterwards, finishing his history and dying in the first years of the reign of Robert Baratheon.] 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why privilege that hypothesis either? I'm not privileging, I just suggest it as an alternative. The idea that just because we have a text doesn't mean the author was very diligent or competent. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Marwyn seems to travel whenever he feels like it. Marwyn is the archmaester for magic, a subject pretty much nobody seems to study. The other archmaesters seem to have actual teaching duties, e.g. Maester Gormon having to step in for senile Walgrave. If we were to imagine - which we certainly can - that Gyldayn ever actually read parts of the Chronicle of Maidenpool I'd expect he got a transcript of the sections that interested him from the maester serving there rather than assuming he ever traveled there in person. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon II doesn't need his daughter there to proclaim a new heir. Nor to betroth her, for that matter. True enough, but as I said repeatedly: We have no confirmation that Aegon II ever anointed Aegon III as his heir nor that he actually ever betrothed Jaehaera to Aegon. We also have not the slightest indication that Aegon III was proclaimed king because Aegon II had named him heir earlier (assuming that happened). Instead, it is obvious that Aegon III was proclaimed king because he was the Black pretender - and the Blacks had just won the war. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: What "newer agreement"? The ravens had already been sent to Jaehaera before Cregan arrived. What Cregan agreed to was not disrupting the agreement already made. Cregan had to agree to Corlys' terms as well. Had he not agreed to them, the war would have continued. But Corlys' terms were his terms, i.e. new terms, not those of the dead Aegon II. Those were terms offered in the name of the new king, Aegon III, after the murder of Aegon II. Aegon III agreed to marry Jaehaera Targaryen, offered to welcome the Lannisters, Hightowers, and Baratheons back into the King's Peace, etc. I mean, don't you see how ridiculous the idea is that Aegon III succeeded the throne as the heir of Aegon II when the men who made Aegon III were the murderers of Aegon II? In any sane context that should have led to the immediate deposition of Aegon III since he became king by condoning the murder of his predecessor and uncle. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes, it's a story of that family rather than the collective political aspirations of the Andals. Who is the active party? The council. We don't hear of Andals actually doing anything other than marrying into the family beforehand (with their own kin given as hostages to ensure good behavior). F&B itself has examples of councils being used to anoint an heir/king. Normally a Lannister directly inherits, but they were in the unusual situation of not having male heirs so a council arranged for Joffrey Lyden to be King Joffrey Lannister. We have no idea how exactly the Lannister succession worked back before the Conquest or how unusual this council thing was. Still, the implication is that this was unusual. Joffrey Lydden is the only consort of a female heir that we know of who ended up ruling as king instead of his wife. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: I quoted from Asha's chapter (whereas Alys was in Jon's chapters) before stating the obvious that the current lord not yet going through the formality of dying precludes anyone else from being lord. Alys' own view is that Arnolf declared for Stannis in the hopes that this would result in Harrion's death, and we know from Theon that Arnolf was meeting with the Boltons despite his professed support for Stannis as well as statements from captured Karnolf men backing up Alys' interpretation of Arnolf's motive. Stannis did acknowledge Arnolf as Lord of Karhold independent of Harrion Karstark living or dying. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Catelyn's father is the same man, and she's older than Lysa. And how does this matter? The regency council of Aegon III doesn't care about primogeniture when discussing the succession of Aegon III, so why should Lysa Tully? Folks in-universe don't seem to have as rigid a view as you pretend they have. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ok, Viserys accepted the existence of a man claiming to be his bastard son and then punished the man for making a false claim that was never accepted as having any validity. You mean Jaehaerys I there, I imagine? The alleged bastard of the Old King wasn't the only bastard claim laid before the Great Council - we also have an alleged bastard of King Maegor and three (alleged) bastards of Saera Targaryen (with her not being present we cannot pretend those people were actually who they said they were, although the guy looking like Jaehaerys I in his youth has a good chance of being a genuine bastard of Saera). 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: The text never refers to them as "radicals", only you do. Instead it says "In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants". When Otto was trying to get Daemon displaced as heir Gyldayn refers to that precedent as a "formidable hurdle". Yes, that's my assessment. It is still a radical view because it is impractical if a king were to have only female (line) heirs. Even more so, since Viserys only had a daughter back 101 AC, so they actually were crowning a king who might never have a male line heir. If Rhaenyra had remained Viserys' only child and Daemon had died childless being stuck in his marriage with Rhea Royce until his death, either a daughter or grandson of Viserys I through Rhaenyra would have to ascend the throne, or it would have to remain empty - which it never would, of course. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: The position of heir did in fact remain empty after Munkun "put an end to the debate", and rather than anyone saying Munkun was ridiculous we end with him resolving to research who could be the male heir. Munkun only comes up with that thing because the regency council cannot agree who the heir should be - Baela or Rhaena. The idea that some obscure male line heir Munkun could invent or drag from some hovel would be accepted by the regency council is ... not exactly convincing. Tyland calls it a day because the assembled regents cannot agree on a presumptive heir. And that's also not *that problematic* since the Heir Apparent they want and wait for would be Aegon III's son, anyway. Later on it is quite clear that it is either Baela/Rhaena or a son one of them might produce. That is why both of them are married, after all. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: During the Dance itself Rhaenyra's first three sons make the claim that riding dragons shows their legitimacy (although their descent from Rhaenyra specifically was never in doubt). Even an unhatched egg can be used as a claim to legitimacy, as with the second Blackfyre "rebellion" and Illyrio's wedding gifts. Those characters did not (or have not yet) sat on the Iron Throne, but then the point was to lend legitimacy to people making a claim against the status quo. During a situation of uncertain succession supporters of a claimant can point to a number of factors rather than everyone just going with the obvious Schelling point established by precedent. Those are instances were people claim being dragonriders makes them 'Targaryen' or of legitimate birth, but it has no effect on the validity or strength of their legal claims (even bastards do have claims, you know). 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Probably not when he was locked up, and recall he and his wealth had already been party to the war from the beginning. Rhaenyra didn't make any plans for a lavish celebration when she had locked up Corlys, so that's not an argument. My point was that we have no confirmation that Rhaenyra intended to pay for her son's investiture (all) by herself and/or by the money she took from the Kingslanders. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: How do you think it would have been paid for? How should I possibly know? 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'm not a fictional character written by GRRM And I'd like for you to get in the habit of making more arguments from the text, which is the same for everyone, rather than from your own headcanon. If a fictional character should have an almost perfect memory why shouldn't I assume you have that, too? There is no reason for either assumption, so why not just pretend there is? 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: I agree entirely. But I say this ALSO applies to her "lavish celebration". Actually, even moreso than something like paying for goldcloaks, who can at least protect the denizens of KL from each other to some extent. The lavish celebration would have been something done for show, i.e. for the general public. Like it was with the Golden Wedding, the wedding of Aegon III, etc. Even modest weddings like the one at Whitewalls offer food and drink for free for wedding guests - and a very costly and splendid royal celebration would have that to a larger degree - most of the food cooked at Joff's wedding, for instance, would have gone to poor smallfolk, for instance. They had 77 courses, after all. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why would you characterize Rhaenyra's spending as being "on the smallfolk" when you JUST said the consumers would be "not the general public"? The point was that Rhaenyra could have used the money she inherited from her father to buy herself the good graces of the smallfolk if she wished to do this. She could have lowered the taxes rather than being forced to raise them, for instance, she could have thrown money at them to entertain them, etc. You just cannot afford to be generous if you have no money and are forced to fight a war. And to be clear - we don't know when exactly Joff's investiture was to take place. One assumes only after the end of the war/fighting, i.e. once Aemond was dealt with and the Green army at Tumbleton destroyed. Rhaenyra wouldn't have had that celebration without Daemon or his daughters. Continuing that thought - if the plans for the investiture were until after the war was won, then Rhaenyra should also again have access to three fourths of the treasury of Viserys I - namely those kept at Casterly Rock, Oldtown (or what remained of the money thanks to the thieving Hightower cousin), and Braavos - meaning she would have had ample coin to spend. The idea that her plan depended on her having only the funds she gained through Celtigar's taxes is something that's not actually in the text. And finally - I think this kind of interpretation there is fundamentally erroneous in a feudal/medieval context. It has nothing to do with the Dance or Rhaenyra - the people and lords do expect a monarch to entertain them with lavish ceremonies and feasts. Those are not private ceremonies done for the elite alone, but public events that celebrate the grandeur and power of the kingdom itself. Avarice isn't a virtue in Westeros (as shown, for instance, by the assessment of Norwin the Niggardly or Aegon III's reign). Speaking of Aegon III - him not wasting a lot of money may have helped the rebuilding after the war, but it still didn't make him popular. It may have given him sufficient funds to crush all the rebels that rose against him (which likely included some or all fake Daerons as well as the son of Alys Rivers) ... but it may very well be that his unwillingness to buy the love of his people was the very reasons why he was so unpopular that those rebels and pretenders rose against him. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: During the riots he had people, including the Shepherd, blasting Rhaenyra for the deaths of her royal kin. In the main series, we have Jaime reviled as a kingslayer despite the king he killed being an enemy of the currently ruling regime (and a madman to boot). The Shepherd jumps on the bandwagon of Rhaenyra being the murderer of Helaena, yes, but he started to preach earlier and does not actually differentiate between Greens or Blacks: Quote Dragons were unnatural creatures, the Shepherd declared, demons summoned from the pits of the seven hells by the fell sorceries of Valyria, “that vile cesspit where brother lay with sister and mother with son, where men rode demons into battle whilst their women spread their legs for dogs.” The Targaryens had escaped the Doom, fleeing across the seas to Dragonstone, but “the gods are not mocked,” and now a second doom was at hand. “The false king and the whore queen shall be cast down with all their works, and their demon beasts shall perish from the earth,” the Shepherd thundered. All those who stood with them would die as well. Only by cleansing King’s Landing of dragons and their masters could Westeros hope to avoid the fate of Valyria. We also learn what the Shepherd was truly about in his later sermons which cause the good people of King's Landing to abandon him. The man was able to fuel the fear in the city and direct it against the dragons in a single mad night ... but the political program he had wasn't something even a tiny fraction of the people actually agreed with. Those riots shouldn't be read as 'political movements' but rather singular events triggered by extreme emotions. There certainly were political players and people believing in reform amongst some of them (for instance, the people behind Gaemon Palehair were clearly socially progressive leftists who wanted to change the political system of Westeros), but there was never any broad political movement in that direction. George very much undercuts and ridicules the political aspirations of the followers of the Shepherd by having the bulk of King's Landing worship Rhaena's dragon Morning after the Dance. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: And Rosa Parks was an NAACP member who had planned to sit in a whites-only seat of that bus. You can't dismiss social movements as phony "astroturf" because there are leaders. For "team smallfolk" I linked to Steven Attewell, a historian of politics as well as a labor activist (and descendant of both a medieval smallfolk rebel & a Labour MP). He contextualized the riots against Rhaenyra as part of a larger tradition of the smallfolking exercising agency and resisting authority. If you want to argue that he & I are wrong about the riots, you need to actually provide a real argument rather than just asserting that Rhaenyra's opponents should all be thoughtlessly dismissed because you don't like them. We can dismiss them to a degree since it is quite clear that a decent amount of people were led around by the nose in those riots. The Shepherd was a great orator and manipulator who fueled the people's fear to convince them to do what he wanted to them do - and not something to their own benefit, be it personal or in relation to their social class. They killed themselves by the thousands fighting against creatures which could have actually protected them from the Green army. Perkin the Flea was another manipulator run by Larys Strong. They exploited the problems of the smallfolk for their own reasons. There are genuine political movements among the smallfolk in Westeros - the sparrows of the main series would be one such, I think - but from the riots I'd say only Gaemon Palehair's followers were actually team smallfolk. The Shepherd was team theocracy, and Perkin team corruption/self-advancement. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Was WW1 not the cause of the Russian revolution? Is the War of the Five Kings not the cause of the BWB and Sparrows rising up? Did the common people of Stony Sept not hide Robert when Jon Connington was looking for him? WW1 wasn't a conflict were only the ruling class ripped each other apart. It was a war where millions of common people died in the fighting. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Greens weren't actually about to arrive imminently at the time of the riots, which was why the Moon of Three Kings got to go for a while. The Greens never even took their few remaining dragons out of Tumbleton. You are simply asserting it was the "actual cause", rather than the text (which explicitly highlights the death of Helaena) saying so. Again, you are confusing things deliberately. The Kingslanders had no information on what was going on at Tumbleton. The last news they had were of the first battle there, the actions of the Two Betrayers, etc. They had no idea what Addam Velaryon was doing nor information about the subsequent infighting among the Greens. Vice versa, the folks at Tumbleton had no clue about the riots in KL or Rhaenyra leaving the city or else there would have been less or no reason to rip each other apart. A big problem there was that the dragonriders weren't that keen to march against KL and face Syrax, Tyraxes, and Seasmoke in battle. The people of KL were afraid for their very lives - and they were so since the war began. This fear is slowly building, and the news about Tumbleton cause the people to explode. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: Like I said before, you can't remove a single factor and then say if it was necessary it must be the one "actual" cause. Multiple factors went into what happened, and the text lays them out. In academic science there is something called "researcher degrees of freedom" in which people after the fact construct a narrative which fits the data but depends on choices other researchers might not share. To prove your argument you need to show that the "data" (which is to say the text) actually constrains the answer to be just yours, rather than it just being one you chose that others don't have to share. Asserting any argument to the contrary is ridiculous does not cut it. In context it is pretty clear that folks do care more about their own lives, the lives of their family and friends, and their property in the city of KL (who are all threatened to be destroyed by dragonfire) than they would care about the life of some mad queen. That those are spurious reasons for motivation of the smallfolk is actually hinted at in the text itself which claims that back when the Greens were in charge Rhaenyra was loved, but now that Rhaenyra was in charge suddenly Helaena was loved. That all doesn't make much sense. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said: The opposite of rebellion would be loyal support. And they aren't hiding their responsibility, which the Freys & Lannisters are fully aware of. You can perhaps call it sabotage or clandestine murder, but rebellion would entail that people actually refuse to obey the authorities openly - which so far the people in the Riverlands don't do. We are talking about outlaws and bandits so far, not an actual uprising of a decent chunk or the majority of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 6:38 PM, Lord Varys said: To pretend that FaB gives a complete account on him is silly. It explicitly says he couldn't be found, with the result being that Aegon killed all the ratcatchers. Quote Gyldayn never says that they died, and wouldn't he have done that if George wanted us to believe they are dead? He doesn't have to explicitly list every single death from old age, although if that was the standard we might not hear so many theories about how Shiera Seastar is secretly still around Quote Just because some fools allegedly didn't find somebody doesn't mean he survived and lived happily ever after. Who says he lived happily ever after rather than leading a miserable life that ended ignobly some unspecified time later? Quote It is common sense that folks don't remember stuff like that in detail years after. Is that really the case in this series? Or does GRRM have his characters remember whatever he feels like (Ned finding Jaime on the Iron Throne, for example) without ever indicating it was inaccurate? Quote There isn't even any indication that Orwyle was given access to his papers and whatever he wrote down during the war Tyland Lannister is said to have indulged Orwyle and helped give him with his confession. Quote We just have short quotes, we don't know how long or detailed the actual dialogues in Eustace/Orwyle were The quotes we get are what actually exist, since GRRM would have to write any longer versions and hasn't done so. There are no "actual dialogues" in the sources beyond what we got. Quote I just said it is pretty much impossible that they are accurately remembered. They might still get across the general stance of what this or that character actually said or expressed. How inaccurate do they have to be for that to be relevant? Quote we have no clue who Eustace's source on his account was We know he was a confessor & confidant to Alicent, who was there, so that's not "no clue" 100% entropy. Quote Did they want him to know what actually happened? Or were they also driven by a desire to exonerate themselves? We have no clue. Ran himself has talked about Eustace's account being slanted toward the Greens, and again I wouldn't say we have "no clue" over whether his sources would slant things. Quote Eustace was at KL so he should have known about Syrax-Swann, no? He wasn't close to Rhaenyra, and the fact that he didn't include it in his history is an indicator of how well he knew about it. Quote It may have been the case, but it is not an established historical fact. Homosexual affairs typically aren't official. But GRRM makes it obvious to readers that Laenor was gay and "surrounded himself with handsome squires of his own age" for that reason. His relationship with Joffrey is a clear precursor to that with Qarl Correy, as well as to a lesser extent to Prince Daeron's with Ser Jeremy Norridge. Quote Mushroom later gives us salacious stories about Laenor and Qarl Correy, but never about Laenor and Joffrey Lonmouth. Mushroom was with Rhaenyra when Qarl was with Laenor. He was not in Laenor's court prior to the marriage with Rhaenyra. Quote We also don't know if Rhaenyra Targaryen ever wanted to sleep with Criston Cole, actually. Mushroom claims she did, which is consistent with the earlier characterization of her having "eyes only" for him (causing Alicent to imply her chastity was at risk). Quote them not looking like Laenor may very well indicate they weren't his sons, but that doesn't make Harwin their father. It could have been somebody else. Come on. Ned doesn't conclude based on Cersei's children that the father was merely "someone else", he leaps to the outlandish (but correct) conclusion that it was Jaime. There is no other suspect for Rhaenyra's children. Quote Where is it stated that Criston Cole viewed Harwin Strong as lacking his own scruples? That's from Gyldayn's summary of Mushroom's account And if someone else said Harwin was actually a scrupulous knight, then his known character would be more uncertain. That summary says Harwin was "returning from a night of revelry in the stews of the city", and since he'd been a captain in the goldcloaks under the "Lord of Fleabottom" it makes perfect sense for him to be intimately familiar with the various dens of vice. Quote You cannot silently transfer the judgments/opinion of Gyldayn or his sources to historical figures who don't give any indication they actually agreed with them. Criston beat the tar out of Harwin. I don't think he liked him much. Quote if Mushroom's account of Criston-Rhaenyra were accurate he would have cut his ties with the royal whore It is not up to a KG to "cut ties" with a royal. They serve not out of personal preference, but duty. Barristan Selmy can be indignant that Joffrey dismissed him without needing to have high regard for Joffrey himself. Quote The idea that Cole would have issues with Rhaenyra sleeping around is also questionable You had expressed a preference earlier for Eustace's account of Daemon's rift with Viserys, in which Arryk Cargyll caught them in bed and ratted them out to Viserys. Rhaenyra was not even betrothed then (unlike the married Daemon), but it was a matter worthy of his intervention. We get a quote from Criston later warning that Rhaenyra & Daemon will turn KL into a "brothel", which is consistent with him being someone very judgmental over the sexual behavior of others. Quote Normal knights are not bound by that silliness They're not bound to forswear marriage, but they are expected to uphold the ideals of chivalry. Quote even if he had been her lover before it wouldn't even have been adultery up until she was actually married to Laenor A woman being unfaithful to her betrothed is considered serious. Lyanna's betrothal to Robert is party of why it caused such a stink that Rhaegar crowned her, whereas Ned & Ashara not being betrothed is why Harwin shrugs off any rumors about them. Quote The idea that Cole would have been as angry as he was just because two unmarried people may have had sex is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The idea is not simply that Rhaenyra happened to have slept with Harwin at some point prior to her later marriage. Rather the story we hear is of her asking Criston to break his vows with her with an explicit hope of alienating her betrothed, then her replacing Criston from his prestigious position precisely because he upheld his vows in order to replace him with someone less scrupulous, and both spouses flaunting their relationships at the wedding tourney. Quote Oh, you think Orwyle lied about Beesbury, do you? What's the basis for this? Quote Grand Maester Orwyle’s account differs only in that he puts many of these arguments into his own mouth rather than Beesbury’s, but subsequent events suggest that was not so, as we shall see. Mushroom & Eustace agreeing on something is a clue. They both say Criston killed Beesbury, but differ as to the method. Orwyle claims he was imprisoned in a dungeon for his dissent, and died there, but since Orwyle himself survived that raises the question of why those arguments he puts in his own mouth didn't result in a much worse fate for him. If the truth is that he just lied about Beesbury in order to change his own depiction, that explains everything. Quote That is not my take. It's Gyldayn's take, which is the one GRRM deliberately used to give us Mushroom. Quote I don't share your silly presupposition that George wouldn't have written the book if huge chunks of it were factually incorrect. The notion of GRRM writing all that material we're supposed to dismiss is much more "silly" to me. Quote But that is bad methodology It's a methodology I'm using for a work of fiction. Quote That completely overlooks that a story with miracles in it is a very particular genre of literature - and the entire work might be crafted or constructed around a miracle. There were people who doubted the Trojan War happened for that reason. And, closer to GRRM's main inspirations for this series, lots of people who doubted that Richard III was hunchbacked until his skeleton was found. Quote All the other historical details might be just invented to serve the religious message you actually want to get across. What is the "message" GRRM-as-Gyldayn is trying to convey? If F&B was one big parable, that would be interesting. Quote Sorry, but that's about history vs. (fantasy) fiction, not about how reliable fake medieval-style historiography should be. It's explicitly about reality vs fantasy. Quote If FaB met modern academic standards I'd deem it much more reliable since large sections of it would have actually included methodology, source criticism, etc. And of course GRRM was never going to do that, because he's a fantasy author rather than a professional historian. Quote I don't care what George wants to do. You should. Communication depends on understanding what a signaller is attempting to convey. The Gricean maxims exist for a reason. Quote Any author writing in this world is subject to the empirical knowledge we as a society accumulated. Including knowledge of how the genetics of hair & eye color work, what the accumulative effects of incest are, how often women die of childbirth, how much linguistic diversity there was in the pre-modern era, how stable aristocratic dynasties are over the very long run, whether boiling wine makes it more or less effective as an antiseptic, etc. Quote It is third-person omniscient narrator No, it's not actually omniscient. We get the thoughts of the POV characters, including when a question comes into their heads. "Could it be that Lord Renly, who looked so like a young Robert, had conceived a passion for a girl he fancied to be a young Lyanna?" Quote then those are objective facts about the fictional world, not something filtered through the subjective point of view of the POV (unless we get concrete qualifier like 'Tyrion thought the food tasted bad'). No, when one character is disguised as another the text identifies them via the identity the POV character believes them to be. It does not say "Rattleshirt (or so Jon thought)", it just refers to the glamoured Mance as Rattleshirt. The only time a POV chapter gives us information the POV character might not have is that bit I've quoted from a Victarion chapter. Quote We, the readers, get the words as spoken by Illyrio and Varys, not the words as heard and misinterpreted by Arya's young mind. We get what she actually heard. Her interpretation of the meaning of those words would come later. Quote Because we cannot expect that kind of academic professionalism from a medieval-style 'historian'. How well do you know maesters that you can make this claim about their "professionalism" so as to suggest this hypothesis suggested nowhere in the text itself? Quote But I don't privilege anything here. Read the link on privileging the hypothesis. There is no actual evidence for Eustace ever citing any maester, much less Norren specifically, nor of Gyldayn knowing about Norren's writings via Eustace rather than the specific work he cites. Why should I, or anyone else, take such speculation seriously? Quote he could have stolen all his quotes from an already existing popular history on House Targaryen he never mentions because he is plagiarizing it. Why are we talking about some "existing popular history" that is never mentioned anywhere and doesn't exist in any form because GRRM hasn't made it up!? Quote I'd go as far as to assume that Munkun's True Telling - a work actually mentioned in ASoIaF to be still in circulation at the time of the main Yeah, GRRM hadn't made up those others yet. Similarly, there's no mention of the Blackfyre rebellion in The Hedge Knight or prior books, but a lot of mentions later on. Quote At this point it is even unclear when exactly Archmaester Gyldayn lived - TWoIaF had him as a maester serving at Summerhall, indicating he may have died there, but FaB (and George himself) made it clear that Gyldayn's full history extends until the downfall of Aerys II GRRM can just change his mind and retcon things, so rather than Gyldayn writing his chronicle and dying during the reign of Aegon V, Corso becomes the maester at Summerhall instead and Gyldayn can live some other time. Quote The idea that just because we have a text doesn't mean the author was very diligent or competent. We have no evidence that he wasn't, and no reason to think GRRM wanted us to think of him that way. Quote We have no confirmation that Aegon II ever anointed Aegon III as his heir nor that he actually ever betrothed Jaehaera to Aegon. We have him agreeing to do so, and no indication that he didn't follow through on that agreement. Quote I mean, don't you see how ridiculous the idea is that Aegon III succeeded the throne as the heir of Aegon II when the men who made Aegon III were the murderers of Aegon II? Rather than ridiculous, it's something that has happened at other times. Cersei schemed to kill Robert so as to make Joffrey (Robert's designated heir, even if he was illegitimate) king instead. Aegon IV is alleged to have killed his father Viserys so he could take the throne, and Viserys in turn is alleged to have killed Baelor to take the throne. Quote In any sane context that should have led to the immediate deposition of Aegon III since he became king by condoning the murder of his predecessor and uncle. They were already short of candidates for the throne at that point And Aegon III was a child that nobody thinks held any responsibility (rather Cregan wanted to punish Larys & Corlys). Quote Joffrey Lydden is the only consort of a female heir that we know of who ended up ruling as king instead of his wife. I don't think we know quite how unusual that was. Rather that incident is highlighted because it's when the Lannisters became an Andal house. Quote And how does this matter? The regency council of Aegon III doesn't care about primogeniture when discussing the succession of Aegon III, so why should Lysa Tully? Is Lysa Tully a Targaryen dragonrider? Quote Folks in-universe don't seem to have as rigid a view as you pretend they have. I have quoted the bit from that very regency council in which Munkun ended the discussion by reminding them they had to abide by primogeniture. Quote You mean Jaehaerys I there, I imagine? Correct. Quote Yes, that's my assessment. Why should anyone take seriously your personal assesment rather than the text itself saying it was the view of "many", with no one calling it radical or impractical? Quote The idea that some obscure male line heir Munkun could invent or drag from some hovel would be accepted by the regency council is ... not exactly convincing. The next heir being a male relative that just turned up is what actually happened. Realistically, if Munkun had found some more obscure candidates a Great Council would have likely been in order. Quote Those are instances were people claim being dragonriders makes them 'Targaryen' or of legitimate birth, but it has no effect on the validity or strength of their legal claims (even bastards do have claims, you know). Daemon II Blackfyre, Viserys & Dany are not alleged bastards, but having an egg (or, even better, actual dragons) is supposed to support their claim to the throne. Quote Rhaenyra didn't make any plans for a lavish celebration when she had locked up Corlys How do you know when the plans stopped? We only hear when those began. Quote My point was that we have no confirmation that Rhaenyra intended to pay for her son's investiture (all) by herself and/or by the money she took from the Kingslanders. How else would it be paid for? The reason for the backbreaking taxes was because there wasn't money to spare. Quote How should I possibly know? By looking at other instances of the crown celebrating things. The Hand's Tourney, for instance, is paid for via debt because the crown's vaults are empty. Quote If a fictional character should have an almost perfect memory why shouldn't I assume you have that, too? Because I'm not a fictional character. Fictional characters are not bound by the constraints of reality. They are only bound by their authors. Quote The lavish celebration would have been something done for show, i.e. for the general public. Something being done for show does not make it "for the general public". Aristocrats engage in conspicuous consumption for their own benefit, not that of the people they rule. Quote Even modest weddings like the one at Whitewalls offer food and drink for free for wedding guests Are those guests the smallfolk? And how lucky they would be if they were, to be fed the very food they paid for with their taxes. Quote most of the food cooked at Joff's wedding, for instance, would have gone to poor smallfolk Where did it say that? And again, such lucky people to get the leftovers. Quote The point was that Rhaenyra could have used the money she inherited from her father to buy herself the good graces of the smallfolk if she wished to do this. There is no indication she had any such wish, and you just generalized that it was not the case for medieval rulers. Quote she would have had ample coin to spend Wars are the biggest expenses medieval rulers faced. They would expect to be in debt at the end, rather than having ample coin. Quote the people and lords do expect a monarch to entertain them with lavish ceremonies and feasts When taxes are easy a lavish ceremony is not so bothersome. It signals "I have so much money I can afford to spend it frivolously", always important for aristocrats. Quote Avarice isn't a virtue in Westeros Not among aristocrats. The interests of that class are not the same as the people they rule. Quote The Shepherd jumps on the bandwagon of Rhaenyra being the murderer of Helaena, yes, but he started to preach earlier Yes, he preached earlier, but there weren't riots until the death of Helaena. Quote There certainly were political players and people believing in reform amongst some of them (for instance, the people behind Gaemon Palehair were clearly socially progressive leftists who wanted to change the political system of Westeros), but there was never any broad political movement in that direction. Trystane had to issue his own proclamations in response to Gaemon. And prior to that, Wat was leading a political movement against Celtigar's taxes. Quote George very much undercuts and ridicules the political aspirations of the followers of the Shepherd by having the bulk of King's Landing worship Rhaena's dragon Morning after the Dance. GRRM is not mocking the politics of Gaemon's edicts just because they were all reversed later. Quote They killed themselves by the thousands fighting against creatures which could have actually protected them from the Green army. The dragons don't protect people. Everywhere the dragons dance, the people die. They're a cross between WMDs and wild animals, typically used by incestuous aristocrats who think they're above the laws of gods & men because of that, though potentially available for lowlives like the Betrayers (who also come to think they're above all rules as a result). Quote There are genuine political movements among the smallfolk in Westeros - the sparrows of the main series would be one such, I think - but from the riots I'd say only Gaemon Palehair's followers were actually team smallfolk. The Shepherd was team theocracy, and Perkin team corruption/self-advancement. Perhaps you approve of Gaemon but not the others (I personally would consider the Shepherd to be more of an anarchist than an actual theocrat, since he claimed no position for himself), but the smallfolk are large and can contain multitudes. The rioters against Joffrey are sympathetic in their demands for bread, but they also do awful things like commit rapes. The High Sparrow is right that Cersei should not be above the law, but what she has officially been punished for so far is something that wouldn't be a crime at all in our society. Steven Attewell is outspoken about his own left-populist politics, but he doesn't attempt to argue that authentic populism & moral righteousness always go together. Quote WW1 wasn't a conflict were only the ruling class ripped each other apart. It was a war where millions of common people died in the fighting. It was a war that started with the assassination of an archduke, and one in which the aristocratic officer class disproportionately died. In a hypothetical scenario where only the elite killed each other (like Frank Herbert's "war of assassins" in Dune), that might simply be ignored by commoners or instability wrought by such deaths could upend the system (as is implied to have happened on a fantastical scale with the Doom of Valyria). But in both the real world, and ASoIaF, wars tend to cause deaths for both. Quote In context it is pretty clear that folks do care more about their own lives Lots of people followed a Shepherd insisting they must shed their own blood killing dragons. Enormous numbers of them died, but they kept going. Quote now that Rhaenyra was in charge suddenly Helaena was loved. That all doesn't make much sense. Nobody ever had any reasons to dislike Helaena (partly because she's so thinly characterized). We get reasons why Rhaenyra went from the Realm's Delight to Maegor With Teats, it's just to you that it doesn't make sense. Quote You can perhaps call it sabotage or clandestine murder Which rebel groups frequently engage in. Quote rebellion would entail that people actually refuse to obey the authorities openly - which so far the people in the Riverlands don't do. Did Beric obey any orders after Ned's? Did Brynden Tully do so even after conceding Riverrun? Quote We are talking about outlaws and bandits so far, not an actual uprising of a decent chunk or the majority of the people. An "actual uprising" does not need "the majority of the people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It explicitly says he couldn't be found, with the result being that Aegon killed all the ratcatchers. Not addressing my point. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He doesn't have to explicitly list every single death from old age, although if that was the standard we might not hear so many theories about how Shiera Seastar is secretly still around Magic exists and can prevent or postpone death from old age in this world. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Is that really the case in this series? Or does GRRM have his characters remember whatever he feels like (Ned finding Jaime on the Iron Throne, for example) without ever indicating it was inaccurate? LOL, drop your dishonest crap. Of course people can remember crucial events in their lives, things that affected and shaped the ending of a war. But that doesn't mean they remember conversation accurately. If you buy or pretend that Jaime or Ned actually accurately remember the conversation they do remember you are stretching thing. They think they remember them accurately, but unless George actually intependently confirms that those memories are accurate you can doubt them. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Tyland Lannister is said to have indulged Orwyle and helped give him with his confession. Orwyle began writing before his re-arrest, and back then nobody indulged him. Later, when Tyland was Hand and postponed his execution he was confined to a tower cell and provided with parchment, quill, and ink but, as you would notice if you were honest, not with hypothetical notes and accounts he may have written throughout the actual war. Hence, his lengthy confession/history is a work he wrote exclusively from memory. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The quotes we get are what actually exist, since GRRM would have to write any longer versions and hasn't done so. There are no "actual dialogues" in the sources beyond what we got. That's nonsense. Within the fictional setting of the world we talk about they do exist. If you don't acknowledge that you stand outside reasonable discourse. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: How inaccurate do they have to be for that to be relevant? We know he was a confessor & confidant to Alicent, who was there, so that's not "no clue" 100% entropy. We still have no clue. Eustace being Alicent's confessor doesn't mean she actually talked to him about that. If we had clue who his source was we would have something like 'as Eustace ensures us Queen Alicent told him in confidence ...' 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ran himself has talked about Eustace's account being slanted toward the Greens, and again I wouldn't say we have "no clue" over whether his sources would slant things. That may be Ran's opinion but it is obviously not mine. My entire point here is that I do agree that Eustace may have been anti-Rhaenyra in certain parts - but that doesn't make him a Green partisan or anti-Black. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He wasn't close to Rhaenyra, and the fact that he didn't include it in his history is an indicator of how well he knew about it. If you beg the question, then that explains how you can conclude that. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Homosexual affairs typically aren't official. But GRRM makes it obvious to readers that Laenor was gay and "surrounded himself with handsome squires of his own age" for that reason. His relationship with Joffrey is a clear precursor to that with Qarl Correy, as well as to a lesser extent to Prince Daeron's with Ser Jeremy Norridge. The facts are that we don't really know, nor do we know how many people were aware of what was going on assuming it was the case. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mushroom was with Rhaenyra when Qarl was with Laenor. He was not in Laenor's court prior to the marriage with Rhaenyra. So what? I know where Mushroom was. What I care about is that we have no source claiming that Joffrey and Laenor actually had sex or were romantically in love. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mushroom claims she did, which is consistent with the earlier characterization of her having "eyes only" for him (causing Alicent to imply her chastity was at risk). Alicent's remark indicates Criston Cole lusted after Rhaenyra, not the other way around. She was not protected from Ser Criston. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Come on. Ned doesn't conclude based on Cersei's children that the father was merely "someone else", he leaps to the outlandish (but correct) conclusion that it was Jaime. There is no other suspect for Rhaenyra's children. So Ned's silly conclusion is proof that Rhaenyra's children were fathered by Harwin Strong? Riight! 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: And if someone else said Harwin was actually a scrupulous knight, then his known character would be more uncertain. That summary says Harwin was "returning from a night of revelry in the stews of the city", and since he'd been a captain in the goldcloaks under the "Lord of Fleabottom" it makes perfect sense for him to be intimately familiar with the various dens of vice. Give me the quote where it is confirmed that Criston Cole knew about Rhaenyra and Harwin Strong having sex and this being the reason why he beat up Harwin. Else you have no case for this scenario. You can build a bad case for Cole somehow loathing Rhaenyra because she allowed Harwin to father bastards on her ... but you have no textual evidence for him knowing about them having an affair at the time of the wedding tourney. You have no case for that at all. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Criston beat the tar out of Harwin. I don't think he liked him much. Yes ... and the reason for them is more likely to be that Criston's silly advances were spurned by Rhaenyra and he was replaced with Harwin Strong than for the reasons you try to give (you are not giving any). In fact, it would be more likely that Cole had a bad day or disliked Harwin for some other reason than the idea that this had anything to do with an alleged affair nothing indicates he would have known anything about. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It is not up to a KG to "cut ties" with a royal. They serve not out of personal preference, but duty. Barristan Selmy can be indignant that Joffrey dismissed him without needing to have high regard for Joffrey himself. LOL, of course a KG can ask the king to reassign them. Criston Cole was reassigned to Alicent, apparently. In your own silly Mushroom scenario Cole would have been the one leaving Rhaenyra or asking the king or queen to allow him to leave her because she, having the hots for him, would have likely never dismissed him from her service. She didn't do that back in 111 AC, so why should she now? Cole was also free to ask any (royal) woman for her favor in the lists - that's how he became Alicent's champion. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: You had expressed a preference earlier for Eustace's account of Daemon's rift with Viserys, in which Arryk Cargyll caught them in bed and ratted them out to Viserys. Rhaenyra was not even betrothed then (unlike the married Daemon), but it was a matter worthy of his intervention. We get a quote from Criston later warning that Rhaenyra & Daemon will turn KL into a "brothel", which is consistent with him being someone very judgmental over the sexual behavior of others. This has nothing to do with Criston Cole who was never informed about anything in that scenario, and, more importantly, it was actually adultery since Daemon Targaryen was married to Rhea Royce at the time. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: A woman being unfaithful to her betrothed is considered serious. Lyanna's betrothal to Robert is party of why it caused such a stink that Rhaegar crowned her, whereas Ned & Ashara not being betrothed is why Harwin shrugs off any rumors about them. Apples and oranges. Lyanna was allegedly abducted and raped. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mushroom & Eustace agreeing on something is a clue. They both say Criston killed Beesbury, but differ as to the method. Orwyle claims he was imprisoned in a dungeon for his dissent, and died there, but since Orwyle himself survived that raises the question of why those arguments he puts in his own mouth didn't result in a much worse fate for him. If the truth is that he just lied about Beesbury in order to change his own depiction, that explains everything. That increases the likelihood that Orwyle might lie there, but it is no confirmation. Neither Eustace nor Mushroom were in the royal apartments when the alleged murder took place. Eustace would have been told about Criston cutting Beesbury's throat - meaning he could have been lied to. Orwyle actually saw what happened - and while he wouldn't be able to memorize the dialogue he gives (or rather: invents two years after the fact) he would remember whether one of his colleagues was murdered or arrested in his presence. Orwyle downplaying his role in the discussion about the succession and painting himself as somebody honoring the late king's wishes fits well with him trying to gain the sympathies of Cregan Stark sitting in judgment over him ... but nobody would actually blame him, personally, for the Beesbury murder if he just sat there and watched it happen. He was unarmed and unprepared for something like that. In that sense, I don't think he must have lied there. He still could have, but I don't think it is conclusive. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The notion of GRRM writing all that material we're supposed to dismiss is much more "silly" to me. Well, that's your problem then. You apparently cannot accept that it is perfectly fine to not view this book as way to decipher or get to the bottom of the 'hidden actual truth'. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: There were people who doubted the Trojan War happened for that reason. You actually think THE TROJAN WAR happened? Really?! So London having a Baker Street also means Sherlock Holmes existed? 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: And, closer to GRRM's main inspirations for this series, lots of people who doubted that Richard III was hunchbacked until his skeleton was found. That's because Shakespeare and others turned Richard III as much into a fictional character than a historical character. Shakespeare made him a hunchbacked villainous clown ... and thus people actually got confused and thought that Shakespeare's sources may have used Richard's physique to paint him as a villain. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is the "message" GRRM-as-Gyldayn is trying to convey? If F&B was one big parable, that would be interesting. Our point of dissension was your dagger example. I pointed out that it is bad methodology to assume a Mushroom-kind of 'source' would be beyond inventing an entire anecdote just to give more prominence to his member. Gyldayn doesn't have any visible agenda with his history - he doesn't even seem to be much of a 'Targaryen fan' since he never much praises the dynasty as such - but his sources definitely had. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: And of course GRRM was never going to do that, because he's a fantasy author rather than a professional historian. It is not that hard to actually a paragraph or two about source criticism and stuff, or tell us more about the general gist of the works he cited. It is all made up, so not really hard work to invent it. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: You should. Communication depends on understanding what a signaller is attempting to convey. The Gricean maxims exist for a reason. Fiction exists independently of the author. The text as published belongs to me now. And you. And everybody else. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Including knowledge of how the genetics of hair & eye color work, what the accumulative effects of incest are, how often women die of childbirth, how much linguistic diversity there was in the pre-modern era, how stable aristocratic dynasties are over the very long run, whether boiling wine makes it more or less effective as an antiseptic, etc. The default line is still to treat swords as swords, crowns as crowns, and elephants as elephants. When we have reason to believe things are different in this world we accept that and move on (or complain that the changes are silly, unrealistic, etc.). 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, it's not actually omniscient. We get the thoughts of the POV characters, including when a question comes into their heads. "Could it be that Lord Renly, who looked so like a young Robert, had conceived a passion for a girl he fancied to be a young Lyanna?" No, when one character is disguised as another the text identifies them via the identity the POV character believes them to be. It does not say "Rattleshirt (or so Jon thought)", it just refers to the glamoured Mance as Rattleshirt. The only time a POV chapter gives us information the POV character might not have is that bit I've quoted from a Victarion chapter. You don't get what an omniescent narrator is in context. He knows, but that doesn't mean he has to tell us. The way George's narrator hides clues means he, the narrator (and of course also the author, but we don't talk about him here), knows what's going on. But he doesn't tell the POV or the reader directly. When the narrator has Penny talk about the guy hiring Groat for the royal wedding the narrator knows that it was Oswell Kettleblack. And we, the reader, can deduce it. If we had limited third-person narrator we wouldn't get any such glimpses. It is even more subtle with something like the size of the guy who seems to Sandor on the Quiet Isle. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: How well do you know maesters that you can make this claim about their "professionalism" so as to suggest this hypothesis suggested nowhere in the text itself? Yandel's and Gyldayn's work are enough for us to assess their professionalism compared to modern academics. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Read the link on privileging the hypothesis. There is no actual evidence for Eustace ever citing any maester, much less Norren specifically, nor of Gyldayn knowing about Norren's writings via Eustace rather than the specific work he cites. Why should I, or anyone else, take such speculation seriously? Because you yourself are constantly quoting Eustace/Mushroom through Gyldayn. Why shouldn't you consider the possibility that the in-universe follow a similar method when writing a popular history? 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why are we talking about some "existing popular history" that is never mentioned anywhere and doesn't exist in any form because GRRM hasn't made it up!? We know such histories exist since Yandel tells us that Gyldayn's account of the Conquest as given by him in TWoIaF is about as detailed as the other histories that exist on that particular historical event and as good as anything on the subject he could write himself ... which is the reason why he gives us Gyldayn's account. The idea that in this world of vast distances and difficult travel a maester would actually travel from Oldtown to Maidenpool just to consult a particular chronicle to check on a side story of his history if he could come by that information from another work (or, as I suggested, by asking the resident maester for a transcript) is just not very convincing to me. I didn't say he didn't go there. I just pointed out that he might not consulted that work firsthand. And this whole issue was originally about Daemon's letter from Harrenhal about Blood and Cheese. We have no confirmation Gyldayn ever read any such letter firsthand. Which is why I maintain that we cannot claim that it is 'confirmed' that Daemon actually hired Blood and Cheese to murder a son of Aegon II - and only a son of Aegon II. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yeah, GRRM hadn't made up those others yet. Similarly, there's no mention of the Blackfyre rebellion in The Hedge Knight or prior books, but a lot of mentions later on. If Eustace's history and the Testimony are going to be mentioned as texts known firsthand by characters in the main series we can accept that those works are still in circulation in the late 3rd century. If not, then they could be lost works at that time. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We have no evidence that he wasn't, and no reason to think GRRM wanted us to think of him that way. And that means we have to assume he is competent and diligent and all that? 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We have him agreeing to do so, and no indication that he didn't follow through on that agreement. Again, we had Alicent agreeing to it earlier, too, and nothing came of that. That gives us the benefit of the doubt here. But as I said - even if there had been a formal decree naming Aegon III Aegon II's heir - there is not the slightest indication that this was the reason why he was proclaimed king after the murder of Aegon II. We hear no person saying that Aegon III is king as the legal and lawful heir of Aegon II. Instead, he succeeds his uncle after a coup and a murder following the complete defeat of Aegon II's people in the field. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Rather than ridiculous, it's something that has happened at other times. Cersei schemed to kill Robert so as to make Joffrey (Robert's designated heir, even if he was illegitimate) king instead. Aegon IV is alleged to have killed his father Viserys so he could take the throne, and Viserys in turn is alleged to have killed Baelor to take the throne. Yes, but if that all is or were true then seizing a throne in that manner is treason and usurpation. You don't remain somebody's anointed heir in a monarchy if you seize the throne by way of regicide. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: They were already short of candidates for the throne at that point And Aegon III was a child that nobody thinks held any responsibility (rather Cregan wanted to punish Larys & Corlys). Aegon III became king because his faction won the war, because Corlys and Larys turned Black when the murdered Aegon II and proclaimed Aegon III. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Is Lysa Tully a Targaryen dragonrider? Were Baela or Rhaena Targaryen dragonriders in 132 AC? 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I have quoted the bit from that very regency council in which Munkun ended the discussion by reminding them they had to abide by primogeniture. His was the last word on the matter ... but not the deciding factor. The regents could have named one of the girls earlier ... but they couldn't agree on which girl. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why should anyone take seriously your personal assesment rather than the text itself saying it was the view of "many", with no one calling it radical or impractical? Because of the reasons given. Any Salic law-like royal/noble succession is radical and impractical because it can and did lead countless times to trouble and strife. The whole premise of Downton Abbey is about that. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The next heir being a male relative that just turned up is what actually happened. Realistically, if Munkun had found some more obscure candidates a Great Council would have likely been in order. Any such candidate would have been obscure beyond measure. Our knowledge of the Targaryen family tree implies that they would have to go back to hypothetical pre-Conquest male cadet branches ... which is ridiculous considering that nothing indicates that any such existed. If Aegon I had had male line male cousins they would have been there in the first century of the Targaryen rule. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Daemon II Blackfyre, Viserys & Dany are not alleged bastards, but having an egg (or, even better, actual dragons) is supposed to support their claim to the throne. Because in the absence of living dragons the magical or miraculous hatching of a petrified dragon egg would be viewed as a divine sign, express the will of the Seven that the person possessing the egg should be king, etc. That's an altogether different scenario than somebody having a dragon when there are dragons aplenty. Nobody thought Ulf or Nettles having a dragon meant they were 'royalty' or should rule. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: How do you know when the plans stopped? We only hear when those began. Rhaenyra fled the city the day after she arrested Corlys, no? Or two days thereafter. But I guess in your opinion she may have still made such plans while Sunfyre was devouring her. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: How else would it be paid for? The reason for the backbreaking taxes was because there wasn't money to spare. I made it clear. The plans could have been made for an investiture celebration after the Green army was defeated and Aemond brought to justice - which would have been after the war had ended, when Rhaenyra's peace terms to Casterly Rock and Oldtown (which she planned to give after doing away with Daeron and Aemond, respectively) should have given her access to parts of the treasury stored there (and to the one at the Iron Bank as well - which she apparently was never able to gain access to because nobody told her that a quarter of the money was there). The whole thing about succession war's ultimate outcome being decided by whatever faction was able to secure the treasury money in the beginning is also something George took straight out of his historical inspirations. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Because I'm not a fictional character. Fictional characters are not bound by the constraints of reality. They are only bound by their authors. Well, but cannot I assume you must have a perfect memory in light of the fact that some real people also do have something like that, or come close to it? Why should I assume you are as average and unimpressive as having a mundane memory? The point for us to assume that memory is perfect is when a character in fiction is stated to have such memory - which simply isn't the case for any of the primary or secondary sources in FaB. You can tell me all day long that you want to assume that the account on the Green Council and other such things 'took place exactly like they were described sans the little issues Gyldayn has with them' but I'm not going to agree with you on that. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Something being done for show does not make it "for the general public". Aristocrats engage in conspicuous consumption for their own benefit, not that of the people they rule. Something done for show is done for the general public by default (or even definition). It wouldn't be a show if nobody witnessed it, nobody attended it. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Are those guests the smallfolk? And how lucky they would be if they were, to be fed the very food they paid for with their taxes. I'm sure a lavish investiture celebration would also include parts of the smallfolk. Especially the smallfolk of King's Landing rich enought to be able to pay taxes. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Where did it say that? And again, such lucky people to get the leftovers. It was common practice in medieval times to give the leftovers of such events to the poor. But we also have folks eat and drink for free as guests at the Whitewalls wedding - which was a minor affair compared to Joff's lavish wedding. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: There is no indication she had any such wish, and you just generalized that it was not the case for medieval rulers. I'm pretty sure Rhaenyra would have tried to buy the goodwill of her people had she realized that she was growing unpopular assuming she had the coin to do that. We don't get an 'let them starve' attitude from her. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Wars are the biggest expenses medieval rulers faced. They would expect to be in debt at the end, rather than having ample coin. Here is your blatant dishonesty again - at war's end Rhaenyra would have again access to three quarters of the full treasury of Viserys I. More than ample coin to spend - which is actually spent once Aegon III's government has access to that coin! 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: When taxes are easy a lavish ceremony is not so bothersome. It signals "I have so much money I can afford to spend it frivolously", always important for aristocrats. Where is it stated in the text that the lavish ceremony was bothersome in the eyes of the people? The taxes were, but nobody complained about the plans for the lavish ceremony. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes, he preached earlier, but there weren't riots until the death of Helaena. But he made it perfectly clear he didn't really care about either of the pretenders. He just uses Helaena's death as another 'reason' why he thinks the Targaryens in general are corrupt monsters. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Trystane had to issue his own proclamations in response to Gaemon. And prior to that, Wat was leading a political movement against Celtigar's taxes. LOL, Wat led a band of mad rioteers who literally disappeared into the night. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM is not mocking the politics of Gaemon's edicts just because they were all reversed later. They were not reversed, they were summarily burned by Aegon II. I agree that George's own view seems to be different on Gaemon's policies - but as you may have read - I was talking about THE FUCKING SHEPHERD, not Gaemon. George has the Shepherd as a religious lunatic and paints him as such - to the point that even the masses of KL cut their ties with that zealous madman. They have more common sense than he has. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The dragons don't protect people. Everywhere the dragons dance, the people die. They're a cross between WMDs and wild animals, typically used by incestuous aristocrats who think they're above the laws of gods & men because of that, though potentially available for lowlives like the Betrayers (who also come to think they're above all rules as a result). Nope, the dragons clearly could have protected the Kingslanders from other dragons attacking the place. The chances for that to happen where much larger while KL still had dragons than they were after the morons killed them all. During the Dance of the Dragons, dragons and their riders mostly died, when the dragons danced, not the general public (Tumbleton excluded). 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Perhaps you approve of Gaemon but not the others (I personally would consider the Shepherd to be more of an anarchist than an actual theocrat, since he claimed no position for himself), but the smallfolk are large and can contain multitudes. The rioters against Joffrey are sympathetic in their demands for bread, but they also do awful things like commit rapes. The High Sparrow is right that Cersei should not be above the law, but what she has officially been punished for so far is something that wouldn't be a crime at all in our society. Steven Attewell is outspoken about his own left-populist politics, but he doesn't attempt to argue that authentic populism & moral righteousness always go together. The Shepherd is somewhat left-leaning, but his view of things is still dominated by religious zealotry, basically a worship of poverty and humility. He does command his followers to throw away their worldly possessions and walk around like begging monks. That has nothing to do with anarchism. George's smallfolk mostly does lack any political agenda - aside from, as I have acknowledged, the religiously motivated sparrow movement. That is an actual political movement. The Shepherd was just a single crazy person swept up by the events in a couple of mad nights. There is no substance behind that movement. George deliberately decided to make the smallfolk anonymous masses in his books - aside from the religiously motivated sparrows. He allows for humble people to object to certain aspects of the ruling order through the agenda for religious reform. And I never doubted that this is a thing - but the uprisings against Rhaenyra are not genuine political movements. In a sense, Gaemon Palehair is also a cynical commentary on the shitty world of Westeros - the only time modern/decent political ideas can be entertained in Westeros is during a time of brutal and bloody chaos. This is actually a very cynical take on things. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It was a war that started with the assassination of an archduke, and one in which the aristocratic officer class disproportionately died. In a hypothetical scenario where only the elite killed each other (like Frank Herbert's "war of assassins" in Dune), that might simply be ignored by commoners or instability wrought by such deaths could upend the system (as is implied to have happened on a fantastical scale with the Doom of Valyria). But in both the real world, and ASoIaF, wars tend to cause deaths for both. I'm not going to discuss the casualties of World War I with you, sorry. 9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Nobody ever had any reasons to dislike Helaena (partly because she's so thinly characterized). We get reasons why Rhaenyra went from the Realm's Delight to Maegor With Teats, it's just to you that it doesn't make sense. Nobody had any reasons to love Helaena, either, so what does it mean when Gyldayn tells us that she was loved? Pretty much nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 On 1/29/2022 at 7:18 PM, Lord Varys said: Of course people can remember crucial events in their lives, things that affected and shaped the ending of a war. But that doesn't mean they remember conversation accurately. If you buy or pretend that Jaime or Ned actually accurately remember the conversation they do remember you are stretching thing. Was that first Green Council meeting not "crucial"? It affected and shaped the beginning of the war, and per Eustace & Mushroom contained the killing of Beesbury. Since we had both Ned & Jaime chapters reflecting on that, GRRM had the opportunity to have their memories conflict... but he didn't do that. Jaime just feels unfairly judged because of things that happened before Ned arrived & which Ned never knew about. Ned's own description of the scene reads like GRRM describing such a scene... because that's how he likes to write. Quote you can doubt them Nobody can stop you from doubting everything GRRM wrote and concluding it's actually the dream of a magic beetle. Quote That's nonsense. Not nonsense at all in the real world. Everything was written by GRRM and only exists to the extent he makes it. If he wanted to in the future he could publish "unabridged" versions of his sources, and then he could rewrite anything he wants (like he can retcon Jeyne's hips, or Renly's eyes). But until he does, this is what actually exists of them. Quote We still have no clue. Eustace being Alicent's confessor doesn't mean she actually talked to him about that. The former does not follow from the latter. Alicent is the most obvious source because him being a confessor & confidant to her was made explicit, and that was not the case for the other members of the council. It's logically possible that Otto Hightower (for instance) could have been as well, but since we haven't gotten any confirmation that was in fact the case Alicent is our more likely candidiate. Thus not "no clue". Quote If we had clue who his source was we would have something like 'as Eustace ensures us Queen Alicent told him in confidence When a police detective is looking for "clues" they don't need it to be that explicit. Anything which can potentially point them somewhere is a "clue". And a clue can turn out to be a red herring! Quote That may be Ran's opinion but it is obviously not mine Your argument appears to be heavily based on your own personal opinion, deeming that of others "ridiculous". But why should anyone take your opinion more seriously than, for example, Ran's? Shouldn't you be attempting to make an argument that could be appreciated by someone who doesn't already share your opinions? Such as by quoting from the text, or showing that other people and not just you have arrived at certain contested views? Quote If you beg the question, then that explains how you can conclude that. What question is being begged there? The other two sources designated a target for Swann in their main text, but Eustace didn't. That reads as significant. Quote What I care about is that we have no source claiming that Joffrey and Laenor actually had sex or were romantically in love. GRRM failed to anticipate he would need a source on Driftmark to satisfy you personally. You are the only person I'm aware of trying to argue otherwise. Quote Alicent's remark indicates Criston Cole lusted after Rhaenyra, not the other way around. It's directly preceded by Gyldayn talking about Rhaenyra having eyes only for Cole (whom many women found attractive), without anything about him experiencing any lust. In the context of the Black vs Green dynamics it is Alicent trying to undermine the connection between her rival and said rival's greatest champion on the field. Quote So Ned's silly conclusion It's not "silly" to GRRM. You can argue all you want about how genetics doesn't work that way, but GRRM does not care. Quote is proof that Rhaenyra's children were fathered by Harwin Strong? Riight! It's GRRM's way of tipping off readers who remember the parallel with Cersei's kids. Quote of course a KG can ask the king to reassign them When does that happen? Jaime wanted to be reassigned to be competing in the tourney or fighting Robert's rebels rather than guarding, but it wasn't up to him. Quote Cole would have been the one leaving Rhaenyra or asking the king or queen to allow him to leave her It would not be his prerogative to leave, and as a servant of the king (and to an extent the royal family) his own preferences for his duties aren't supposed to be relevant. He's supposed to do his duty and obey orders, insofar as that doesn't conflict with his duties & oaths. Quote she, having the hots for him, would have likely never dismissed him from her service Not so. It's well-known that people can find it unpleasant to be around someone they are attracted to but has rejected them. And if Rhaenyra can replace Criston with another knight who doesn't reject her, all the more reason to dismiss him. Quote Apples and oranges. Lyanna was allegedly abducted and raped. I was referencing what happened before that. It was said "all smiles died" and Brandon had to be restrained because it was widely regarded as inappropriate. Quote Orwyle downplaying his role in the discussion Putting someone else's words in your mouth is not "downplaying" your own role. He had the option of saying nothing about himself rather than making himself more prominent. Quote but nobody would actually blame him, personally, for the Beesbury murder if he just sat there and watched it happen And nobody is holding him responsible for that specifically. Rather, it's the lack of punishment Orwyle faced vs Beesbury which is at issue. If Criston is killing members of the SC who weren't on board, that raises the question of why Orwyle was still alive. Quote You apparently cannot accept that it is perfectly fine to not view this book as way to decipher or get to the bottom of the 'hidden actual truth'. I accept that some things are just ambiguous and we can't have much confidence in. I just don't think that applies to the bulk of the book where there's no indication of ambiguity. Quote You actually think THE TROJAN WAR happened? Quote In the second edition of his In Search of the Trojan War, Michael Wood notes developments that were made in the intervening ten years since his first edition was published. Scholarly skepticism about Schliemann's identification has been dispelled by the more recent archaeological discoveries, linguistic research, and translations of clay-tablet records of contemporaneous diplomacy. Wood, Michael (1998). "Preface". In Search of the Trojan War (2 ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-520-21599-0. "Now, more than ever, in the 125 years since Schliemann put his spade into Hisarlik, there appears to be a historical basis to the tale of Troy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War#cite_note-3 More generally, it has been said that you'd get a more accurate understanding of history from reading Robert Howard than mid-century archaeologists. Quote So London having a Baker Street also means Sherlock Holmes existed? No, Doyle was always open about the fact that he was writing a work of fiction (set in then-contemporary times). Quote thus people actually got confused and thought that Shakespeare's sources may have used Richard's physique to paint him as a villain Yes, people got "confused" and thought they should just dismiss everything even though Shakespeare turned out to know more than they did. Quote Gyldayn doesn't have any visible agenda with his history - he doesn't even seem to be much of a 'Targaryen fan' since he never much praises the dynasty as such - but his sources definitely had. This is closer to my perspective on F&B. Gyldayn doesn't have a very distinctive POV, so the way that GRRM adds back in the ambiguity and conflicting perspectives of his main series is with clashing sources. Quote It is not that hard to actually a paragraph or two about source criticism and stuff, or tell us more about the general gist of the works he cited. It is all made up, so not really hard work to invent it. It wouldn't have been that hard for GRRM to give Cersei's children a recessive genetic disorder to actually prove they were the products of incest, but he didn't do that. GRRM has Gyldayn discuss the sources only when he feels like that should be relevant to the reader. Quote Fiction exists independently of the author. I know that "the death of the author" exists and readers can't be stopped from coming up with their own interpretations, but I'm not talking to someone who has only read F&B and knows nothing else about GRRM or the universe he created. A reader like you can consider Ned's deduction to be "silly" (just as I find nonsensical the reveal, confirmed by GRRM, that Joffrey sent the catspaw) but you have to recognize that within that fictional world his logic was correct. Quote The default line is still to treat swords as swords, crowns as crowns, and elephants as elephants. Is that different from what anyone is arguing for F&B? I didn't argue that the crowns of Aegon or Rhaenyra were actually custards Quote You don't get what an omniescent narrator is in context. He knows, but that doesn't mean he has to tell us. So the omniscient narrator lies to us by telling us what the POV character believes (such as the identity of a disguised character) rather than the truth? How is that different from a non-omniescent narrator? And shouldn't an omniscient narrator aware of even the thoughts of characters write "he thought" alongside that quote I gave from Ned? The TV show repeatedly took lines that were not quotes and put them in the mouths of the POV characters for their respective chapters. Wouldn't that work much worse if such lines didn't actually reflect what the characters were thinking? Quote and of course also the author, but we don't talk about him here Speak for yourself, I certainly talk about him! Quote When the narrator has Penny talk about the guy hiring Groat for the royal wedding the narrator knows that it was Oswell Kettleblack That's a matter of putting words in Penny's mouth, not who the narrator is and what they know. Quote If we had limited third-person narrator we wouldn't get any such glimpses. Why couldn't we? Wouldn't such a narrator hear the same words from Penny? Quote Yandel's and Gyldayn's work are enough for us to assess their professionalism compared to modern academics. That they are "lazy" and don't actually read the sources they cite? Quote Because you yourself are constantly quoting Eustace/Mushroom through Gyldayn. Why shouldn't you consider the possibility that the in-universe follow a similar method when writing a popular history? I am obviously in a different position from Gyldayn. I can ONLY quote those sources via Gyldayn because that is the only form in which they exist. Gyldayn exists in the same universe as his sources. Quote We know such histories exist since Yandel tells us that Gyldayn's account of the Conquest as given by him in TWoIaF is about as detailed as the other histories that exist on that particular historical event and as good as anything on the subject he could write himself ... which is the reason why he gives us Gyldayn's account. You are using Yandel's account of the work's accuracy as a reason for doubting it? Quote The idea that in this world of vast distances and difficult travel As difficult as GRRM feels like making it. Tyrion & Catelyn are somehow able to meet up at the Inn of the Crossroads even though the distances don't make sense, LF can hop over to the Tyrells to make an alliance with enough time that they can join up with Tywin. Quote asking the resident maester for a transcript I suppose there are as many transcripts as GRRM wants there to be and to whatever degree of accuracy he wants. Quote Which is why I maintain that we cannot claim that it is 'confirmed' that Daemon actually hired Blood and Cheese to murder a son of Aegon II GRRM has Gyldayn write that and with no indication he was wrong. You have just been emitting squid ink rather than actually pointing to anything in the text indicating otherwise because you objected to my characterization of the Blacks. Quote And that means we have to assume he is competent and diligent and all that? It means there's no reason to think his competence/diligence is an issue for readers to be concerned with. Quote Again, we had Alicent agreeing to it earlier, too, and nothing came of that. She's not the king. The text explicitly tells us she had agreed without Aegon's consent, which is why his agreement was necessary in addition. Quote We hear no person saying that Aegon III is king as the legal and lawful heir of Aegon II Is he said to be the heir of anyone else? Quote Yes, but if that all is or were true then seizing a throne in that manner is treason and usurpation. That's not how Tyrion views Viserys allegedly killing Baelor... and people actually were executed for Aegon's assassination! Quote You don't remain somebody's anointed heir in a monarchy if you seize the throne by way of regicide. Aegon III was innocent of any regicide. Someone else hurrying him onto the throne (like Baelor was hurried on by Daeron's regicide at a peace meeting) doesn't prevent him from being heir, even if the person who got him there must be executed. During the War of 5 Kings Stannis is the one who accuses the Lannisters of killing Robert, but his argument against Joffrey's claim to the throne is that Joffrey is a bastard born of incest. Quote Were Baela or Rhaena Targaryen dragonriders in 132 AC? One of them had a dragon and one had ridden a dragon. Both had Targaryen descent. Quote they couldn't agree on which girl They certainly can't agree if the discussion ends prior to choosing one. Quote Because of the reasons given Not the reasons of the actual characters in-universe. Quote Any Salic law-like royal/noble succession is radical and impractical because it can and did lead countless times to trouble and strife. So the actual laws of succession that did exist in history for centuries were "radical" because you don't approve of them? Quote Any such candidate would have been obscure beyond measure. Is Orys Baratheon obscure beyond measure? I suppose as a bastard they can't be sure he really was the half brother of Aegon. Quote That's an altogether different scenario than somebody having a dragon when there are dragons aplenty. There weren't "dragons aplenty" when Aegon III's heir was being debated. Quote Nobody thought Ulf or Nettles having a dragon meant they were 'royalty' or should rule. Ulf himself did Quote Rhaenyra fled the city the day after she arrested Corlys, no? Or two days thereafter. A presumably short amount of time, although the exact number of days isn't clear. We do get Celtigar proposing a new tax in between the arrest & Helaena's death. Quote But I guess in your opinion she may have still made such plans while Sunfyre was devouring her. Credit where credit is due: that made me laugh. Quote The plans could have been made for an investiture celebration after the Green army was defeated and Aemond brought to justice The text gives no such indication. Quote cannot I assume you must have a perfect memory in light of the fact that some real people also do have something like that, or come close to it? Why should I assume you are as average and unimpressive as having a mundane memory? Because I can tell you otherwise. Quote The point for us to assume that memory is perfect is when a character in fiction is stated to have such memory Do we have any reason to think Ned or Jaime's memory of their encounter in the throne room was inaccurate? Quote Something done for show is done for the general public by default (or even definition). It wouldn't be a show if nobody witnessed it, nobody attended it. It wouldn't be an execution if there wasn't a victim, but it's not "for" that victim. Quote we also have folks eat and drink for free as guests at the Whitewalls wedding - which was a minor affair compared to Joff's lavish wedding. So now you are in the situation where you can't quote the text saying that and instead must point elsewhere Quote I'm pretty sure Rhaenyra would have tried to buy the goodwill of her people had she realized that she was growing unpopular assuming she had the coin to do that. We don't get an 'let them starve' attitude from her. Where does your sureness come from? What attitude do you get from her? It's not just me who sees in Rhaenyra a remarkable talent for alienating people under the assumption that anyone who has a problem with her can just suck it up or die. Quote at war's end Rhaenyra would have again access to three quarters of the full treasury of Viserys I Not if her enemies are spending that treasury to fight against her. Quote nobody complained about the plans for the lavish ceremony I don't imagine many smallfolk sat in on her planning sessions. Some of them might have said things like this: "He bathes in scented waters and grows fat on lark and lamprey while his people starve!" What they experienced were taxes, and the aristocratic guests at any hypothetical wedding getting first dibs on the food the smallfolk paid for would have resembled that remark. Quote But he made it perfectly clear he didn't really care about either of the pretenders. The question is whether he cared about the victims, not the still living rivals. He was able to use Helaena's death as a rallying cry because people did find her death shocking, as the deaths of her children had been. Quote Wat led a band of mad rioteers who literally disappeared into the night. Mad as in "angry" certainly. You again just dismiss all the smallfolk who rose up no matter their motivation. Quote They were not reversed, they were summarily burned by Aegon II. Is that not a symbolic way of undoing them? Quote George has the Shepherd as a religious lunatic and paints him as such - to the point that even the masses of KL cut their ties with that zealous madman. They have more common sense than he has. They manage to survive longer than him, but he's not painted as a "lunatic" when he correctly predicts the deaths of his enemies. Quote The chances for that to happen where much larger while KL still had dragons than they were after the morons killed them all. If GRRM agreed with you on that he could have had dragons come later to burn the Shepherd. As things were, the loyalists in KL weren't even able to handle the smallfolk of KL, much less the Green army (sans dragons). Quote He does command his followers to throw away their worldly possessions and walk around like begging monks. That has nothing to do with anarchism. "Property is theft" is an anarchist slogan (although Proudhon's perspective was more complicated by that). And "freeganism" is linked to anarchism. Quote George's smallfolk mostly does lack any political agenda - aside from, as I have acknowledged, the religiously motivated sparrow movement. That is an actual political movement. The Shepherd was just a single crazy person swept up by the events in a couple of mad nights. There is no substance behind that movement. The smallfolk are only riled up some of the time (as were their real medieval predecessors). But GRRM deliberately had multiple leaders in the riots so that it was not the case the "The Shepherd was just a single crazy person". You are selecting one person and then dismissing the larger mass of smallfolk who succeeded in overthrowing a monarch because you don't share his (fictional) religion. Quote George deliberately decided to make the smallfolk anonymous masses in his books - aside from the religiously motivated sparrows. Wat had a name. And not giving names to large masses of people is just convenient for an author. Quote the uprisings against Rhaenyra are not genuine political movements. What do they have to do to pass your muster as "genuine"? Why should anyone care what you call "genuine"? You can tell us all who qualifies as a Genuine Scotsman. Perhaps they are truer than a True Scotsman! Quote Nobody had any reasons to love Helaena, either, so what does it mean when Gyldayn tells us that she was loved? You infer that because you don't care about Helaena that nobody else could have, despite the text indicating otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Was that first Green Council meeting not "crucial"? It affected and shaped the beginning of the war, and per Eustace & Mushroom contained the killing of Beesbury. Since we had both Ned & Jaime chapters reflecting on that, GRRM had the opportunity to have their memories conflict... but he didn't do that. Jaime just feels unfairly judged because of things that happened before Ned arrived & which Ned never knew about. Ned's own description of the scene reads like GRRM describing such a scene... because that's how he likes to write. I can't help you, if you actually think short memories like two sentences of a raving madman, a regicide which is most likely one of the most important events in Jaime's entire life, or Ned finding Jaime on the Iron Throne are in a meaningful way comparable to a council session full of discussions which lasted pretty much an entire night and involved a lot of tired people, one imagines, are similarly 'memory situations'. But I definitely don't pretend Jaime remembering something Rhaegar told him fifteen years ago means that we are to believe it is 'confirmed' that Jaime's memories give us Rhaegar's exact words. I'd say that the gist of such a memory might be accurate, although even that isn't really necessary for the story to work. The character as such is most likely motivated or affected by the memory as he or she remembers it, so whether something actually happened in this or that way or not is not really something the reader has to determine or have an opinion on. The plot will continue on the basis of the memory, not on the basis of the memory accurately reflect the historical facts. From my own memory - which is actually pretty good - I can say that I do not remember entire conversations in detail two years or fifteen years later, even if I might remember the general circumstances. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Nobody can stop you from doubting everything GRRM wrote and concluding it's actually the dream of a magic beetle. That is a childish point to make since I argue completely within the confines of what we know about how human memories and medieval-style histories work, not with the intention to completely dismiss everything about a fictional work I actually like to talk about. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not nonsense at all in the real world. Everything was written by GRRM and only exists to the extent he makes it. If he wanted to in the future he could publish "unabridged" versions of his sources, and then he could rewrite anything he wants (like he can retcon Jeyne's hips, or Renly's eyes). But until he does, this is what actually exists of them. What has that to do with anything? 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The former does not follow from the latter. Alicent is the most obvious source because him being a confessor & confidant to her was made explicit, and that was not the case for the other members of the council. It's logically possible that Otto Hightower (for instance) could have been as well, but since we haven't gotten any confirmation that was in fact the case Alicent is our more likely candidiate. Thus not "no clue". As long as Eustace doesn't give us the name of a source we just don't know who that source was. Period. Any person on the council - even Orwyle - could have been Eustace's source. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Your argument appears to be heavily based on your own personal opinion, deeming that of others "ridiculous". But why should anyone take your opinion more seriously than, for example, Ran's? Shouldn't you be attempting to make an argument that could be appreciated by someone who doesn't already share your opinions? Such as by quoting from the text, or showing that other people and not just you have arrived at certain contested views? You made an argument from authority there, not I. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: What question is being begged there? The other two sources designated a target for Swann in their main text, but Eustace didn't. That reads as significant. You tell us Mushroom must be reliable because he mentions your preferred version - the Tyrion backed Syrax version - but Eustace was there as well, so he should have mentioned the Syrax thing, too. Mushroom mentioning it and Eustace not mentioning only makes Mushroom more reliable if you want to believe his version. Because both guys were there. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM failed to anticipate he would need a source on Driftmark to satisfy you personally. You are the only person I'm aware of trying to argue otherwise. LOL, just stop your silly 'source for a particular place' nonsense. There are no sources for places, there are sources for events, and if George wanted to send us the message that Laenor and Joffrey had a sexual or romantic relationship he could have made things crystal clear. I mean, he could have Rhaenys and Corlys constantly complain about the buggery of the degenerate, unnatural son they were cursed with. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's directly preceded by Gyldayn talking about Rhaenyra having eyes only for Cole (whom many women found attractive), without anything about him experiencing any lust. In the context of the Black vs Green dynamics it is Alicent trying to undermine the connection between her rival and said rival's greatest champion on the field. That's nonsense - Alicent offers her own opinion in that quote, and didn't, if that was an actual statement she made (which I would not claim but you apparently seem to believe), say those words to make them fit with Gyldayn's narrative. Rather Gyldayn chose to include those words at this point in his narrative. Alicent's own words if viewed as accurate have to be analyzed as to why she may have said this - and it is quite clear that if you indicate that the chastity of a princess is in danger from a knight of the Kingsguard then you mean that this man is lusting after her (in your opinion) because the princess as such could not possibly force a man - especially not a KG - to have sex with her against his will. We also see this attitude in Mushroom's account which you seem to like so much. Rhaenyra is a princess and the Heir Apparent, but she still has to try to seduce Criston Cole ... she cannot command or force him to fuck her, he must want to do it, too. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's not "silly" to GRRM. You can argue all you want about how genetics doesn't work that way, but GRRM does not care. It is silly because the idea that a person like Ned would conclude that Jaime was the father of the children just because they looked like their mother and their uncle is, frankly, ridiculous. Only a sick mind obsessed with secret incestuous relationships would jump to that particular conclusion. Jaime and Cersei are twin siblings - even if they were constantly touching and embracing and kissing (modestly) in public people would not conclude they must have a sexual affair. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's GRRM's way of tipping off readers who remember the parallel with Cersei's kids. It is a kind of parallel situation, but that it is supposed 'to tip you off' is just your personal interpretation. We don't have to agree with you here. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: When does that happen? Jaime wanted to be reassigned to be competing in the tourney or fighting Robert's rebels rather than guarding, but it wasn't up to him. We know KG can have that wish - Jaime also expresses it when he doesn't want to go to the Riverlands in AFfC. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It would not be his prerogative to leave, and as a servant of the king (and to an extent the royal family) his own preferences for his duties aren't supposed to be relevant. He's supposed to do his duty and obey orders, insofar as that doesn't conflict with his duties & oaths. Not so. It's well-known that people can find it unpleasant to be around someone they are attracted to but has rejected them. And if Rhaenyra can replace Criston with another knight who doesn't reject her, all the more reason to dismiss him. Rhaenyra couldn't replace her own KG sworn shield against the will of the king. Viserys I would have authorized everything here since we talk about the Kingsguard which to obey the king, but if Cole was the one disgusted by Rhaenyra (repeatedly) and the one loathing her (which you seem to believe) then it stands to reason that he was the one asking the king for permission to do something else rather than Rhaenyra herself. As Princess of Dragonstone Rhaenyra can take whatever knight she wants into her service, so she didn't need her father's permission to make Harwin her champion (although he could and later did command that Harwin leave her services). Although I imagine Viserys I must have quietly agreed that Cole become Alicent's new buddy since he could have assigned him to his own person, to any of his other children, etc. Just as her earlier allowed that Cole became Rhaenyra's sworn shield. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I was referencing what happened before that. It was said "all smiles died" and Brandon had to be restrained because it was widely regarded as inappropriate. It was inappropriate that Rhaegar showed great favor to a woman who wasn't his wife. A wife that was actually present at the tourney. All smiles didn't die because folks felt about this thing like Robert or the Starks. But why are we talking that shit? You have still to establish that Cole believed or knew that Rhaenyra had fucked Harwin before the wedding tourney? I'm still waiting for that. You are aware that your take on this entire thing is without any textual basis, right? 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Putting someone else's words in your mouth is not "downplaying" your own role. He had the option of saying nothing about himself rather than making himself more prominent. Such speculation is pointless - pretending that Eustace had more accurate information about what was going on at the council than the guy who was actually there is not convincing. It might be that Eustace's take on Orwyle in general is more accurate, but when we go down to the actual things said Eustace is a joke as a source. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: And nobody is holding him responsible for that specifically. Rather, it's the lack of punishment Orwyle faced vs Beesbury which is at issue. If Criston is killing members of the SC who weren't on board, that raises the question of why Orwyle was still alive. I'm not sure how you know what Orwyle was held responsible or what he might have fear his Stark judge might hold him responsible for while writing his confession. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I accept that some things are just ambiguous and we can't have much confidence in. I just don't think that applies to the bulk of the book where there's no indication of ambiguity. Then just admit that you want to believe whatever is in the book and you really don't care about the genre medieval-style history books and how reliable they can be. But then you are no longer part of a discussion about the trustworthiness of some of the sources or the book in general. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War#cite_note-3 More generally, it has been said that you'd get a more accurate understanding of history from reading Robert Howard than mid-century archaeologists. I wrote THE TROJAN WAR to reference that I mean the Homerian war. That one didn't happen. Just because there was a site which is identified as the city of Troy doesn't mean anything like THE TROJAN WAR ever happened - although the place being a city and the world being the world the place was likely the site of many a violent conflict. There certainly might be a historical basis for the Iliad ... but that's not the same as THE TROJAN WAR ever happening. That war included the Greek gods as combatants, after all. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Yes, people got "confused" and thought they should just dismiss everything even though Shakespeare turned out to know more than they did. Shakespeare's plays are a joke as historical sources. His reception caused people to be overly critical of Shakespeare's sources, but Richard III is no proper 'source' on the reign of that king. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: So the omniscient narrator lies to us by telling us what the POV character believes (such as the identity of a disguised character) rather than the truth? How is that different from a non-omniescent narrator? And shouldn't an omniscient narrator aware of even the thoughts of characters write "he thought" alongside that quote I gave from Ned? The TV show repeatedly took lines that were not quotes and put them in the mouths of the POV characters for their respective chapters. Wouldn't that work much worse if such lines didn't actually reflect what the characters were thinking? The omniescient narrator tells us the thoughts of all the POVs, not just the one from a single POV. A non-omniescent narrator makes it explicit that he is the voice of the actual POV character - and that's mostly the case in novels where you have only one third-person narrator. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I am obviously in a different position from Gyldayn. I can ONLY quote those sources via Gyldayn because that is the only form in which they exist. Gyldayn exists in the same universe as his sources. But you pretend that Gyldayn 'must have' or 'did' consult the sources directly he quotes, right? Sort of like you would never expect anyone writing a dissertation to misquote or plagiarize something just because they don't say they are doing this, right? 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: You are using Yandel's account of the work's accuracy as a reason for doubting it? I just confirmed that there are other Targaryen histories in Westeros which Yandel is familiar with - which means Gyldayn should have been aware of them, too. And Yandel's assessment of the quality of Gyldayn's history of the Conquest as giving the same information most of the others gives indicates that there is not much difference in the popular-style history Yandel and Gyldayn are both writing. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM has Gyldayn write that and with no indication he was wrong. You have just been emitting squid ink rather than actually pointing to anything in the text indicating otherwise because you objected to my characterization of the Blacks. This has nothing to do with your characterization of anything. We can take the same kind of methodology to something I actually like to believe. I do believe that Rhaena was a lesbian and had an affair with all the women that are named as her favorites ... but if you told me that we have no explicit confirmation for any of that and just the speculation of the maester of Faircastle that she loved Elissa then I'd have to admit that you were right there. All I can say is that I like that story, I cannot say that Rhaena Targaryen was *actually* a lesbian because we have no credible source confirming that. When we have conflicting accounts we can also say which of them is more plausible - but that doesn't make the most plausible account *true*. Your take on the Rhaenyra-Criston situation is the least plausible, of course, but's due to source material and your arguments. But it doesn't mean that Eustace's take on things - or my own - is actually correct. Just that it isn't as outlandish as yours. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It means there's no reason to think his competence/diligence is an issue for readers to be concerned with. Again, the very nature of the genre makes this an issue. You cannot have a medieval-style history book and then pretend everything in there is completely accurate. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: She's not the king. The text explicitly tells us she had agreed without Aegon's consent, which is why his agreement was necessary in addition. But Aegon could have just quietly given his consent without Gyldayn having to bother with there being a conflict there. All we get later is the promise that things will be done as Larys arranged them ... not that this actually came to pass. You would have a case here if no king had been proclaimed after the murder of Aegon II and Aegon III would only have been proclaimed and subsequently been crowned king after both Greens and Blacks and all the other lords had agreed that the boy should be king as the legal and lawful heir of Aegon II. But that isn't what happened. Aegon III is proclaimed by the Blacks ... and only the Blacks, because Corlys and Larys and all the other courtiers who are not arrested by them turn Black when they murder Aegon II (not to mention that one cannot really count Corlys Velaryon as a Green even while he was serving Aegon II - he constantly tried to sabotage his war effort and strengthen the position of Rhaenyra's remaining son). And then they subsequently hand the capital and the new king's person to two large Black armies. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Is he said to be the heir of anyone else? No, but like with Aegon II himself we know how Aegon III ascended the throne - by way of a palace coup following a decisive defeat in the field. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: That's not how Tyrion views Viserys allegedly killing Baelor... and people actually were executed for Aegon's assassination! Nobody ever proved that Baelor was even murdered. That Aegon II was murdered is an established fact of jurisprudence and history. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon III was innocent of any regicide. Was he? Do you know that for a fact? Corlys and Larys' people secured the boy's person - can we pretend to know that they didn't inform him what they were doing? That he didn't approve of his uncle's murder? 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Someone else hurrying him onto the throne (like Baelor was hurried on by Daeron's regicide at a peace meeting) doesn't prevent him from being heir, even if the person who got him there must be executed. During the War of 5 Kings Stannis is the one who accuses the Lannisters of killing Robert, but his argument against Joffrey's claim to the throne is that Joffrey is a bastard born of incest. If the people who make you king also murder your predecessor you are part of a coup - either directly or indirectly. Any loyal follower of Aegon II actually caring about his king would have opposed the rise of Aegon III precisely for this reason, never mind that he had been named heir by Aegon II. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: One of them had a dragon and one had ridden a dragon. Both had Targaryen descent. That wasn't the question. I asked you whether Baela or Rhaena were dragonriders in 132 AC. Were they or were they not? 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: So the actual laws of succession that did exist in history for centuries were "radical" because you don't approve of them? Nope, because they were radical and impractical. Pretending some invented 'Salic Law' forbid female succession caused a number of very severe problems for France. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Is Orys Baratheon obscure beyond measure? I suppose as a bastard they can't be sure he really was the half brother of Aegon. Orys Baratheon is dead in 132 AC. Reread the books. Nobody ever calls Orys Baratheon a bastard. He is the alleged (i.e. unacknowledged) bastard of Lord Aerion Targaryen. If folks back in the days of Aegon I didn't make it official, then people in the 2nd century couldn't possibly do that. That Jaehaerys I and Gyldayn seem to believe Orys was Lord Aerion's bastard doesn't make it so ... and it definitely doesn't posthumously acknowledge or legitimize him as a Targaryen bastard. Not to mention that we don't actually know little Royce Baratheon (the only male Baratheon we know to be alive in 132 AC) is descended from Orys Baratheon through the male line. We know the Baratheon family tree from Rogar on, but we don't know if Rogar is descended from Orys through a son or a daughter. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The text gives no such indication. The text doesn't give a timetable - your interpretation only makes Rhaenyra look unreasonable here if she planned to have that lavish celebration during the war/when she was short of coin. But that isn't something the text actually states. I can make plans to waste money I don't have but expect to have soon. And so can Rhaenyra Targaryen. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Because I can tell you otherwise. And I have to believe your word without actually assessing your mental capabilities myself while assuming the sources in a fictional history book should have been viewed as (potentially) having perfect memory until/unless the narrator specificy establish that this isn't the case? You have yet to establish why anyone should assume the sources/characters have a perfect memory? Just because George gives his characters memories and uses historical sources in his history book doesn't mean any of them do have a perfect memory. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Do we have any reason to think Ned or Jaime's memory of their encounter in the throne room was inaccurate? Not in the broad sense - but if you were building a big theory about the character and motivations of certain historical figures in-universe solely on the basis of the quotes given in such memories - as you are doing with Criston Cole's alleged remarks in the Green Council - then I'd not buy any such theories for the same reason I don't buy your take on Cole. It is not my fault that your sources don't meet my standards. Make a better case and I might take your ideas more seriously. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: It wouldn't be an execution if there wasn't a victim, but it's not "for" that victim. We are not talking executions. Celebrations and ceremonies are for spectators and attendants, i.e. the public. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Where does your sureness come from? What attitude do you get from her? It's not just me who sees in Rhaenyra a remarkable talent for alienating people under the assumption that anyone who has a problem with her can just suck it up or die. LOL, stop with those crappy links. Those 'analyses' are so dated they precede the publication of FaB. If your textual basis is TRP, TPatQ, and TWoIaF without FaB your textual basis is far too limited. The entire tax thing is put into perspective by FaB's discussion of Tyland's role in Rhaenyra's downfall. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not if her enemies are spending that treasury to fight against her. But they didn't do that. And they wouldn't have done it if they had been defeated in field. As they were - you are aware that the Lannisters returned their quarter of the treasury to Aegon III, and the Hightowers presumably returned what they hadn't embezzled (and we can assume the Braavosi also didn't steal the quarter entrusted to the Iron Bank). Just let that crappy 'interpretation' go. It is inherently flawed. In fact, it looks like you didn't even come up with that one yourself but stole it from the blog with the outdated source material. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't imagine many smallfolk sat in on her planning sessions. Some of them might have said things like this: "He bathes in scented waters and grows fat on lark and lamprey while his people starve!" What they experienced were taxes, and the aristocratic guests at any hypothetical wedding getting first dibs on the food the smallfolk paid for would have resembled that remark. Speculate about the investiture, not a wedding nobody was talking about. You are aware that an investiture of an heir is even a more public event than a wedding, right? You show off your Heir Apparent to the people ... while a wedding usually is only as public as the church/sept where it takes place allows it to be. Such an investiture is akin to Rhaenyra's own installation as Heir Apparent or the coronation of a monarch - Aegon II was also a big show in the Dragonpit presumably throwing a lot of money at the people. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The question is whether he cared about the victims, not the still living rivals. He was able to use Helaena's death as a rallying cry because people did find her death shocking, as the deaths of her children had been. Yes, on the basis of inaccurate information/lies about her death. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mad as in "angry" certainly. You again just dismiss all the smallfolk who rose up no matter their motivation. Of course I dismiss them. They never show up as characters with a clear or recognizable political agenda. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Is that not a symbolic way of undoing them? It isn't what you said. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: They manage to survive longer than him, but he's not painted as a "lunatic" when he correctly predicts the deaths of his enemies. Actually, no he didn't correctly guess the deaths of Borros Baratheon or Aegon II, although that's more likely due to George being very bad with numbers and directly stealing quotes from Druon. Aegon II returns to KL in the waning days of 130 AC shortly after Borros had arrested the Shepherd. During his arrest and later during his trial the Shepherd told either of them they would meet in hell 'before this year is done' - which, in the English language, would mean the waning year of 130 AC. But both Borros Baratheon and Aegon II lived well into 131 AC. He would have been correct if he had said 'we will meet in hell within a year's time' or something along those lines. But as it stands he wrongly proclaimed Borros and Aegon would die before the 130 AC ended. The text makes it clear that Aegon II sat in judgment over the dayfly kings immediately after his arrival and before retreating to his chambers, so this did happen in the waning days of 130 AC. Not that this matters, it just shows that your random claim here is incorrect. Even if the Shepherd had corrected predicted the deaths of those two guys this wouldn't turn him into a guy with a political program people cared about, you know. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: "Property is theft" is an anarchist slogan (although Proudhon's perspective was more complicated by that). And "freeganism" is linked to anarchism. Anarchism isn't worshipping poverty and forcing people to dress like beggar monks. Just because the Shepherd said something that doesn't contract a proto-anarchist slogan from the 19th century doesn't make him an anarchist. 33 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Wat had a name. And not giving names to large masses of people is just convenient for an author. What do they have to do to pass your muster as "genuine"? Why should anyone care what you call "genuine"? You can tell us all who qualifies as a Genuine Scotsman. Perhaps they are truer than a True Scotsman! LOL, declaring those riots to be 'political movements' is like saying Scotsmen also include Englishmen. A genuine political movement is more than a riot triggered by rumors and weirdo claims about the death of an ex-queen, more than fear and terror of collective death being directed at a big zoo or the finance minister. Those riots are not fundamentally different than those we got during the Shivers. It is a spontaneous explosion of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 On 1/31/2022 at 7:51 PM, Lord Varys said: you actually think short memories like two sentences of a raving madman, a regicide which is most likely one of the most important events in Jaime's entire life, or Ned finding Jaime on the Iron Throne are in a meaningful way comparable to a council session full of discussions which lasted pretty much an entire night and involved a lot of tired people, one imagines, are similarly 'memory situations'. We don't get the entire night's worth of discussion quoted. We get a few quotes early on, then everything up to Beesbury leaving briefly summarized. If we're going beyond quotes, then we get more than "two sentences" about the sack of KL. Quote I'd say that the gist of such a memory might be accurate, although even that isn't really necessary for the story to work. How does the story work if we're not supposed to believe those memories are accurate? Quote The plot will continue on the basis of the memory, not on the basis of the memory accurately reflect the historical facts. That sounds like a difference that doesn't make a difference. Quote From my own memory - which is actually pretty good - I can say that I do not remember entire conversations in detail two years or fifteen years later, even if I might remember the general circumstances. You're not a character in this series Quote not with the intention to completely dismiss everything about a fictional work I actually like to talk about You said you dismiss the majority of F&B. Quote As long as Eustace doesn't give us the name of a source we just don't know who that source was. Not knowing for certain is not the same as having "no clue". Quote You tell us Mushroom must be reliable because he mentions your preferred version - the Tyrion backed Syrax version - but Eustace was there as well No, he was not next to Rhaenyra. Quote I mean, he could have Rhaenys and Corlys constantly complain about the buggery of the degenerate, unnatural son they were cursed with. As relatively tertiary characters, we don't get that much insight into their marriage and what they thought of their kids. Quote It is silly because the idea that a person like Ned would conclude that Jaime was the father of the children just because they looked like their mother and their uncle is, frankly, ridiculous. Only a sick mind obsessed with secret incestuous relationships would jump to that particular conclusion. Be sure to tell GRRM that some time! Quote It is a kind of parallel situation, but that it is supposed 'to tip you off' is just your personal interpretation. We don't have to agree with you here. No one can force you to accept that Ned's logic was correct about Cersei's kids, even though GRRM validated it completely. Quote We know KG can have that wish They can privately wish things? Sure. That has no bearing on whether they would actually get what they wish for. Quote Jaime also expresses it when he doesn't want to go to the Riverlands in AFfC. To his sister/lover! Quote Rhaenyra couldn't replace her own KG sworn shield against the will of the king. As a married woman who has left her father's household, I would think he's no longer in charge of who her sworn shield is. As you note, Harwin isn't a KG, so he's not sworn to Viserys. Quote You are aware that your take on this entire thing is without any textual basis, right? I've cited the text repeatedly. Quote I'm not sure how you know what Orwyle was held responsible He can't be sent as a peace emissary to Dragonstone if he's in the dungeon with Beesbury. Quote Then just admit that you want to believe whatever is in the book My reading of the book is based on my knowledge that it's a work of fiction by GRRM, who made it all up. Quote you really don't care about the genre medieval-style history books F&B has little to do with real history books. Quote But then you are no longer part of a discussion about the trustworthiness of some of the sources or the book in general. The trustworthiness of some of the sources is explicitly highlighted as an issue in the text. Quote There certainly might be a historical basis for the Iliad ... but that's not the same as THE TROJAN WAR ever happening. That war included the Greek gods as combatants, after all. How can the Iliad have a historical basis without the Trojan War happening? A war just without divine intervention & miracles is precisely what you were arguing against. Quote The omniescient narrator tells us the thoughts of all the POVs, not just the one from a single POV. A truly omniscient narrator could tell us the thoughts of characters who are never POVs! And when we are in one character's POV, we don't get the thoughts of other characters even if they are also POV characters. Quote A non-omniescent narrator makes it explicit that he is the voice of the actual POV character - and that's mostly the case in novels where you have only one third-person narrator. Why would having an additional character as a POV change it from non-omniscient to omniscient? That's just multiple third-persons. Quote Sort of like you would never expect anyone writing a dissertation to misquote or plagiarize something just because they don't say they are doing this, right? Real people are not fictional characters written by GRRM. Quote the popular-style history Yandel and Gyldayn are both writing Do they have printing presses in Westeros? How popular are these histories? Yandel seemed to be targetting his at the king, not the broader populace. Quote something I actually like to believe. I do believe that Rhaena was a lesbian and had an affair with all the women that are named as her favorites ... but if you told me that we have no explicit confirmation for any of that and just the speculation of the maester of Faircastle that she loved Elissa then I'd have to admit that you were right there. All I can say is that I like that story, I cannot say that Rhaena Targaryen was *actually* a lesbian because we have no credible source confirming that. There's the question of whether you "like to" believe something, and then what you actually do believe. I actually believe that Joffrey sent the catspaw because GRRM has indicated as such, even though I don't LIKE that explanation at all (it makes no sense). Joffrey never confessed and was not caught red-handed, but we got a confirmation (even if not an "explicit" one). Quote When we have conflicting accounts we can also say which of them is more plausible - but that doesn't make the most plausible account *true*. I can't be certain of the truth of an account, but when one is more plausible I say it is more likely to be true. Quote Your take on the Rhaenyra-Criston situation is the least plausible I, of course, disagree, as do multiple people I've linked. Quote You cannot have a medieval-style history book and then pretend everything in there is completely accurate. Lord of the Rings is supposedly adapted from The Red Book of Westmarch. The only time any possible inaccuracy comes up is when Gollum willingly giving Bilbo the ring in the earliest version of the Hobbit was retconned as something Bilbo himself falsified. Quote But Aegon could have just quietly given his consent without Gyldayn having to bother with there being a conflict there. Neither of them are in the mood to make deals, but Alicent had to in order for Aegon to be able to come over from Dragonstone with his hostages. Once he's over, Aegon doesn't have the same pressing need but must be persuaded that it's necessary. Quote All we get later is the promise that things will be done It's never referred to as a "promise". Quote You would have a case here if no king had been proclaimed after the murder of Aegon II That's backwards. Having an heir means that the death of one king results in the proclamation of the next! Quote Aegon III is proclaimed by the Blacks ... and only the Blacks, because Corlys and Larys and all the other courtiers who are not arrested by them turn Black when they murder Aegon II Tyland was advocating killing Aegon the Younger, but he still accepted him as king. He did not "turn Black", he just didn't have any other king to serve after Aegon II. Quote he constantly tried to sabotage his war effort The Velaryons could have done more to overtly act against Aegon II. And the king's own preference for bloodshed over peace was as self-defeating as Rhaenyra's. Quote No, but like with Aegon II himself The eldest son of the king who preceded him. Quote Nobody ever proved that Baelor was even murdered. That Aegon II was murdered is an established fact of jurisprudence and history. As I said, there were executions for one but not the other. Quote Was he? Do you know that for a fact? Corlys and Larys' people secured the boy's person - can we pretend to know that they didn't inform him what they were doing? That he didn't approve of his uncle's murder? They don't need to inform him of anything because he doesn't actually do anything. He's a small child. Quote If the people who make you king also murder your predecessor you are part of a coup - either directly or indirectly. No. If I really thought a king's heir was unacceptable, I could not deny them the throne by killing the current king. Quote Any loyal follower of Aegon II actually caring about his king would have opposed the rise of Aegon III precisely for this reason, never mind that he had been named heir by Aegon II. Who would they proclaim king, then? Jaehaera? Quote I asked you whether Baela or Rhaena were dragonriders in 132 AC. Do they have to be at that specific date? If dragonriding is relevant, why can't past dragonriding or the possibility of future dragonriding by relevant? Quote Nope, because they were radical And it's tautologous because it's tautologous. Quote Pretending some invented 'Salic Law' forbid female succession caused a number of very severe problems for France. It wasn't just pretend, they actually were forbid! Quote Orys Baratheon is dead in 132 AC. He has descendnats. Quote You have yet to establish why anyone should assume the sources/characters have a perfect memory Because GRRM wrote them, and if he wanted their memory to be an issue he could have indicated that. Quote my standards. Make a better case and I might take your ideas more seriously. I don't have reason to believe your standards are amenable to better arguments I argue for the benefit of anyone who might read. Quote We are not talking executions. Celebrations and ceremonies are for spectators and attendants, i.e. the public. Both executions & celebrations serve the purposes of the people who decide to have them. Quote Those 'analyses' are so dated they precede the publication of FaB. If your textual basis is TRP, TPatQ, and TWoIaF without FaB your textual basis is far too limited. None of the people I linked have changed their minds after reading F&B. Usually as we gain knowledge our beliefs shift incrementally rather than overturning entirely, and F&B was not written to make those earlier sources appear useless. Quote But they didn't do that. Rhaenyra was overthrown. In an alternate history where she wasn't, there would be more time for them to spend down the treasury. Quote the blog "Blogs" plural. Quote Of course I dismiss them. They never show up as characters with a clear or recognizable political agenda. I'll agree there's not much characterization, but we get political agendas. Wat explicitly opposes Celtigar's taxes, and Trystane also promises to abolish those same taxes. Gaemon's proclamations resemble modern egalitarianism, whereas the Shepherd embraces a more radical kind of egalitarianism fitting his proto-anarchism. Quote Anarchism isn't worshipping poverty and forcing people to dress like beggar monks. There are many varieties of anarchism, including anarcho-primitivism (which would abolish the wealth of modernism). Quote Just because the Shepherd said something that doesn't contract a proto-anarchist slogan from the 19th century doesn't make him an anarchist. I would say the Shepherd is a proto-anarchist whereas Proudhon is an actual anarchist. The Shepherd wanted to overthrow all the existing monarchs, but refused to provide any other authority in their place. Quote declaring those riots to be 'political movements' is like saying Scotsmen also include Englishmen. There are people who are the products of English-Scottish marriages. And, in case you forgot, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Quote A genuine political movement is more than a riot triggered by rumors and weirdo claims about the death of an ex-queen The "moon of three kings" provides "more than" the riots that preceded it. Quote Those riots are not fundamentally different than those we got during the Shivers. It is a spontaneous explosion of violence. Come on. We know that there were factors contributing to the riots that had been there for a while before boiling over. We have that "moon" I just mentioned about the aftermath. We don't get the same for the Shivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 4, 2022 Share Posted February 4, 2022 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't get the entire night's worth of discussion quoted. We get a few quotes early on, then everything up to Beesbury leaving briefly summarized. If we're going beyond quotes, then we get more than "two sentences" about the sack of KL. Our issue is whether quotes of historical figures in FaB should be viewed as historically accurate. And I doubt that this is the case. The setting has Gyldayn pick some quotes from the works of Munkun and Eustace, respectively, and we have no indication that Gyldayn or Eustace/Orwyle-Munkun before him gave quotes which were important enough for their sources to remember them accurately when they shared them or put them to paper. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How does the story work if we're not supposed to believe those memories are accurate? That sounds like a difference that doesn't make a difference. Because the story is, in the end, about the future plot and not about whether Jaime's or Ned's memories about the Sack of KL are accurate. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You're not a character in this series You still have no reason to pretend or assume any character in this series has perfect memory. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You said you dismiss the majority of F&B. I do dismiss it as accurately reflecting historical facts, especially in relation to quotes of direct speech given. I do not dismiss it as a historical narrative within the fictional universe - which is what it is supposed to be. It tells us a lot about historical figures we would know literally nothing about if not for that book - and it gives us the broad strokes of the history of the first half of the Targaryen reign. But it doesn't give us accurate information about things which happened behind closed doors. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not knowing for certain is not the same as having "no clue". Eustace being Alicent's confessor is no clue about who was his source about the Green Council session. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, he was not next to Rhaenyra. He was the castle septon at KL just as Mushroom was the court jester at KL. They were equally close to the queen. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: As relatively tertiary characters, we don't get that much insight into their marriage and what they thought of their kids. I know - but THIS ISN'T THE POINT! The point is that George could have made it very clear that Laenor was homosexual and had a sexual relationship with Joffrey Lonmouth - which he didn't do. He only gave us rumors and stories about Laenor and Qarl Correy. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They can privately wish things? Sure. That has no bearing on whether they would actually get what they wish for. They can also ask their king to assign them to somebody else. Gerold Hightower asked Aerys II to give him Jaime's job at Harrenhal. The king refused ... but he could have agreed, no? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: To his sister/lover! Who spoke with Tommen's voice and who forced Jaime to go to the Riverlands by ways of a signed and sealed order by King Tommen. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: As a married woman who has left her father's household, I would think he's no longer in charge of who her sworn shield is. As you note, Harwin isn't a KG, so he's not sworn to Viserys. Insofar as to the KG is concerned he is the ultimate authority. If the king told Criston Cole to protect Rhaenyra then Rhaenyra's wishes that he no longer protect her would be superseded by the king's commands. Also keep in mind that nothing in FaB indicates that Rhaenyra Targaryen disliked Criston Cole, spoke badly about him after he teamed up with Alicent, etc. We have no indication to believe she would want him to leave her side. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: My reading of the book is based on my knowledge that it's a work of fiction by GRRM, who made it all up. But you also know that it is not a novel and shouldn't be treated as such but as a fallible, inaccurate, medieval-style history book, right? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The trustworthiness of some of the sources is explicitly highlighted as an issue in the text. That doesn't allow us to guess that everything Gyldayn doesn't doubt of questions is accurate. A very good example for this is Gyldayn's narrative of the Alysanne's exploits in the North which are outright contradicted by a rival narrative in TWoIaF ... where the Starks were not, in fact, supportive of the New Gift. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How can the Iliad have a historical basis without the Trojan War happening? A war just without divine intervention & miracles is precisely what you were arguing against. The idea is that pieces of the Iliad are accurate insofar as to where the city of Troy was located. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A truly omniscient narrator could tell us the thoughts of characters who are never POVs! And when we are in one character's POV, we don't get the thoughts of other characters even if they are also POV characters. Why would having an additional character as a POV change it from non-omniscient to omniscient? That's just multiple third-persons. An omniscient narrator doesn't have to share all his knowledge with us. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Do they have printing presses in Westeros? How popular are these histories? Yandel seemed to be targetting his at the king, not the broader populace. The histories are more popular than Eustace's or, especially, Munkun's history which actually to contain detailed original research and/or are described as ponderously detailed. Gyldayn's history of the reign of Viserys I is barely more than a sketch, for instance. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I can't be certain of the truth of an account, but when one is more plausible I say it is more likely to be true. Plausibility is no criteria of truth, actually. We cannot assess truth in-universe with FaB as our textual foundation (unlike with the novels), we can only assess which narrative is more plausible ... but in the end even the implausible narrative might be true. We just don't know. That's why I actually view most of FaB's speculation about what happened behind closed doors as a kind of travesty version of a history of the War of the Five Kings on the basis of Moonboy's confessions - because the plots and counter-plots of the Varyses and Littlefingers of FaB would never be correctly depicted (or even discovered) by such historians. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Neither of them are in the mood to make deals, but Alicent had to in order for Aegon to be able to come over from Dragonstone with his hostages. Once he's over, Aegon doesn't have the same pressing need but must be persuaded that it's necessary. It's never referred to as a "promise". Again, it is nowhere stated that Aegon III was ever actually named Aegon II's heir, nor is it ever stated that Aegon III rose to the throne/was proclaimed king because he was Aegon II's heir. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Tyland was advocating killing Aegon the Younger, but he still accepted him as king. He did not "turn Black", he just didn't have any other king to serve after Aegon II. Just reread the books - Tyland Lannister wasn't at court when Aegon II was killed and Aegon III proclaimed king. If he had been there he would have either been part of the conspiracy or - more likely - Larys and Corlys would have murdered him, too. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The eldest son of the king who preceded him. Aegon II wasn't the heir of Viserys I. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They don't need to inform him of anything because he doesn't actually do anything. He's a small child. That doesn't mean they didn't tell him before they acted, nor does it mean that the followers of Aegon II wouldn't view Aegon III as complicit in the murder of his uncle. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Who would they proclaim king, then? Jaehaera? That is what Cregan fears Lady Baratheon might do. But they could also proclaim Munkun's fantasy male line heir. Or just oppose and cast down Aegon III without knowing who should sit the throne after him. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Do they have to be at that specific date? If dragonriding is relevant, why can't past dragonriding or the possibility of future dragonriding by relevant? LOL, you talked about dragonriders there, not I. I know that neither Baela nor Rhaena were dragonriders in 132 AC. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It wasn't just pretend, they actually were forbid! No, Salic Law was just (re-)interpreted to mean that France could have no ruling queen when Louis X died ... in part also because Louis X himself was uncertain about the parentage of his daughter thanks to the affairs of his wife. And the whole thing resulted in the throne passing from the elder line to the Valois, weakening the monarchy and the royal bloodline, eventually culiminating in the Hundred Years' War. Monarchies with more pragmatic succession laws didn't have the same problems when a king didn't have any sons. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He has descendnats. As I said - we don't know whether through the male or the female line, nor can Orys Baratheon be acknowledged or legitimized posthumously. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Because GRRM wrote them, and if he wanted their memory to be an issue he could have indicated that. He doesn't have to. It is common sense to not pretend that people correctly remember stuff they may have heard two years before. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't have reason to believe your standards are amenable to better arguments I argue for the benefit of anyone who might read. I actually don't think many people are actually reading this exchange. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Both executions & celebrations serve the purposes of the people who decide to have them. But when public - and celebrations are public by default - they are also done for the benefit of the public. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: None of the people I linked have changed their minds after reading F&B. Usually as we gain knowledge our beliefs shift incrementally rather than overturning entirely, and F&B was not written to make those earlier sources appear useless. I don't bother with theories based on incomplete information. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Rhaenyra was overthrown. In an alternate history where she wasn't, there would be more time for them to spend down the treasury. The Greens had no access to the parts of the treasury they sent away. They couldn't spend it. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'll agree there's not much characterization, but we get political agendas. Wat explicitly opposes Celtigar's taxes, and Trystane also promises to abolish those same taxes. Okay, when 'opposing certain taxes' is enough for a genuine political movement then they were political guys. The anti-Celitgar tax party. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Gaemon's proclamations resemble modern egalitarianism, whereas the Shepherd embraces a more radical kind of egalitarianism fitting his proto-anarchism. Now it is proto-anarchism, is it? No longer anarchism as such? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There are many varieties of anarchism, including anarcho-primitivism (which would abolish the wealth of modernism). LOL, anarcho-primitivism wouldn't be a thing in Westeros ... which is still a very primitive society. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I would say the Shepherd is a proto-anarchist whereas Proudhon is an actual anarchist. The Shepherd wanted to overthrow all the existing monarchs, but refused to provide any other authority in their place. The Shepherd wants to force people to give up their wealth and worship poverty. That is not anarchism. Anarchists do not want want some kind of religious tyranny. The Shepherd having one demand that sounds like an anarchist might agree with it doesn't make his movement anarchistic. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The "moon of three kings" provides "more than" the riots that preceded it. Gaemon Palehair's followers didn't seem to have much part in the riots. Rhaenyra's flight created a power vacuum which then certain parties tried to fill. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Come on. We know that there were factors contributing to the riots that had been there for a while before boiling over. We have that "moon" I just mentioned about the aftermath. We don't get the same for the Shivers. It is basically the same - the difference is Jaehaerys I didn't flee the city and reestablished order afterwards. As I said - George basically ridicules the political agency/agenda of the commoners by having the Kingslanders first slay five dragons and then worship Rhaena's little dragon Morning as a wonder of the world. First they follow Gaemon or Trystane ... and then they immediately fall in line with Aegon II returns. If a majority of KL were 'anti-dragon' as the Storming of the Dragonpit implied they were they wouldn't have suffered the return of the dragons. But they did. The entire thing is framed as a narrative of madness - which is why the Moon of the Three Kings is also aptly named 'the Moon of Madness'. Now ... we could discuss whether Gyldayn's medieval/monarchistic mindset - and the mindset of his sources - made it impossible for him to actually properly analyze the riots and the political agenda behind them. But since you have to take things at face value and are unwilling or unable to accept the limitiations of FaB I'm not sure you can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.