What compromise will be found between the Stark children ?

[three-eyed monkey]

4 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Nah there's just nothing in the text for it.

Nothing in the text for what? I've cited the text to support my position. What point do you feel is not supported in the text?

[Corvo the Crow]

On 2/9/2022 at 10:32 PM, Apoplexy said:

I see the Others as a subplot. It's been five books and we know little to nothing about the Others. Unless GRRM plans to write more than two books, it will have to be a subplot. And there is always the risk of the series becoming too walking deadish. 

They are as much subplot as Danaerys is. Series was intended to be three books with three major threats/events in each. First, it was the "war of the roses", in the second book, it was to be Danaerys invading Westeros with Dothraki and the final one was to be the Others. We've not seen much of them because the supposed to be 3 books(AGOT, ADWD, TWOW) series became 7 books in the telling and with Danaerys yet to invade Westeros, we haven't even finished book 2 out of 3. fAegon seems to have taken his place but his invasion has only just began so again, we haven't even finished reading book 2.

 

[MAIN SPOILERS] Original 3-page outline by George R.R. Martin describing the entire story! : gameofthrones (reddit.com)

[Apoplexy]

On 2/9/2022 at 3:13 PM, BlackLightning said:

It's funny that you should mention that.

Because I always thought that that the series becoming very similar to The Walking Dead would be a natural (if not final) consequence

Even if the Others don't get past the Trident (fairly likely) or Winterfell (extremely unlikely), the dead will. I think the dead will overrun the entire continent.

 

 

On 2/9/2022 at 3:31 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

Then the opening prologue of the series, the Stark words, the title of the next book and the last book, a huge amount of material about prophecy, the reason Bran must learn to fly, the Wall and the Night's Watch, all relate to a subplot.

Since the events of Jon XIII, ADwD, the Others can now pass the Wall. I say that because we are told they cannot pass the Wall as long as the men of the Watch hold true. Hold true means stick to their oaths, which is defend the realm of men and take no part in the game of thrones. I don't think the men of the Watch have held true, so I expect the Others to pass the Wall soon. I think a steady advance will easily bring them to the Trident in a book and a half.

I agree, in that dead men walking the realm seems like the natural consequence of the Long Night, which is the existential threat that needs to be averted.

I think the other and the NK are important. How they came into existence, how they will be defeated etc for the magical aspects of the series. I'm not sure what the NK wants yet. I really do not see dead men walking being the existential threat. More like a feature that will make defeating them harder. I really don't see westeros being overrun by the dead.

[Apoplexy]

7 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

They are as much subplot as Danaerys is. Series was intended to be three books with three major threats/events in each. First, it was the "war of the roses", in the second book, it was to be Danaerys invading Westeros with Dothraki and the final one was to be the Others. We've not seen much of them because the supposed to be 3 books(AGOT, ADWD, TWOW) series became 7 books in the telling and with Danaerys yet to invade Westeros, we haven't even finished book 2 out of 3. fAegon seems to have taken his place but his invasion has only just began so again, we haven't even finished reading book 2.

The final book was supposed to be called a time for wolves if I'm not mistaken. I think it is supposed to focus on the Starks, so if it involves the Others, it will be in context to the Starks. I don't see the Others being a major plot point.

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

I think the other and the NK are important. How they came into existence, how they will be defeated etc for the magical aspects of the series. I'm not sure what the NK wants yet.

Well show canon and book canon are significantly different.

3 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

I really do not see dead men walking being the existential threat. More like a feature that will make defeating them harder. I really don't see westeros being overrun by the dead.

The characters in the books disagree. As Joer Mormont told Jon :"Gods save us, boy, you're not blind and you're not stupid. When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?"  And there are other examples from other characters, because the Long Night is an existential threat that will overshadow the game of thrones.

 

[Apoplexy]

19 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Well show canon and book canon are significantly different.

I am talking about the books. The magical aspects of the others and the NK are more relevant to the story than the ability of the NK/others to raise the dead.

19 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The characters in the books disagree. As Joer Mormont told Jon :"Gods save us, boy, you're not blind and you're not stupid. When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?"  And there are other examples from other characters, because the Long Night is an existential threat that will overshadow the game of thrones.

I don't see the long night being one night, but I don't see it spanning months/years either. A zombie apocalypse would need more than two books to resolve. (And IMO a terrible plot)

[Corvo the Crow]

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

am talking about the books. The magical aspects of the others and the NK are more relevant to the story than the ability of the NK/others to raise the dead.

NK died some 8000 years ago when Joramun and Brandon the Breaker ended his rule. He has no relevance to the story what so ever apart from the events of those days. To our knowledge, apart from his "coldpants", he didn't raise any dead either. Show may or may not -this is book forum, one does not simply have access to such forbidden knowledge here,  or share it under penalty of bans- have a character dubbed NK, that raises the dead but the books doesn't have anyone like that.

[Corvo the Crow]

20 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

am talking about the books. The magical aspects of the others and the NK are more relevant to the story than the ability of the NK/others to raise the dead.

NK died some 8000 years ago when Joramun and Brandon the Breaker ended his rule. He has no relevance to the story what so ever apart from the events of those days. 

[Apoplexy]

6 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

NK died some 8000 years ago when Joramun and Brandon the Breaker ended his rule. He has no relevance to the story what so ever apart from the events of those days. 

I'm not saying we will see the NK in the books for sure, but it is likely we see either him or his successor. The 3EC finds a successor/trainee, it is very likely the NK could too.

[Corvo the Crow]

Just now, Apoplexy said:

I'm not saying we will see the NK in the books for sure, but it is likely we see either him or his successor. The 3EC finds a successor/trainee, it is very likely the NK could too.

We won't see him, GRRM has said something to such effect and as for his successor, not sure on that either. I mean, who/what would be his successor either and what would be the point? Would we see him charge alone to get singled out and killed or something? If there was a pact or such in age of heroes, then perhaps to renew it we can see something like that. Can't recall but GRRM may have said something along the lines of that they are not comic book villains but have motives etc. of their own. This is apparent as early as the prologue chapter, not instantly attacking Waymar with their number and weapon advantage but observing him and dueling him. In fact, I wonder if they'd have attacked Waymar if he didn't challenge them.

[Apoplexy]

6 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

We won't see him, GRRM has said something to such effect and as for his successor, not sure on that either. I mean, who/what would be his successor either and what would be the point? Would we see him charge alone to get singled out and killed or something? If there was a pact or such in age of heroes, then perhaps to renew it we can see something like that. Can't recall but GRRM may have said something along the lines of that they are not comic book villains but have motives etc. of their own. This is apparent as early as the prologue chapter, not instantly attacking Waymar with their number and weapon advantage but observing him and dueling him. In fact, I wonder if they'd have attacked Waymar if he didn't challenge them.

The point of the successor would be to carry forward whatever motive the NK may have had. And the Others having a leader is plausible. 

Also, a zombie apocalypse would be extremely comic book like.

[Corvo the Crow]

5 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

The point of the successor would be to carry forward whatever motive the NK may have had. And the Others having a leader is plausible. 

Also, a zombie apocalypse would be extremely comic book like.

NK's motive was to get a corpse queen, give his seed to her and his soul as well and perhaps to serve the Others to please her, through sacrifices to her kinsmen, the Others. 

[Apoplexy]

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

NK's motive was to get a corpse queen, give his seed to her and his soul as well and perhaps to serve the Others to please her, through sacrifices to her kinsmen, the Others. 

We don't know if that was all of his motive. And we could potentially see a corpse queen/nights queen in the books. The others having a leader is extremely likely.

[Corvo the Crow]

7 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

We don't know if that was all of his motive. And we could potentially see a corpse queen/nights queen in the books. The others having a leader is extremely likely.

It indeed is likely, but Others' leader being NK is extremely unlikely, as NK was a man that had married an Other and that's about it. It seems to me that you are thinking of things that do not exist in the books. Others existed before NK, and kept on existing after him.

[Apoplexy]

17 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

It indeed is likely, but Others' leader being NK is extremely unlikely, as NK was a man that had married an Other and that's about it. It seems to me that you are thinking of things that do not exist in the books. Others existed before NK, and kept on existing after him.

The speculation about the NK comes from the show for sure. But he did exist in the books and we have very little information about him or the others. Unless you believe that the show runners came up with all the plot points by themselves without any input from GRRM, using the show to speculate about the books is pretty obvious.

[Corvo the Crow]

7 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

The speculation about the NK comes from the show for sure. But he did exist in the books and we have very little information about him or the others. Unless you believe that the show runners came up with all the plot points by themselves without any input from GRRM, using the show to speculate about the books is pretty obvious.

George has said show NK isn’t book NK.

[Apoplexy]

1 minute ago, Corvo the Crow said:

George has said show NK isn’t book NK.

That does not eliminate the idea of a successor or a leader of the others.

[GMantis]

On 2/4/2022 at 1:49 AM, chrisdaw said:

You do not comprehend the point, which is an extension of not comprehending the text. Either Sansa understands or chooses to remain wilfully ignorant of the long term ill health effects of having Robert continually drugged into compliance. She continues to allow it, insists on it and relies upon it for convenience and the political ends of Petyr and herself.

That she is specifically poisoning him to kill him to be replaced by Harry is not what I wrote, that's what you made up in your head because you don't understand the text, it's adjacent but not what the text is getting at. Sansa prioritises the political needs of poisoning Robert into compliance over his long term health.

This is a curious statement, considering that your comment shows little comprehension of the text as well. Sansa is relying on the medial advice of Maester Colemon and he failed to explain the long term effect of sweetsleep usage, then conceded that, absent the dangerous symptoms of nose-bleeding, it could be used twice more as long as it wasn't used again for half a year. So it certainly can't be concluded that Sansa is prioritizing the "political needs of poisoning Robert" because it hasn't been established at all that she has reason to believe that she's poisoning him. Furthermore, it's made clear that while continuing to take sweetsleep may be bad for Robert's long term health, falling of the mountain is obviously is even worse for his short term health. And drugging him into sleep and then dragging him down the mountain like "a sack of barleycorn” is not particularly good for Robert's long term's prospects either - such weakness could well encourage usurpation against him.

And since we're talking about comprehending the text, the short passage where Sansa herself led Robert across a narrow and perilous mountain saddle while he was on the verge of a shaking fit certainly seems to disprove the idea that she's unconcerned about his safety.

On 2/4/2022 at 1:49 AM, chrisdaw said:

The issue with Harry isn't that she likes him (does she even? Or is he just a political challenge that she's revelling in?), liking him is ok, it's that she's playing the game with him. She could be honest and honourable with him, instead she's playing hard to get refusing his favour to take him in and talking shit about his other lovers.

So basically Sansa is dishonorable because she's helping arrange the political marriage herself - with the only tools she has available - rather than have her male relatives do so for her? Meanwhile, her father betrothing her as a cover for his investigations and her brother lamenting that he didn't get to sell her for Tyrell troops is supposed to be the height of Northern honor...

And no, there is no dishonesty - it's obvious to both her and Harry what she's trying to do.

On 2/4/2022 at 1:49 AM, chrisdaw said:

Sansa loves playing mistress of the Vale. She hasn't been so happy there as since Ned died. She loses herself running around the Vale with her friend just as if it were like Winterfell. She couldn't be prouder of having brought the houses all together to share in feasting, make merry in song and dance, and serve their little liege lord.

The text is telling you bluntly she's loving life now where she is. You're longing for Sansa in the north, not her.

Again, considering all your accusations about others ignoring the text, it's really funny how you use this precise moment as evidence that Sansa is loving where she is now and is no longer longing for the North. In fact, she clearly loses herself not in running around, but in her memories of Winterfell:

Quote

For just a litle while, as she ran, she forget who she was, and where, and found herself remembering bright cold days at Winterfell, when she would race through Winterfell with her friend Jeyne Poole, with Arya running after them trying to keep up.

Yes, there is no doubt that Sansa is adapting herself towards her current situation. It's certainly true that she's happier than she's been since her father's death. which of course is damning with faint praise, considering all she's been trough. But your claim that nothing is drawing her to the North simply can't be supported by the text.

[chrisdaw]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:56 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

Nothing in the text for what? I've cited the text to support my position. What point do you feel is not supported in the text?

That's nothing like text supporting an emergence of a new political system, it's just repurposing of a handful of passages that have open ended rebirth symbolism. I don't really know where to begin pointing out that a story concerning the evolution of the government system would look completely different. There's not a character or even a theme within a character's arc concerned with a method of governance other than a feudal monarchy. Hell a common criticism of ASOIAF is that governance (and technology) is basically stagnant over its whole history, which is a good indication of the author's appetite for the subject.

3 minutes ago, GMantis said:

This is a curious statement, considering thrambleramble

It's not curious, you miscomprehend things consistently. I never said or implied Sansa was poisoning Robert for the purpose of killing him, that's something you incorrectly made up, that's miscomprehension and that's why I called it miscomprehension.

Quote

 

Alayne understood all that well enough, but it meant that the burden of getting Sweetrobin safely down the mountain fell on her. "Give his lordship a cup of sweetmilk," she told the maester. "That will stop him from shaking on the journey down."

"He had a cup not three days past," Colemon objected.

"And wanted another last night, which you refused him."

"And wanted another last night, which you refused him."

"It was too soon. My lady, you do not understand. As I've told the Lord Protector, a pinch of sweetsleep will prevent the shaking, but it does not leave the flesh, and in time . . ."

"Time will not matter if his lordship has a shaking fit and falls off the mountain. If my father were here, I know he would tell you to keep Lord Robert calm at all costs."

 

The text makes clear there are long term health impacts of constantly doping up Robert with  sweetsleep at their convenience but Sansa has other priorities. The sample chapter harps on the point by waiting for its most delicate political climax and bringing up that an outburst from Robert then could ruin everything, but it's fine because they will have drugged the fuck out of him. It's why this whole little sweetsleep story thread even exists for fuck's sake, it's the whole entire point.

Sansa is playing the game of thrones with Harry, acting disingenuous, exactly as Petyr instructs her, neither Ned or Catelyn would approve.

The sample chapter literally says Sansa loves it in the Vale. See the author is giving it to you plainly, inarguably, because it's very important, you must understand this to understand the chapter and what is happening to the character. It's a gift. 

Carrying on from Sansa emphatically expressing her love for being in the Vale is the recollection at Winterfell interposed with the Vale scene. There is no expressed desire to return to those Winterfell days, not the slightest lament, not because the author forgot to include it but because the point of the scene is actually that its showing like for like. The Vale is the new Winterfell for her, running through the Vale with her new friend is like running through Winterfell was. There is no suggestion that the memory was happy and the present is not, or one was happier than the other, they're interchangeable now, they're both happy homes, the point is in the comparison, that one makes her think of the other. The claim you made that she was at her happiest in the chapter while remembering Winterfell is not in the text, it is just another thing you've just made up in your head because you misunderstand the point of the text.

[GMantis]

42 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

The text makes clear there are long term health impacts of constantly doping up Robert with  sweetsleep at their convenience but Sansa has other priorities. The sample chapter harps on the point by waiting for its most delicate political climax and bringing up that an outburst from Robert then could ruin everything, but it's fine because they will have drugged the fuck out of him. It's why this whole little sweetsleep story thread even exists for fuck's sake, it's the whole entire point.

The text doesn't make clear anything about long term health effects since the maester fails to explain these effects (except nose-bleeding which is not present). The sample chapter is hardly convincing evidence for your theory either since there is no evidence that Sansa is involved in administering sweetsleep to Robert at this point (it's "Maester Coleman would have made certain that he drank a strong dose of sweetmilk", not "she had made certain that he drank a strong does of sweetmilk"). There isn't even any indication that less than six months have passed since the last time Robert was given sweetsleep.

42 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

Sansa is playing the game of thrones with Harry, acting disingenuous, exactly as Petyr instructs her, neither Ned or Catelyn would approve.

Again, both of them would realize that after they themselves played the game of thrones with Sansa as their tool, they have no room to criticize their daughter for following in their footsteps. There is nothing disingenuous in Sansa's behavior, Harry is well aware of what she's aiming for. And Sansa's ultimate aim is exactly the same as what Ned was aiming for when he betrothed her to Joffrey - a marriage with political benefits. But apparently this is only honorable when the potential bride has no role whatsoever in arranging the marriage...

42 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

The sample chapter literally says Sansa loves it in the Vale. See the author is giving it to you plainly, inarguably, because it's very important, you must understand this to understand the chapter and what is happening to the character. It's a gift. 

Carrying on from Sansa emphatically expressing her love for being in the Vale is the recollection at Winterfell interposed with the Vale scene. There is no expressed desire to return to those Winterfell days, not the slightest lament, not because the author forgot to include it but because the point of the scene is actually that its showing like for like. The Vale is the new Winterfell for her, running through the Vale with her new friend is like running through Winterfell was. There is no suggestion that the memory was happy and the present is not, or one was happier than the other, they're interchangeable now, they're both happy homes, the point is in the comparison, that one makes her think of the other. The claim you made that she was at her happiest in the chapter while remembering Winterfell is not in the text, it is just another thing you've just made up in your head because you misunderstand the point of the text.

Sansa certainly loves being in the Vale rather than being a hostage in King's Landing, this is obvious. But to go from there and imagine that she prefers being in the Vale than in the North is simply misinterpreting the text. I've given you a very clear quote and you're twisting it beyond recognition to claim it means the opposite of what it actually means. The present and the memory are not interchangeable: she forgot her present while thinking of the past, it's clear what is ultimately dearer to her.

And all this criticizing others for ignoring the text is especially ironic, when you consider that your favorite theory relies on Sansa returning to King's Landing on her own free will. Because if there can be a dispute as to whether Sansa is  happier in the Vale than in the North (though the text rather obviously indicates the later) there can be no dispute that for Sansa King's Landing represents nothing but a nightmare. If she can't stay in the Vale any longer, she'd always choose to go North (even if it means going to the Wall), rather than return to the capital.