Solved Mysteries

[the trees have eyes]

17 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I've been on this board a long time. 

The OP brought up the poisoning first, but he incorrectly stated it was solved. I was merely correcting that claim in accordance with the facts in the book.

You were lecturing everyone on your theories.  Most people do consider them solved so whether you consider the OP's statement "incorrect" or against your view of the "facts in the book" it's just your subjective interpretation.  Not the unvarnished truth of the story, just a view that most people don't agree with.

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

You were lecturing everyone on your theories.  Most people do consider them solved so whether you consider the OP's statement "incorrect" or against your view of the "facts in the book" it's just your subjective interpretation.  Not the unvarnished truth of the story, just a view that most people don't agree with.

People also seem to overlook that George has talked about the poisoning in interviews and has explicitly said that Olenna poisoned Joffrey. I really don’t think he’s playing 4D chess with us here.

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

People also seem to overlook that George has talked about the poisoning in interviews and has explicitly said that Olenna poisoned Joffrey. I really don’t think he’s playing 4D chess with us here.

Eh, not really.  Like everything else George dances around the topic quite skillfully.

Quote

The current season of Game of Thrones is roughly based on the second half of the third A Song of Ice and Fire book, A Storm of Swords. Series author George R.R. Martin says that Joffrey appears to have been killed by Queen of Thorns Olenna Tyrell in the books, but adds that he makes no promises.

"I make no promises... and I may have more surprises to reveal," Martin says. "The conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa's hair net."

I will add that George has made commentaries on the HBO series in the past.  In one of the commentaries he talks about how his mother was always able to spot the plot twists in the shows they watched before they were revealed.  GRRM added that when he wrote Ice and Fire, he wrote it wanting to surprise careful viewers (or readers) like his mother.

[John Suburbs]

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

You were lecturing everyone on your theories.  Most people do consider them solved so whether you consider the OP's statement "incorrect" or against your view of the "facts in the book" it's just your subjective interpretation.  Not the unvarnished truth of the story, just a view that most people don't agree with.

I'm not lecturing anyone. The OP raised an issue and I responded. Just because my take is based on solid, verifiable facts while the wine theory is based on nothing but imaginary theories shouldn't preclude me from posting the truth. The poison was in the pie, and that's just the simple fact, as verified by literally everything in the text.

[John Suburbs]

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

People also seem to overlook that George has talked about the poisoning in interviews and has explicitly said that Olenna poisoned Joffrey. I really don’t think he’s playing 4D chess with us here.

He doesn't do anything of the sort. He explicitly states, when discussing this very issue, that in the books he makes no promises because he still has secrets to reveal. That's the fact. Why would he even say such a thing if everything is wrapped up in a nice pretty bow? And why would he create all of these facts that disprove the wine and verify the pie when all he had to do was have Joffrey drink one sip, grab his throat and die, like Cressen did?

Remember, words are wind. Just because Lady Olenna and Petyr say certain things does not make them true. Look with your eyes, hear with your ears, or else you become a dead girl.

[The Bard of Banefort]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

He doesn't do anything of the sort. He explicitly states, when discussing this very issue, that in the books he makes no promises because he still has secrets to reveal. That's the fact. Why would he even say such a thing if everything is wrapped up in a nice pretty bow? And why would he create all of these facts that disprove the wine and verify the pie when all he had to do was have Joffrey drink one sip, grab his throat and die, like Cressen did?

Remember, words are wind. Just because Lady Olenna and Petyr say certain things does not make them true. Look with your eyes, hear with your ears, or else you become a dead girl.

At the very least, this interview confirms that Joffrey was the target and that it was meant to look like he choked on the pie by accident:

https://ew.com/article/2014/04/13/george-r-r-martin-why-joffrey-killed/

[Mourning Star]

Joffrey didn't send the catspaw assassin to kill Bran, Mance did.

Dany didn't see the Red Wedding in her vision, the silent wolf looking to her with "mute appeal", describes Ghost/Jon, not Rob/Greywind.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Joffrey didn't send the catspaw assassin to kill Bran, Mance did.

Can you elaborate on this, or if you have elsewhere or know a good explanation elsewhere could you provide a link?

[Prince of the North]

On 5/24/2022 at 12:28 PM, butterweedstrover said:

Oh well, I thought that was assumed given the premise of the discussion. In the case of what I am saying Loras wouldn't be dead, there is no need to preface with "I think" to every statement. Especially not the piece you quoted. I do not think dumping boiling oil disfigures a person, that is something true regardless. 

As for the person like you, I have a distinct memory of you trolling me with the laugh emojis so I don't know how serious you are with your current complaints.  

The boiled person is real, it was not faked. But it works just as well to leave them as an excuse to abscond without being followed. A Kings Guard would not be forgotten if he just wandered off. 

As for Martin... it was to leave readers assuming they knew his location (Dragonstone) so they would suspect he would be found anywhere else. 

Theories are theories, facts are facts.  How you present your thoughts, etc. matter.  Presenting theories as facts is very disingenuous and insulting to those who read them.  And those who do it should definitely be challenged when they do it.

As for your theory itself?  As I said, it's an interesting, if extremely flimsy, theory for now.  Nothing more.

[chrisdaw]

15 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

George has talked about the poisoning in interviews and has explicitly said that Olenna poisoned Joffrey.

Why do you insist on lying about this?

[Nevets]

31 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

Why do you insist on lying about this?

I think it is more a matter of interpretation than anything else.  GRRM'S statement, like everything else he says, is somewhat ambiguous. 

Having examined this event far more than I would like, I have concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve the obvious conclusion: Joffrey was the target, the poison was in the wine, and the Tyrells were the primary instigators, having ample reason to desire Joffrey’s death (domestic abuse, becoming Aerys III, etc.).  

Alternate explanations tend to make no sense or are otherwise unconvincing. 

[chrisdaw]

13 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I think it is more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

I don't think it is. Unless the Bard of Banefort can show where GRRM has "explicitly said that Olenna poisoned Joffrey" they should stop repeatedly saying he has.

[The Bard of Banefort]

2 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Why do you insist on lying about this?

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/amp/
 

Quote

In the books - and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal - the conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa's hairnet, so that if anyone did think it was poison, then Sansa would be blamed for it. Sansa had certainly good reason for it.

The reason I bring this up is because that's an interesting question of redemption. That's more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Is it a case where the end justifies the means? I don't know. That's what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate.

I would call this “explicit.” If you want to get hung up on the prospect of GRRM possibly retconning it based on the first sentence, go ahead, but it seems pretty clear to me that this case is closed. 

[Frey family reunion]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/amp/
 

I would call this “explicit.” If you want to get hung up on the prospect of GRRM possibly retconning it based on the first sentence, go ahead, but it seems pretty clear to me that this case is closed. 

You really don’t get GRRM’s interview style at all.  George loves to talk about his books, he just doesn’t like committing to anything.  So for the most part, it’s kind of a waste of time to try and figure out “the truth” of anything George writes via his interviews.  He intentionally likes keeping things ambiguous, and letting his readers debate it out.  For all we know, he himself hasn’t completely decided on the culprit behind the purple wedding, because at the time of the interview he probably hasn’t completely figured out how he wants the story to conclude.  

So if George never revisits the purple wedding in the books, then you might as well chalk it up to Olenna poisoning Joffrey.  At least if you want to.  If you don’t that’s probably fine as well.  

So when George said he “might” have some surprises in store, that may not be George just being coy.  At the time of the interview he may himself be on the fence as to whether he gives the reader another curveball or not.

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

At the very least, this interview confirms that Joffrey was the target and that it was meant to look like he choked on the pie by accident:

https://ew.com/article/2014/04/13/george-r-r-martin-why-joffrey-killed/

Nonsense. This is just more Martin dissembling. No one chokes on wine. You can only choke on food, so there is no way the murderers would expect anyone to think he choked when he is only drinking, not eating.

Die on this hill if you want, but the abundance of facts in the book makes it perfectly, irrefutably clear: the poison was in the pie and Tyrion was the target.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I don’t know about anyone else, but I generally take sips of drink between bites of food. It wouldn’t surprise me if Joffrey does too. Here’s a quote from the EW interview: 

Quote

I don't know how it comes across in the show, because haven't actually seen it yet, but the poison that is used to kill Joffrey is one that I introduce earlier in the books and its symptoms are similar to choking. So a feast is the perfect time to use this thing. I think the intent of the murderer is not to have this become another Red Wedding-the Red Wedding was very clearly murder and butchery. I think the idea with Joffrey's death was to make it look like an accident - someone's out celebrating, they haven't invented the Heimlich maneuver, so when someone gets food caught in his throat, it's very serious.

Maester Cressen tries to assassinate Melisandre by putting the Strangler in wine (and ends up killing himself instead). It was all set up from the beginning of ACOK. And if the poison was in the pie, how does that stop half the people in the room from getting poisoned as well? They’re all eating from the same pie.

[butterweedstrover]

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/amp/
 

I would call this “explicit.” If you want to get hung up on the prospect of GRRM possibly retconning it based on the first sentence, go ahead, but it seems pretty clear to me that this case is closed. 

"and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal" 

This doesn't seem to say Olenna is not the poisoner, just that he refuses to confirm that to be the case. Which suggests the question is still open or elsewise has not been fully solved. 

It could still be Olenna, but he may be looking for an opportunity in the next book to officially establish that fact... 

Or he is just being mysterious to rev up hype for Winds. 

[butterweedstrover]

4 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t know about anyone else, but I generally take sips of drink between bites of food.

I don't drink.

[LynnS]

Is it possible there were two plans in effect?  One by Olenna to remove Joffrey and the other by Littlefinger to remove Tyrion?  It seems the blame was meant to fall on Sansa either way.

The context around the question in the interview seems to be about redemption:

Quote

 

Both Jaime and Cersei are clearly despicable in those moments. Later, though, we see a more humane side of Jaime when he rescues a woman, who had been an enemy, from rape. All of a sudden we don’t know what to feel about Jaime.
One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don’t have an answer. But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he’s apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen. Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you’re a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don’t know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what’s the answer then? [Martin pauses for a moment.] You’ve read the books?

Yes.
Who kills Joffrey?

That killing happens early in this fourth season. The books, of course, are well past the poisoning of King Joffrey.
In the books – and I make no promises, because I have two more books to write, and I may have more surprises to reveal – the conclusion that the careful reader draws is that Joffrey was killed by the Queen of Thorns, using poison from Sansa’s hairnet, so that if anyone did think it was poison, then Sansa would be blamed for it. Sansa had certainly good reason for it.

The reason I bring this up is because that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Is it a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know. That’s what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate.

 

I do find the arguments intriguing.  It feels more like an Agatha Christie whodunnit with multiple suspects, motives and methods. 

He says the careful reader would draw a certain conclusion. Also that Sansa would be blamed for it. 

I'm not sure his statement about future surprises has anything to do with the Purple Wedding specifically.  Although I'm aware of Martin's use of a monkey wrench.

It doesn't upset me if readers have different opinions about it.  Martin likes to stoke those fires as well.  He wants readers to think and exercise their grey matter.

 

[Mourning Star]

20 hours ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

Can you elaborate on this, or if you have elsewhere or know a good explanation elsewhere could you provide a link?

Happily!