Who really hired the catspaw?

[Aebram]

4 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

GRRM said that we would find out the answer in ASOS.

Can you give us a link to that quote please?

The Martin is a master of ambiguity.  I will need to see his words to ensure that he made an explicit statement, not one of those "careful readers will have concluded ..." deflections that looks like a confirmation, but really isn't.

[the trees have eyes]

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

No that's not it. It's the fact that they were allowed to go off all by themselves in the first place.

This is your smoking gun?  The reason they are unaccompanied is an authorial device so the Joffrey - Arya conflict can happen without adult witnesses or intervention.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And, of course, we first learn that Sansa hates horses and has very little experience at riding, but there she is bouncing overland on her common mare while Joff tears ahead on his courser, which is a horse bred for speed. And what do we later learn Cersei believes happens to young girl's bodies when they go in for hard riding?

There's more, but this was a setup, clear as day.

Joffrey is just showing off and Sansa is attempting to please him by going despite not liking riding.  They have to go riding otherwise they are in camp surrounded by adults and, as GRRM is pointing them at Arya and Mycah practicing swordplay far enough from camp to avoid notice, that encounter can't happen at all if they don't ride out and can't happen the way he wants if they are accompanied by guards (Ned's for Sansa, Robert's or The Hound for Joffrey).  This is all pretty obvious.

Clear as day a set-up?  Yes, but for Joffrey and Arya to cause trouble on The Trident.  For Joffrey to kill Sansa?  Good lord, no.

4 hours ago, Aebram said:

I've already shown that it's not sound.

Not dramatic enough or even particularly satisfying?  I can see why people don't like it for those reasons but that's no reason to dismiss what we're presented with.

4 hours ago, Aebram said:

Regarding your final question about relevance, I will suggest that the murder of John Arryn had no relevance by the time GRRM revealed it.

Depends what you mean by relevant.  It revealed how long LF had been plotting and how long Lysa had been his accomplice.  It also got her killed when she divulged his secret which gives Sansa an axe over his head should she ever be in a position to use it.  And it shows us how ruthless and cynical he is.  Pretty relevant imo.

4 hours ago, Aebram said:

So it seems reasonable to think that he may do the same for Joffrey.  Perhaps the truth will come out during Cersei's trial, if she did indeed do it.

But he already has. 

And Cersei?  She gave Jaime grief for throwing Bran out the window when she planned to simply frighten him into silence.  She has been a pov character and revealed her childhood murder of Melara Hetherspoon.  We've had retrospectives from her pov to inform us about her character even in youth.  There's no reason not for her to have reflected on trying to kill Bran and no story impact from her having tried to do so.

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Mance Rayder is (presumably) alive and in Winterfell.

What was Mance digging for in the Frostfangs? Did he find it? Is there a connection to the rare old information that burned, or was stolen from, Winterfell's Library?

How would the knowledge that Mance tried to have Bran killed impact his relationship with Jon?

What game are you playing, priestess? Did you have some other task for Mance?

This just replaces LF with Mance as the master of chaos.  I leave that to Preston Jacobs.

Mance was digging for The Horn of Joramun to bring The Wall down if needed.  The fire in the library tower was just a distraction to pull the guards from Bran's room.

I imagine it would impact his already complicated relationship quite severely but you could pull any name out of a hat and say the same thing.  I don't take Mance for a child killer but why advertise to Jon that he had been to WF when the royal party was there if he was behind the plot to kill Bran? That's LF style boasting/taunting of someone who you wronged but is ignorant of it (Ned).  That doesn't feel like Mance.

As with all these alternative theories, we are talking about an event early in Book One that the author said would be addressed in Book Three and was.  Some people don't like how it was addressed but it is what he planned and wrote.

[Julia H.]

On 12/9/2022 at 2:21 PM, Evolett said:

The main suspects for a middleman would be the Hound and Boros Blount (perhaps also Meryn Trant).

I think the Hound can be excluded. During the scene where he wants to persuade Arya to give him the gift of mercy, he tries to make her enraged enough to kill him by reminding her of how he killed Mycah and what he might have done to Sansa. If he had had a hand in the attempt on Bran's life and the arson in Winterfell, he would surely add this confession to the list in the scene, but he does not.

Blount and Trant are certainly very likely suspects as middlemen, though in this case I must conclude that the planning must have been done by the catspaw as likely the most intelligent member of the gang. 

15 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned's execution, preformed with the Valyrian Steel blade Ice. Joff even uses the executioners stroke on Tyrion's gift of books.

In my opinion it was Mance, the shadowcat, who sent the catspaw and burned the Winterfell Library before returning north of the Wall to dig in the Frostfangs and gather the Wildlings. He was there, had motive, means and a bag of silver.

"The Wall can stop an army, but not a man alone. I took a lute and a bag of silver, scaled the ice near Long Barrow, walked a few leagues south of the New Gift, and bought a horse. All in all I made much better time than Robert, who was traveling with a ponderous great wheelhouse to keep his queen in comfort. A day south of Winterfell I came up on him and fell in with his company. Freeriders and hedge knights are always attaching themselves to royal processions, in hopes of finding service with the king, and my lute gained me easy acceptance." He laughed. "I know every bawdy song that's ever been made, north or south of the Wall. So there you are. The night your father feasted Robert, I sat in the back of his hall on a bench with the other freeriders, listening to Orland of Oldtown play the high harp and sing of dead kings beneath the sea. I betook of your lord father's meat and mead, had a look at Kingslayer and Imp . . . and made passing note of Lord Eddard's children and the wolf pups that ran at their heels."

Mance fell in with the King's company, and the Valyrian dagger was likely in the baggage train.

"And when he did not, you knew your danger was worse than ever, so you gave your catspaw a bag of silver to make certain Bran would never wake."
"Did I now?" Jaime lifted his cup and took a long swallow. "I won't deny we talked of it, but you were with the boy day and night, your maester and Lord Eddard attended him frequently, and there were guards, even those damned direwolves . . . it would have required cutting my way through half of Winterfell. And why bother, when the boy seemed like to die of his own accord?"

Mance had reason to see a Stark of Winterfell dead, cause dissention in the south (sending the catspaw with the king's dagger), get into the Winterfell Library, and might even have seen it as a mercy.

"North of the Wall it is. Hemlock is a sure cure, but a pillow or a blade will work as well. If I had given birth to that poor child, I would have given her the gift of mercy long ago."

 

I really like this theory. Even if it does not get confirmed by GRRM, it is very well built up and plausible (though it would make me hate Mance Ryder). I also like the idea that the burning of the Winterfell Library at a time when rediscovering ancient knowledge would be essential has some further significance beyond being a mere diversion.

[Mourning Star]

14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

This just replaces LF with Mance as the master of chaos.  I leave that to Preston Jacobs.

I don't know what you are talking about, Littlefinger wasn't even in Winterfell to know that Bran had "fallen", let alone plot an assassination attempt.

However, the only reason to send the king's unique dagger to kill a cripple in bed (when a pillow would do) is if it was meant to be found after the deed was done. I do think causing strife was a clear goal of the catspaw attempt on Bran's life.

At the end of the day you can handwave anything away as just being how it was written and having no meaning, but I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Mance was digging for The Horn of Joramun to bring The Wall down if needed.  The fire in the library tower was just a distraction to pull the guards from Bran's room.

How did Mance discover where the Horn of Joramun was? Did they find it? I don't think his timing of going to the Frostfangs to dig after his trip to Winterfell was a coincidence.

Counterpoint, the assassination attempt on Bran was a distraction from the fire in the Library, and discovering how to defeat the Others was the priority.

Mance thinks he'll fight, the brave sweet stubborn man, like the white walkers were no more than rangers, but what does he know? He can call himself King-beyond-the-Wall all he likes, but he's still just another old black crow who flew down from the Shadow Tower.

Even with the attempt having failed, the dagger caused dissention south of the Wall (and presumably would have been left at the scene if the attempt had been successful for just this purpose), and nobody even wonders if there was another reason the library was involved. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that it is the same scene where Tyrion shows the readers the priceless ancient flammable scrolls before exiting the Library and hearing Joff say his (later misquoted) send a dog to kill a dog quote.

14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I imagine it would impact his already complicated relationship quite severely but you could pull any name out of a hat and say the same thing.  I don't take Mance for a child killer but why advertise to Jon that he had been to WF when the royal party was there if he was behind the plot to kill Bran? That's LF style boasting/taunting of someone who you wronged but is ignorant of it (Ned). 

I don't know what you are trying to say about names from a hat, there are not many options for people secretly in Winterfell with motive means and hard evidence linking them to the crime... Nor are there many with as up in the air a relationship as Jon and Mance. So I guess I just don't think you could pull a name from a hat and it be the same here at all...

Mance wouldn't know the details of what happened after he left Winterfell and would want to find out if there was any suspicion he was involved. The assassin could have been caught and tortured for all he knew.

"Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side . . . but the Night's Watch is only a shadow of what we were, and who remains to oppose the wildlings besides us? The Lord of Winterfell is dead, and his heir has marched his strength south to fight the Lannisters. The wildlings may never again have such a chance as this. I knew Mance Rayder, Jon. He is an oathbreaker, yes . . . but he has eyes to see, and no man has ever dared to name him faintheart."

But if this theory is right, there is no doubt that sending the catspaw worked.

I suspect Mance will have a justification for his actions, saving his people, mercy for a crippled boy, but I do think he's capable of ordering a child's death, a theme that we see built up in the series.

"There is power in a king's blood," the old maester had warned, "and better men than Stannis have done worse things than this." The king can be harsh and unforgiving, aye, but a babe still on the breast? Only a monster would give a living child to the flames.

And, Mance does love the sound of his own voice.

Bael wrote his own songs, and lived them. I only sing the songs that better men have made. More mead?"

...

Mance Rayder smiled, as Jon had hoped he would. The king was plainly a man who liked the sound of his own voice. "You will have heard stories of my desertion, I have no doubt."

14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

That doesn't feel like Mance.

While I clearly disagree, I would point out that I actually think this too ties back to the start of the story and some of the major moral themes.

His lord father smiled. "Old Nan has been telling you stories again. In truth, the man was an oathbreaker, a deserter from the Night's Watch. No man is more dangerous. The deserter knows his life is forfeit if he is taken, so he will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile. But you mistake me. The question was not why the man had to die, but why I must do it."

And you may also note that if this theory is correct, Mance did not not wield the knife, another mark against him, on top of trying to kill a child.

Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?"
"For a start," said Ned, "I do not kill children. 

14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

As with all these alternative theories, we are talking about an event early in Book One that the author said would be addressed in Book Three and was.  Some people don't like how it was addressed but it is what he planned and wrote.

Just do not say you were not warned.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Mourning Star

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't know what you are talking about, Littlefinger wasn't even in Winterfell to know that Bran had "fallen", let alone plot an assassination attempt.

I am talking about how one or two people push the idea that LF was behind the attempt to kill Bran.  I quite agree with you on this point as it happens.  I'm just equally sceptical of the textually unsupported idea that Mance was behind it.  It's as much a reader substitution as LF for the culprit revealed by the author, namely Joffrey.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

However, the only reason to send the king's unique dagger to kill a cripple in bed (when a pillow would do) is if it was meant to be found after the deed was done.

Not at all.  If the assassin succeeded it would never be found.  And finding it doesn't point to anyone on it's own, it just makes it clear that someone took it from the king's armoury.  When would anyone notice it was gone and if the assassin was successful who could possibly join up the dots months later?  Only Catelyn's meltdown and refusal to leave Bran's side for any reason and the intervention of a direwolf save Bran, neither of which could be foreseen by the assassin.  We see his surprise in story.  You only discount this as it doesn't fit your theory and need to argue that the blade was meant to be found.  There is no reason to suppose it was.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I do think causing strife was a clear goal of the catspaw attempt on Bran's life.

Like the guy who claims Joffrey meant to kill Sansa on The Trident you are overlooking the fact that the assassin and the dagger are an authorial device to move the story forward by launching Catelyn off to KL to warn Ned that Bran's fall was not an accident and that the Lannisters are trying to kill him because he must know something damaging to them.  It's part of upping the ante in the Stark-Lannister conflict and pivotal in the drift to war.

The dagger was not meant to be found or the assassination fail by the person behind it but both were by the author to drive the story forward.  It's tradecraft.  Some people find this clumsy or unsatisfactory and look for alternatives but the author said he'd wrap up the mystery in ASOS and he did so why are we here?

Mance?  He's not even a character in AGOT.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

At the end of the day you can handwave anything away as just being how it was written and having no meaning, but I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

Just do not say you were not warned.

Well that's me warned for my disservice to myself . 

What is it about people with pet theories and their need to tell other people that until they drink the kool-aid they are missing out on the "truth".  I'll file your warning with those about Dany not being a Targaryen, Old Nan being the three-eyed crow, the poison being in the pie, Howland Reed being The High Septon and more than I wish to recount.

You have a particular interpretation that is not well-supported in the text or by the author's own interview comments on the matter and you're attached to it because it's your thing so you're welcome to it but you won't find many people to agree with you.  Some, sure, but not many.  So enjoy your head cannon but don't be surprised if other people don't agree.  And it's better to keep warnings and ruminations on handwaving and disservice to yourself, they don't add anything to a post other than pique.

[Aebram]

On 12/20/2022 at 3:59 PM, the trees have eyes said:

the author said he'd wrap up the mystery in ASOS

This has been mentioned once or twice already in this thread. I asked one writer (excuse me if that was you,  i don't recall) to post GRRM's actual words, or a link to them. I'm still waiting for that. Sorry, but as I wrote before, George is a master of ambiguity. Some heated debates have sprung up on this forum because readers had two different interpretations of something he had said or written. So I won't believe he actually said that until I see the words myself. If he did indeed say that, in clear unambiguous words, then it will bring this debate to quick halt, with the "Joffrey did it" camp as the clear winner.  That would be fine with me; I'm not married to my theory.

A few posters have mentioned this bit of dialogue from "Storm" 59 as evidence of Joffrey's guilt:

Quote

Tyrion was staring at his nephew with his mismatched eyes. “Perhaps a knife, sire. To match your sword. A dagger of the same fine Valyrian steel … with a dragonbone hilt, say?”

Joff gave him a sharp look. “You … yes, a dagger to match my sword, good.” He nodded. “A … a gold hilt with rubies in it. Dragonbone is too plain.”

A sharp look, and a sentence fragment. No specific mention of surprise, guilt, anger, fear, sweating, blushing, or anything to indicate that Joffrey has realized that someone suspects him.  He might have just been thinking, "why is my uncle bothering me about this now, while I'm trying to enjoy my wedding feast," and his response would look like this.

Some readers are certain that the catspaw's dagger had belonged to King Robert. Some of that certainty apparently stems from this comment by Lord Tywin in "Storm" 32:

Quote

The only blade he [Robert] ever used was the hunting knife he had from Jon Arryn, when he was a boy.

There is no other description of that knife; we don't know what it was made of or what it looked like. The only reason to think that it is indeed the catspaw's dagger is because, well, it's a knife, and GRRM took the time to mention it, so it must serve some purpose in the story line. That's not exactly strong evidence.

(EDIT: sorry, I was mistaken. There is text evidence that Robert owned the dagger. The details are in my next post.)

With all that in mind, I will concede that I can see why many of you are convinced that Joffrey is the culprit. The quantity of evidence is quite high. The quality, though, is quite low; it's all just people guessing or suspecting.

I like to think that a good debate can be like a game of tennis: it's very vigorous and competitive, but when it's over, everyone remembers that the people on the other side are their friends, and they can all go have lunch together. Some of the language here is suggesting some anger or frustration ... Sorry if my stubbornness has been irritating anyone. Agree or disagree, I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

Edited December 23, 2022 by Aebram

[Mourning Star]

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I am talking about how one or two people push the idea that LF was behind the attempt to kill Bran.  I quite agree with you on this point as it happens.  I'm just equally sceptical of the textually unsupported idea that Mance was behind it.  It's as much a reader substitution as LF for the culprit revealed by the author, namely Joffrey.

I don't think the reader is presented with any real evidence Joffrey was involved.

But, feel free to try and make any case you want using the text.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Not at all.  If the assassin succeeded it would never be found.

This I disagree with.

The assassin had been paid, and there was no need for a special dagger to kill a cripple.

So I'm saying that the best explanation for the assassin using a unique dagger at all was to leave it so it would be found after the deed was done.

The dagger being unique and identifiable is a major plot point.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

  And finding it doesn't point to anyone on it's own, it just makes it clear that someone took it from the king's armoury.

But, it does point to someone in the king's party... which is the whole point, and what plays out in the story.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

  When would anyone notice it was gone and if the assassin was successful who could possibly join up the dots months later?

If Bran was dead with the knife sticking out of him?

It would have proceeded much the same as it did in the story where Bran was in a coma still anyway.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

  Only Catelyn's meltdown and refusal to leave Bran's side for any reason and the intervention of a direwolf save Bran, neither of which could be foreseen by the assassin. 

True, which is why there still needs to be an explanation for using the dagger at all.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

We see his surprise in story.  You only discount this as it doesn't fit your theory and need to argue that the blade was meant to be found.  There is no reason to suppose it was.

I don't think I'm discounting something here, I think you are ignoring a major plot point.

It wasn't just any knife. There is a reason to suppose it was meant to be found, because why else would it be there at all?

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Like the guy who claims Joffrey meant to kill Sansa on The Trident you are overlooking the fact that the assassin and the dagger are an authorial device to move the story forward by launching Catelyn off to KL to warn Ned that Bran's fall was not an accident and that the Lannisters are trying to kill him because he must know something damaging to them.  It's part of upping the ante in the Stark-Lannister conflict and pivotal in the drift to war.

Again, I think handwaving away clearly intentional things in the writing you can't explain is a disservice to yourself and the story.

I don't know why you think the theory that it's just bad writing would be convincing.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The dagger was not meant to be found or the assassination fail by the person behind it but both were by the author to drive the story forward. 

I disagree. I think the dagger was meant to be found by the person behind the assassin in the story.

I think the author meant to take you for a ride, and has succeeded.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's tradecraft.  Some people find this clumsy or unsatisfactory and look for alternatives but the author said he'd wrap up the mystery in ASOS and he did so why are we here?

It's not clumsy its intentionally nonsensical.

Think for yourself, see what is there. Or rely on vague quotes from 20+ years ago before ASOS was even released, after all this author has never adjusted his plan for anything right? 

I'm just pointing out what is there in black and white.

Not to mention, we literally receive the reveal that Mance was in Winterfell in ASOS.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Mance?  He's not even a character in AGOT.

He is mentioned repeatedly in AGoT.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well that's me warned for my disservice to myself .

Just don't say you were not warned.

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

What is it about people with pet theories and their need to tell other people that until they drink the kool-aid they are missing out on the "truth".  I'll file your warning with those about Dany not being a Targaryen, Old Nan being the three-eyed crow, the poison being in the pie, Howland Reed being The High Septon and more than I wish to recount.

Why would you be on a forum about these books except to discuss theories about them?

Again, you fall back to dismissive handwaving rather than actually addressing the text or theory at hand. That some theories are almost certainly destined to be wrong doesn't mean they all will be.

Believe what you want, entertainment is literally the point here. 

18 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

You have a particular interpretation that is not well-supported in the text or by the author's own interview comments on the matter and you're attached to it because it's your thing so you're welcome to it but you won't find many people to agree with you.  Some, sure, but not many.  So enjoy your head cannon but don't be surprised if other people don't agree.  And it's better to keep warnings and ruminations on handwaving and disservice to yourself, they don't add anything to a post other than pique.

What people believe won't change the story.

But, I think most every person I've talked to about Tyrion's piss drunk blaming of Joff theory realizes it makes no sense and is activly undermined by the text itself. And, I do find the cultlike insistence on it somehow being true because of a vaguely worded quote from 20+ years ago (before ASOS was published) to be laughable. 

The OP was literally asking for better explanations since it's apparent to many readers that that theory is fundamentally flawed.

I think my case is supported by the text, and I have repeatedly quoted the text in making it.

All you seem to contribute around here is pique lol

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mourning Star

[John Suburbs]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:22 PM, the trees have eyes said:

This is your smoking gun?  The reason they are unaccompanied is an authorial device so the Joffrey - Arya conflict can happen without adult witnesses or intervention.

Joffrey is just showing off and Sansa is attempting to please him by going despite not liking riding.  They have to go riding otherwise they are in camp surrounded by adults and, as GRRM is pointing them at Arya and Mycah practicing swordplay far enough from camp to avoid notice, that encounter can't happen at all if they don't ride out and can't happen the way he wants if they are accompanied by guards (Ned's for Sansa, Robert's or The Hound for Joffrey).  This is all pretty obvious.

Clear as day a set-up?  Yes, but for Joffrey and Arya to cause trouble on The Trident.  For Joffrey to kill Sansa?  Good lord, no.

Nonsense. It's all subtextual evidence that there was a plot afoot. Give Martin a little credit. When he uses "authorial devices" to advance the plot, he at least makes them plausible. If he just made up whatever scenario out of thin air whenever he wanted, it wouldn't take him 10 years to write a novel.

 

[the trees have eyes]

18 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Nonsense. It's all subtextual evidence that there was a plot afoot

It's really straightforward and "evidence" of nothing that you're pushing.  GRRM needs Sansa and Joffrey to encounter Arya and Mycah far enough away from any adult supervision for the scene he wants to show to play out how he wants.

I'm bemused anyone could complicate this.

18 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Give Martin a little credit. When he uses "authorial devices" to advance the plot, he at least makes them plausible.

Oh, I give him tons of credit, I'm a big fan.  It's the implausible conspiracy theorists and fantasists who leave me bemused.  Authorial devices to advance the plot?  It's what writing is!!!!

So Bran happens to be an agile climber, despite being seven (?) and just happens to come upon Jaime and Cersei in a  compromising position in a pretty much abandoned part of the castle and just happens to be stood in an open window five stories up for Jaime to push him with no one around to see?

Ned, despite knowing of the danger he and his family are in (and planning to get his daughters away from KL) nonetheless puts no guards around them?  It's to allow Sansa to sneak out and get kidnapped and Syrio to buy time for Arya's escape and GRRM the opportunity to showcase Syrio's heroic sacrifice.

Or Tyrion happens to blunder into The Inn at The Crossroads with only one servant allowing Catelyn to kidnap him?

Or Arya briefly leaving The Hollow Hill only to run straight into Sandor and get kidnapped by him?

GRRM shows the scenes he wants to and develops the story the way he has chosen and that requires putting individuals in precarious or isolated positions.  It's simply how writing works, I really don't see what is so hard to follow here.  What is less plausible about Joffrey and Sansa going riding than any of these other examples?  What is implausible about Joffrey and Sansa going riding at all?  He simply wants them to encounter Arya and Mycah in isolation.

Plausible to you, now?  Well, that's up to you.  How does it go: "Die on this hill, if you want"? 

18 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

If he just made up whatever scenario out of thin air whenever he wanted, it wouldn't take him 10 years to write a novel.

Say what?   You must have noticed that AGOT, ACOK and ASOS did not take ten years to write....  It's precisely because he didn't waste any time with elaborate and extravagant plot points to get Bran alone with Jaime and Cersei, or Arya and Sansa unguarded in The Red Keep, or Bran and Catelyn alone with an assassin that provokes the conspiracy theorists into picking holes in it and positing double bluffs or elaborate alternatives. 

And it's breath-taking that you wave away his lead in to The Trouble on the Trident incident by dismissing this as a scenario  made up out of thin air when this is exactly what you are doing in your counter-argument!  That's truly remarkable.

[John Suburbs]

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's really straightforward and "evidence" of nothing that you're pushing.  GRRM needs Sansa and Joffrey to encounter Arya and Mycah far enough away from any adult supervision for the scene he wants to show to play out how he wants.

I'm bemused anyone could complicate this.

Oh, I give him tons of credit, I'm a big fan.  It's the implausible conspiracy theorists and fantasists who leave me bemused.  Authorial devices to advance the plot?  It's what writing is!!!!

So Bran happens to be an agile climber, despite being seven (?) and just happens to come upon Jaime and Cersei in a  compromising position in a pretty much abandoned part of the castle and just happens to be stood in an open window five stories up for Jaime to push him with no one around to see?

Ned, despite knowing of the danger he and his family are in (and planning to get his daughters away from KL) nonetheless puts no guards around them?  It's to allow Sansa to sneak out and get kidnapped and Syrio to buy time for Arya's escape and GRRM the opportunity to showcase Syrio's heroic sacrifice.

Or Tyrion happens to blunder into The Inn at The Crossroads with only one servant allowing Catelyn to kidnap him?

Or Arya briefly leaving The Hollow Hill only to run straight into Sandor and get kidnapped by him?

GRRM shows the scenes he wants to and develops the story the way he has chosen and that requires putting individuals in precarious or isolated positions.  It's simply how writing works, I really don't see what is so hard to follow here.  What is less plausible about Joffrey and Sansa going riding than any of these other examples?  What is implausible about Joffrey and Sansa going riding at all?  He simply wants them to encounter Arya and Mycah in isolation.

Plausible to you, now?  Well, that's up to you.  How does it go: "Die on this hill, if you want"? 

Say what?   You must have noticed that AGOT, ACOK and ASOS did not take ten years to write....  It's precisely because he didn't waste any time with elaborate and extravagant plot points to get Bran alone with Jaime and Cersei, or Arya and Sansa unguarded in The Red Keep, or Bran and Catelyn alone with an assassin that provokes the conspiracy theorists into picking holes in it and positing double bluffs or elaborate alternatives. 

And it's breath-taking that you wave away his lead in to The Trouble on the Trident incident by dismissing this as a scenario  made up out of thin air when this is exactly what you are doing in your counter-argument!  That's truly remarkable.

The facts are all there, just like they were with the Sealord's cat. The Hound was responsible for protecting Joffrey and he went inexplicably AWOL that day. Yet there were no repercussions that day despite Cersei attacking everyone and everything involved, and even those who were not involved. Martin does not just make up utterly implausible scenarios just to advance the plot. It's why it takes him 10 years to write a novel. So you are not giving him credit. You are turning him into a hack.

There is nothing wrong with coincidences like Bran climbing the tower (the broken tower was his favorite place and it was the perfect out-of-the-way place for a tryst, after all), or Tyrion running into Cat, but when the facts of what was supposed to be contradict what actually is, that's when you know something is up -- just like with the Arryn murder, the Westerling conspiracy, and RLJ.

Ned had already sent the bulk of his men with Beric, and no, he would have no idea that either of his daughters, let alone the good one, would go sneaking off to the queen to tell her his plans. Nothing unusual there -- other than the fact that even Sansa is surprised at her newfound willfulness, which may also be a subtle sign of things happening in the subtext.

Sandor was angling to get his gold back. It would be odd if he wasn't there.

So none of what you are proposing as evidence is even closely the same as this. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of it, unlike two of the most valuable children in the world riding off alone into the countryside. Not even Robert and Ned do that, nor does any other highborn. Even Bran's first ride on Dancer starts out with Robb and Theon, both fully armed and armored, plus five additional guardsmen. And look what happened when they got lax and Bran found himself alone -- he was almost killed by wildlings, literally right on Winterfell's doorstep. That's how dangerous it is when the very clothes you are wearing are worth more than an average peasant earns in a year.

So just like all the things that were wrong with the notion that Cersei killed Jon Arryn -- right up to Pycelle telling us that "she wanted him dead" because "he knew about . . . about . . ." -- and the Westerling plot, and RLJ and half-a-dozen other events, all the clues are there screaming out the truth. Sadly, though, some people can only see this in hindsight.

 

 

[Aebram]

Apologies, my last comment was wrong about the dagger belonging to Robert.  Mourning Star's comment jogged my memory, and I found the relevant text in ACOK 55. 

Quote

 

"What dagger was this?"

 “It was so long,” she [Catelyn] said, holding her hands apart, “plain, but finely made, with a blade of Valyrian steel and a dragonbone hilt. Your brother won it from Lord Baelish at the tourney on Prince Joffrey’s name day.” 

Lannister poured, drank, poured, and stared into his wine cup. “This wine seems to be improving as I drink it. Imagine that. I seem to remember that dagger, now that you describe it. Won it, you say? How?” 

“Wagering on you when you tilted against the Knight of Flowers.” Yet when she heard her own words Catelyn knew she had gotten it wrong. “No … was it the other way?” 

“Tyrion always backed me in the lists,” Jaime said, “but that day Ser Loras unhorsed me. A mischance, I took the boy too lightly, but no matter. Whatever my brother wagered, he lost … but that dagger did change hands, I recall it now. Robert showed it to me that night at the feast. His Grace loved to salt my wounds, especially when drunk. And when was he not drunk?”

 

I don't think this changes the essence of my theory.  Cersei could have stolen the dagger from Robert's weapons chest as easily as Joffrey, possibly more so.  But for the reasons I've already given, I still think the dagger is a false clue:  probably a coincidence, but possibly a deliberate move to shift the blame.  I may have more to say about this in a future post; I'm still puzzling over it.

[Ring3r]

Well, I think it's confirmed as Joff, but I have another theory about why Joff did it.

Joff is a psychopath, and it's likely that he knew that blade had belonged to his uncle Tyrion in the past.  Tyrion had just repeatedly slapped him and shamed him and forced him to go pay his respects to Bran and his mother.....so Joff decided to kill the kid out of spite and used a dagger that might be traceable back to his uncle.

We've got means (he had access to the dagger through the royal armory and probably filched it at some point in the past) and motive (spite against Bran who, from his psychopath view, was responsible for Tyrion shaming him).  As far as opportunity goes....lots of shady people follow the King's procession around and the payment could have been as simple as getting to keep the knife.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Ring3r

[Aebram]

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

Well, I think it's confirmed as Joff, but I have another theory about why Joff did it.

Joff is a psychopath, and it's likely that he knew that blade had belonged to his uncle Tyrion in the past.  Tyrion had just repeatedly slapped him and shamed him and forced him to go pay his respects to Bran and his mother.....so Joff decided to kill the kid out of spite and used a dagger that might be traceable back to his uncle.

We've got means (he had access to the dagger through the royal armory and probably filched it at some point in the past) and motive (spite against Bran who, from his psychopath view, was responsible for Tyrion shaming him).  As far as opportunity goes....lots of shady people follow the King's procession around and the payment could have been as simple as getting to keep the knife.

Did you not see my last post? Unless I've missed something (again), we don't have any evidence that Tyrion ever owned the dagger. Littlefinger said he lost it to Tyrion in a bet, but it seems clear that that was a lie.

A bag of silver was found in the place where the catspaw had apparently been sleeping (AGOT 14).  So he had already been paid.

[Ring3r]

22 hours ago, Aebram said:

Did you not see my last post? Unless I've missed something (again), we don't have any evidence that Tyrion ever owned the dagger. Littlefinger said he lost it to Tyrion in a bet, but it seems clear that that was a lie.

A bag of silver was found in the place where the catspaw had apparently been sleeping (AGOT 14).  So he had already been paid.

Not everything Littlefinger says is a lie...and he specifically talks about taking advantage of things.  I'm 50/50 on whether it had been his at some point, but even if it hadn't, we've still got motive, means and opportunity for Joff.

Given than the only other people who had motive (Jaime and Cersie) pretty clearly did not do it (while Cersie suspects it was in fact Joff), I think it's pretty much settled, honestly.  It is for me, anyways.

[Aebram]

On 12/23/2022 at 4:53 PM, Ring3r said:

Not everything Littlefinger says is a lie...and he specifically talks about taking advantage of things.  I'm 50/50 on whether it had been his at some point, but even if it hadn't, we've still got motive, means and opportunity for Joff.

Given than the only other people who had motive (Jaime and Cersie) pretty clearly did not do it (while Cersie suspects it was in fact Joff), I think it's pretty much settled, honestly.  It is for me, anyways.

It's true that Littlefinger doesn't always lie. He was being honest when he told Ned Stark not to trust him, and also when he told Lysa that he had never loved her, just before he pushed her out the Moon Door. Come to think of it, I like him better when he's lying ... but I digress.

In this case, it does seem certain that he was lying. For his story to be true, Tyrion would have had to bet against his own brother at the joust. Even Catelyn didn't think that made sense.

Cersei said that she suspected Joffrey, but it's in a Jaime POV chapter. We read Jaime's thoughts, so we know that he didn't do it; but we don't have that same clarity for Cersei. As I pointed out earlier, her words on the subject are phrased in a way that could indicate evasion. Since Joffrey was already dead by this time, she knew that she could shift blame away from herself and onto Joffrey without causing him any further hardship.

Also, Cersei is in that "sweet spot" of being ruthless and cunning enough to arrange a murder, but dumb enough to use a weapon that could be traced. But actually, I don't think that's how the dagger ended up in Bran's chamber. I've already discussed that, and I may have more to say about it in a later post.

[Aebram]

It seems that this topic is winding down. but I've done some more research; and after mulling over the facts, I have a couple of new ideas.

No one has provided the actual quote in which the Martin said that the answer to this puzzle would be provided in ASOS.  So I went looking for it myself, with some success. 

Before I get into that, I need to take a moment to acknowledge Mourning Star's contribution.  He and I are very much in agreement about the reasons why Joffrey is probably not the instigator.  His earlier post that he linked Into this thread was written more than a year ago; I must have missed it. 

I do like the idea that Mance didn't travel all the way to Winterfell out of idle curiosity.  Doing it to access the library makes a lot of sense.  But reading some old books and scrolls is one thing; arson and murder are quite another.  

It's conceivable that Mance would arrange the murder to create conflict and chaos at Winterfell, or between Ned and Robert, to reduce the North's ability to fight back when the wildlings cross the Wall.  But surely there were easier ways to achieve that.  Finding and stealing a traceable weapon, finding and hiring a catspaw, and setting a fire as a distraction: that's a complex and risky plan.  There must have been any number of people who could be killed stealthily, without starting a fire as a distraction.  Mance could have done it himself, rather than assume the additional risk of hiring a third party of questionable reputation.

Burning the library seems overly destructive.  Mance knows that the Others are coming; there might have been a lot of other information in that library that would help his cause.  All this violence seems out of character for a clever, stealthy character like Mance . Still, I can't rule it out; it's possible that he is the culprit.

Getting back to my search for the elusive quote:  a Web search turned up an article by ASOIAFHistorian.

https://asoiafhistorian.wordpress.com/2019/03/29/who-hired-the-catspaw-to-murder-bran/

It states that "Martin confirmed to fans on several occasions that the solution to the mystery would be in the then-future book, A Storm of Swords."  It didn't give any details about the fans or the occasions; but it did reference a YouTube video by Preston Jacobs:

Jacobs'  video is impressively thorough.  It covers, in great detail, all the ground that Mourning Star and I did ... in 2017. (*sigh*) It seems that all the good theories are taken ... 

Two minutes into the video, this text is shown on the screen:

Quote

I will tell you that ASOS will resolve the question of Bran and the dagger, and also that of Jon Arryn's killer.  Some other questions will =not= be resolved... and hopefully I will give you a few new puzzles to worry at.
    (Email with fan named "Jeff," April 29, 2000)

This, of course, is not as authoritative as we might like.  We don't know who "Jeff" is; and since the quote apparently comes from a private email, it's possible that no one else saw the original document.  

Mayhaps some other readers can provide references to some more of the "several occasions" when the Martin allegedly mentioned this.  But I'm willing to assume that this quote is authentic, because it contains the vagueness and ambiguity that I have come to expect from him. 

ASOS is a big book.  It includes the chapters where Tyrion and  Jaime suspect Joffrey.  But it also contains the chapter (72) where Jacobs and I both found Cersei's words to be suspicious; and later in that same conversation, Cersei tells Jaime that she had "lied to you a thousand times."

ASOS also contains the chapter (7) where Mance describes his trip to Winterfell with a bag of silver.  That's a total of three suspects who receive some support from various chapters.  This book also contains the dialog (ch. 80) where we learn that Lysa and Littlefinger murdered Jon Arryn.  I don't really consider him a suspect in the attempt to kill Bran; but as I mentioned in the OP, his behavior (lying about who owned the dagger) does raise some questions.
    
I've taken a closer look at the dagger, the most mysterious piece of evidence.  In ACOK chapter 55, Jaime confirms that the dagger belonged to Robert.  He won it at a tourney, and boasted about it at a feast afterwards; so there may be quite a number of people in King's Landing who know that he came to own it. That still doesn't tell us how and why it ended up at the scene of the crime; but it does narrow things down a bit, and suggest some avenues for further thought. 

There are three possible explanations for the presence of Robert's dagger in the murder attempt. 

 1.  It was provided to the catspaw by someone who didn't know that it was traceable to Robert. 

 2. It was provided to the catspaw by someone who did know that it was traceable, and wanted him to leave it at the crime scene as a false clue.
  
 3. The catspaw had acquired it independently, and its presence at the crime scene is a coincidence. 

#1 is apparently the most popular theory among the readers; it's the one suspected by Tyrion in ASOS 60.  But it just doesn't make sense to me.  Why would the instigator (or the middleman, if any) need to supply a weapon?  Surely the sort of man who is willing to commit a murder for hire will already own a dagger.  And as Mourning Star pointed out, you don't need much of a weapon to kill a comatose, crippled child.  A pillow, a club, or even bare hands should suffice.  Also, the catspaw had been paid in advance, 90 silver stags; if he needed a weapon, he had more than enough coin to buy one.  So if someone provided the dagger, there must have been a reason for that particular weapon to be used

#2 is the one that is changes slightly when we know that the knife could be identified as Robert's.  It suggests that the instigator specifically wanted to cast suspicion on Robert, or someone in his household, perhaps to create animosity between Robert and Ned.

#3, I believe, is original to me.  I can see why it is unsatisfying to many readers.  It seems like an "authorial device" to have a random event play such a major part in the storyline.  But random events are a fact of life, so having one crop up in the story from time to time actually makes it more realistic.

With all that in mind, I believe Cersei is the most likely instigator.  She and Jaime have the clearest motive to want Bran to die before he wakes up; and we know from reading Jaime's thoughts that he didn't do it.  Cersei is selfish enough to be willing to do it; and she has accquaintance with knights and guards who could act as her middleman to hire tne catspaw. 

Cersei probably had access to Robert's weapons chest.  It's possible that she actually wanted to incriminate Robert, as a way of getting him out of her life.  We know that Cersei is not as smart as she thinks she is.  Killing Bran and having Robert take the blame:  she might have thought it the height of cleverness.  So both explanations #2 and #3 for the dagger might apply to her.

Thanks to all my fellow fantasy detectives, be they loyal supporters or worthy opponents; and Happy New Year to all!

Your humble scribe,
Aebram of Underhedge
 

[the trees have eyes]

On 12/22/2022 at 4:28 PM, John Suburbs said:

So you are not giving him credit. You are turning him into a hack.

Because I don't support your pet theory pulled out of thin air?   It's a silly accusation to make to someone who doesn't agree with your unestablished musings.  The Trouble on The Trident is one of the key scenes in the development of AGOT and it's a pity that you try and replace it with your own version.  It's pretty slippery to try and position yourself as the author's champion and defender while doing this so that any criticism of you is presented as rejection or undermining of GRRM.  That's sly and the problem of course is your theory not GRRM's story.

On 12/22/2022 at 4:28 PM, John Suburbs said:

Ned had already sent the bulk of his men with Beric, and no, he would have no idea that either of his daughters, let alone the good one, would go sneaking off to the queen to tell her his plans. Nothing unusual there -- other than the fact that even Sansa is surprised at her newfound willfulness, which may also be a subtle sign of things happening in the subtext.

Don't hand wave this away.  Ned wants to get his children out of KL so they are safe and he fully understands the danger they are in yet he posts no guards.  On The Trident when there is no appreciable danger he allows both his daughters to go off without guards yet at KL you say Nothing unusual there when they are in grave danger.  For Arya on The Trident you don't bat an eye-lid.  You can't have it both ways.  Either they should be surrounded by guards at all times or the author presents situations in which they are not to allow the story to flow and to write scenes he wants - Bran's "fall", Sansa's "betrayal", Syrio's sacrifice and of course, The Trouble on The Trident.

On 12/22/2022 at 4:28 PM, John Suburbs said:

So none of what you are proposing as evidence is even closely the same as this.

The "evidence" I am proposing is simply how the author writes his scenes and how he puts children in positions without any adult supervision.  The only reason you consider this particular scene any different is your own internal dislike of some of the author's decisions leading to an alternate theory.

On 12/22/2022 at 4:28 PM, John Suburbs said:

unlike two of the most valuable children in the world riding off alone into the countryside.

Is this meant to be your clinching argument?

Is it really so hard to see that there is not expected to be any danger and Joffrey is arrogant enough to dismiss Sandor and to try and impress Sansa out of ego?  If he really intended to kill her why did he get drunk or approach people who might be witnesses rather than trying to avoid them as Sansa asked him to?

Look at it without your theory-tinted goggles on  What if Joffrey is captured by outlaws who demand a king's ransom?  He and Cersei look pretty stupid then, don't they?  So much for the master plan.

[sweetsunray]

On 12/9/2022 at 2:24 AM, Aebram said:

The text suggests that Joffrey was motivated by a desire for approval from his supposed father, King Robert.   Cersei tells Jaime (in ASOS 72) that Joffrey had heard Robert say, "we kill our horses when they break a leg, and our dogs whe they go blind ..."  But is this really a likely motive?

Who's the source of Robert saying this? Cersei. And Cersei made these remarks

 

Quote

 

Tyrion gave her a crooked smile. "Why, only that Tommen may get his wish. The maester thinks the boy may yet live." He took a sip of beer.

Myrcella gave a happy gasp, and Tommen smiled nervously, but it was not the children Tyrion was watching. The glance that passed between Jaime and Cersei lasted no more than a second, but he did not miss it. Then his sister dropped her gaze to the table. "That is no mercy. These northern gods are cruel to let the child linger in such pain." (aGoT, Tyrion I)

 

Sounds to me that Cersei projected her own beliefs and sayings onto Robert. It's far more likely that she repeated something similar as she said in front of Jaime, Tyrion, Tommen and Myrcella at breakfast and Joffrey overheard her. And if his mother thought it was okay, then he would be just fine if he made it happen.

[Ran]

Jeff was a long-time member of the forum, a lawyer by profession and a former military officer, not someone given to lying. He also forwarded the mail to me, and I still have it. All the headers checked out.

It's worth noting that that mail was sent to Jeff on the 29th of April... 8 days after George announced that he had turned in the manuscript for A Storm of Swords, which would be published in August.

Joffrey did it in the book canon. It's that simple. Joffrey's is the only name explicitly connected to the crime within the text, and his reveal that he was "familiar" with Valyrian Steel is interesting... because David and Dan dropped that from the TV show precisely because they wanted to change it to someone else (Littlefinger, in the case of the show, which is all sorts of hilarious and makes me wonder if they'd read my GUCT which pinned it on him.)

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Ran

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

Jeff was a long-time member of the forum, a lawyer by profession and a former military officer, not someone given to lying.

I initially read it as "Joff".