Biggest sore loser in the saga ?

[The Gizzard of Oz]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:07 AM, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes said:

The biggest sore loser is Catelyn Stark.  She murders an innocent young man out of hate and spite.  

This. The mentally disabled boy was indeed innocent. 

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, Ring3r said:

Cersie, 100% no contest.  She had a pubescent crush on Rhaegar and was denied due to politics. She spent the entire rest of her life destroying every single person she came into contact with because she didn't get to marry the prince she fell in love with before she even understood the concept of love.

She thinks about it constantly. She compares everyone to the Prince her daddy promised her, and because her entire conception of him was based on pre-teen fantasy, nobody can ever compare.  She only settled for her own brother because she sees him as a male mirror of herself and she only loves herself.  Even her eventual mental denigration of her father is based on the fact that he didn't secure the fairy-land marriage that she has in her head.

Lol, some American servicemen apparently shouted curses AND shot guns at the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbour. Let us now deconstruct whose fault that engagement was. 

[Ring3r]

11 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Lol, some American servicemen apparently shouted curses AND shot guns at the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbour. Let us now deconstruct whose fault that engagement was. 

Points to anybody who can interpret what the above post means?  I assume, from prior experience, that it's some kind of non-sensical "dunk" against the patriarchy, or whatever new imagined nonsense that is in vogue among idiots, but I am, thankfully, non-fluent in retard.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Ring3r

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, Ring3r said:

Points to anybody who can interpret what the above post means?

Point 1) the entire conversation people are parsing to see who was ruder or w/e happens in front of the backdrop of Stannis out of nowhere attacking and besieging Renly’s capital. Forget everything else, forget how much Stannis intended to kill Renly o w/e, I guarantee you that if it were reversed that context would not escape defining the role of aggressor for the majority of people currently overlooking it. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by James Arryn

[Ring3r]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Point 1) the entire conversation people are parsing to see who was ruder or w/e happens in front of the backdrop of Stannis out of nowhere attacking and besieging Renly’s capital. Forget everything else, forget how much Stannis intended to kill Renly o w/e, I guarantee you that if it were reversed that context would not escape defining the role of aggressor for the majority of people currently overlooking it. 

Ah ok, I understand.  You have a Stannis hang-up and you weren't able to separate that from me answering the actual question of the thread....sorest loser.  As for reversing context and inventing non-existent situations to justify your opinion....like I said in the last post.....

 

 

Side note....you are aware that none of this is real and it all comes from the mind of one man....right?   Right?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Ring3r

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Ring3r said:

Ah ok, I understand.  You have a Stannis hang-up and you weren't able to separate that from me answering the actual question of the thread....sorest loser.  As for reversing context and inventing non-existent situations to justify your opinion....like I said in the last post.....

I agree, I tend to quibble about things like open acts of war being pretty = aggression, always been a hang-up of mine, but maybe with help that will fade into the background like a shrimp in the sand. 

[Ring3r]

15 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I agree, I tend to quibble about things like open acts of war being pretty = aggression, always been a hang-up of mine, but maybe with help that will fade into the background like a shrimp in the sand. 

I do not know what that means, but I'd love to hear how you related Pearl Harbor to....anything you just said.  Just because I enjoy watching people dig holes.  Honestly want to know, if only so I can figure out who's e-tool you're using, because man, that thing digs better than anything I've run across.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Ring3r

[Many-Faced Votary]

15 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Point 1) the entire conversation people are parsing to see who was ruder or w/e happens in front of the backdrop of Stannis out of nowhere attacking and besieging Renly’s capital. Forget everything else, forget how much Stannis intended to kill Renly o w/e, I guarantee you that if it were reversed that context would not escape defining the role of aggressor for the majority of people currently overlooking it. 

Considering that people are overlooking Renly's eagerness to kill Stannis now, I highly doubt it.

Yes, Stannis was the original aggressor here. Stannis without Davos or Cressen, without the character development he needed after the Battle of the Blackwater and heading north to the Wall, is at his worst here. And Renly is worse still: he fully intended, even wanted, to kill him. (Even setting aside why Renly rebelled and what his "claim" was, and how horrible his victory would have been for Westeros.)

Stannis besieged Storm's End because Melisandre, who has already demonstrated real power by this point, read him two possible futures in the flames for him: that Renly defeats and kills him at King's Landing; or that he defeats and kills Renly at Storm's End, gaining his men. For Stannis's own part, he tried his best to avoid Renly's death despite what Mel foresaw, a favor that was not returned.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Many-Faced Votary

[James Arryn]

28 minutes ago, Ring3r said:

I do not know what that means, but I'd love to hear how you related Pearl Harbor to....anything you just said.  Just because I enjoy watching people dig holes.  Honestly want to know, if only so I can figure out who's e-tool you're using, because man, that thing digs better than anything I've run across.

Entertain my perversity, if you will. I am saying that assessing each brother’s language to determine who was the aggressor in a conversation that occurs when one of them is literally attacking the other is a bit…academic? I was attempting to cite the apparently boorish behaviour of the DEFENDERS of a RL sneak attack to demonstrate the (imo) surreal nature of the discussion on it’s purported merits. 
 

[James Arryn]

56 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Considering that people are overlooking Renly's eagerness to kill Stannis now, I highly doubt it.

Yes, Stannis was the original aggressor here. Stannis without Davos or Cressen, without the character development he needed after the Battle of the Blackwater and heading north to the Wall, is at his worst here. And Renly is worse still: he fully intended, even wanted, to kill him. (Even setting aside why Renly rebelled and what his "claim" was, and how horrible his victory would have been for Westeros.)

Stannis besieged Storm's End because Melisandre, who has already demonstrated real power by this point, read him two possible futures in the flames for him: that Renly defeats and kills him at King's Landing; or that he defeats and kills Renly at Storm's End, gaining his men. For Stannis's own part, he tried his best to avoid Renly's death despite what Mel foresaw, a favor that was not returned.

Right. Okay, one by one, Stannis’ overtly using black magic to actually premeditatedly kill his brother is a bit vague in the blame game, but Renly expecting to win a (defensive) battle he will certainly win is…worse? That makes perfect sense to some people, I understand. 
 

Forgetting that Renly was not rebelling against Stannis, they were both rebelling against Joffrey, forgetting that Renly’s, er, tone might, to a generous ear, be sort of kind of maybe slightly explained by his brother actually attacking him, forgetting that I guess a Lannister loss would somehow be worse for Westeros than the current situation, or that Stannis let Robert die, or that one show concept GRRM has explicitly not pushed back on is Shireen’s fate, etc. But I mean, he’s laconic, and if old American cop movies have taught me anything it’s that those guys are the heroes. 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by James Arryn

[Many-Faced Votary]

16 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I am saying that assessing each brother’s language to determine who was the aggressor in a conversation that occurs when one of them is literally attacking the other is a bit…academic?

As well as what I said earlier, portraying the siege as a naked act of aggression is a convenient way to ignore two things:

• Stannis attempted diplomacy with the lords of the stormlands first. The siege itself was the last resort in this sense.
• Stannis was at Storm's End partly for Edric Storm, because his existence is the final bit of evidence he needed to reveal the twincest to Westeros. 

 

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Right. Okay, one by one, Stannis’ overtly using black magic to actually premeditatedly kill his brother is a bit vague in the blame game, but Renly expecting to win a battle he will certainly win is…worse? That makes perfect sense to some people, I understand. 
 

Forgetting that Renly was not rebelling against Stannis, they were both rebelling against Joffrey, forgetting that Renly’s, er, tone might, to a generous ear, be sort of kind of maybe slightly explained by his brother actually attacking him, forgetting that I guess a Lannister loss would somehow be worse for Westeros than the current situation, or that Stannis let Robert die, or that one show concept GRRM has explicitly not pushed back on is Shireen’s fate, etc. But I mean, he’s laconic, and if old American cop movies have taught me anything it’s that those guys are the heroes. 

The text makes it ambiguous how responsible Stannis is for Renly's death:

For a long time, the king did not speak. Then, very softly, he said, "I dream of it sometimes. Of Renly's dying. A green tent, candles, a woman screaming. And blood." Stannis looked down at his hands. "I was still abed when he died. Your Devan will tell you. He tried to wake me. Dawn was nigh and my lords were waiting, fretting. I should have been ahorse, armored. I knew Renly would attack at break of day. Devan says I thrashed and cried out, but what does it matter? It was a dream. I was in my tent when Renly died, and when I woke my hands were clean."

Ser Davos felt his phantom fingertips start to itch. Something is wrong here, the onetime smuggler thought.

Davos II, A Clash of Kings

Stannis himself suspects his own hand in Renly's assassination, but it is unclear to himself and to us how much he was consciously and actively involved.

The only one who came into this battle certainly willing and ready to kill his brother was Renly.

 

And, no, Stannis and Renly were not equal traitors to Joffrey. That was Renly's poorly-attempted propaganda, by pretending he did not know about the twincest. Stannis had the rightful legal claim because Joffrey was a bastard born of incest, not actually Robert's son. Renly was the only traitor here.

 

Stannis himself explains why he didn't tell Robert of the twincest:

Robert could never have known, Catelyn thought, or Cersei would have lost her head in an instant. "Lord Stannis," she asked, "if you knew the queen to be guilty of such monstrous crimes, why did you keep silent?"

"I did not keep silent," Stannis declared. "I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn."

"Rather than your own brother?"

"My brother's regard for me was never more than dutiful," said Stannis. "From me, such accusations would have seemed peevish and self-serving, a means of placing myself first in the line of succession. I believed Robert would be more disposed to listen if the charges came from Lord Arryn, whom he loved."

Catelyn III, A Clash of Kings

And he took grievance with Robert about Ned being appointed Hand, because again, pre-character development, Stannis allows obsession to overtake him. This could well have made him sufficiently angry to remove himself to Dragonstone.

 

The Lannisters had the Iron Throne under the falsehood that Joffrey was Robert's son. Similarly, Robert was on the Iron Throne under the widely-accepted political justification that he would have been the heir with the absence of any Targaryens. This still maintains the structure and stability of the society.

Renly's claim was nothing more than "might makes right." His victory would have meant that every time a king died, it would be bloody war to determine the next king; that the Game of Thrones would keep Westeros in perpetual upheaval; that younger brothers would rebel against elder brothers in any context, not just kingship, to try gaining their titles and lands; that at any given moment, open rebellion might break out or treasons might be plotted, because there is no real law of succession that is respected.

[Craving Peaches]

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I'm including this entire quote without because it is the best possible summary of Renly's character. 

Yes, all that shows me is that he is not bothered if Stannis dies. Why would he be, at that point, when Stannis attacked him for no reason, threatened him at a parley and drew his sword and pointed it at him during said parley?

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

His intention was to kill Stannis from the start, and he also is using this as a warning to the Starks by mistreating an envoy. 

I really don't know where you are getting this, Renly does absolutely nothing until Stannis attacks him, unlike Stannis, who goes there specifically to kill Renly.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Renly's first comment when he arrived about it was a facetious remark about how confusing it would be for both armies to have the same banner: he very obviously desired this battle, no ifs or buts about it.

I always thought it showed he was being light hearted, not that it showed he wanted the parley to fail. If anything it was Stannis who wanted it to fail, he didn't even want to have it in the first place. Stannis only did it because Melisandre told him to, Melisandre only told him to because she needs to see the face of her target (as with Ser Courtney). 

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

He was blatantly not taking the parley seriously -- because his intention was for war, and to kill Stannis.

If he was not taking it seriously he didn't have to offer anything. Renly was in a far stronger position than Stannis and yet offered Stannis more than Stannis offered him. I think you could possibly be misinterpreting Renly's light-hearted attitude as a sign he wanted the enterprise to fail, rather than just his usual mannerisms, or even as a way to cope with how sad the situation was.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

There have been strong analyses on how Stannis could have won the battle outright

And there have been better rebukes of them. I am not convinced at all. From a narrative sense it also makes more sense if Stannis cannot win by conventional means.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Cat notes how Renly utterly failed strategy (no encircling movements)

Stannis is trapped between Renly's army, Renly's castle, and the sea. Stannis has a hostile fortress to his back during this entire engagement.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

outdistanced his supply lines -- note particularly, this was in his eagerness to come to battle with his brother, to kill him).

He is in friendly territory which has not been touched by the war yet. He can forage.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Rely gave the van's command to his unqualified boyfriend instead of an experienced military commander

The van is supposed to charge at the enemy lines to break them. Loras, a renowned knight, is a fine choice for the role. If Renly puts an 'experienced military commander' there, he will not be able to observe the whole battle, or give Renly any advice.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Renly would have to attack with the sun in his own troop's eyes if he charged after the sun rose

Sun could have been obscured by cloud. Sun also helps Renly's cavalry charge as the horses are less likely to shy away.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

his commanders informing him of this fact, intending to strike at daybreak.

He didn't ignore them, he outright tells them he thinks it won't be an issue, to which they must agree, because they mention it once and don't bring it up again after Renly says it isn't a big deal. If it was a big deal I think Tarly would mention it more.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

the totality of Renly's words and behavior throughout the parley were.

Well then the totality of Stannis's words throughout were also a provocation. Yet you don't see Renly attack Stannis.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Cat notes how Renly utterly failed strategy

She thinks he did. But Cat has not been trained in this area at all and has little to no experience. Renly went to fight Stannis on Randyl Tarly's advice and the agreement of his men. Unlike Catelyn Tarly has fought in battles and been trained to do so.

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

But this chapter encapsulates what Renly is perfectly: truly vile, all style and no substance, but even with the style, unable to act nice for long.

I think we have fundamentally different views on Renly's character based on how we interpret the text.  I don't think it's likely any of us is going to change our view. I recommend we preemptively agree to disagree to avoid a lengthy argument.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

As well as what I said earlier, portraying the siege as a naked act of aggression is a convenient way to ignore two things:

• Stannis attempted diplomacy with the lords of the stormlands first. The siege itself was the last resort in this sense.
• Stannis was at Storm's End partly for Edric Storm, because his existence is the final bit of evidence he needed to reveal the twincest to Westeros. 

 

The text makes it ambiguous how responsible Stannis is for Renly's death:

For a long time, the king did not speak. Then, very softly, he said, "I dream of it sometimes. Of Renly's dying. A green tent, candles, a woman screaming. And blood." Stannis looked down at his hands. "I was still abed when he died. Your Devan will tell you. He tried to wake me. Dawn was nigh and my lords were waiting, fretting. I should have been ahorse, armored. I knew Renly would attack at break of day. Devan says I thrashed and cried out, but what does it matter? It was a dream. I was in my tent when Renly died, and when I woke my hands were clean."

Ser Davos felt his phantom fingertips start to itch. Something is wrong here, the onetime smuggler thought.

Davos II, A Clash of Kings

Stannis himself suspects his own hand in Renly's assassination, but it is unclear to himself and to us how much he was consciously and actively involved.

The only one who came into this battle certainly willing and ready to kill his brother was Renly.

 

And, no, Stannis and Renly were not equal traitors to Joffrey. That was Renly's poorly-attempted propaganda, by pretending he did not know about the twincest. Stannis had the rightful legal claim because Joffrey was a bastard born of incest, not actually Robert's son. Renly was the only traitor here.

 

Stannis himself explains why he didn't tell Robert of the twincest:

Robert could never have known, Catelyn thought, or Cersei would have lost her head in an instant. "Lord Stannis," she asked, "if you knew the queen to be guilty of such monstrous crimes, why did you keep silent?"

"I did not keep silent," Stannis declared. "I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn."

"Rather than your own brother?"

"My brother's regard for me was never more than dutiful," said Stannis. "From me, such accusations would have seemed peevish and self-serving, a means of placing myself first in the line of succession. I believed Robert would be more disposed to listen if the charges came from Lord Arryn, whom he loved."

Catelyn III, A Clash of Kings

And he took grievance with Robert about Ned being appointed Hand, because again, pre-character development, Stannis allows obsession to overtake him. This could well have made him sufficiently angry to remove himself to Dragonstone.

 

The Lannisters had the Iron Throne under the falsehood that Joffrey was Robert's son. Similarly, Robert was on the Iron Throne under the widely-accepted political justification that he would have been the heir with the absence of any Targaryens. This still maintains the structure and stability of the society.

Renly's claim was nothing more than "might makes right." His victory would have meant that every time a king died, it would be bloody war to determine the next king; that the Game of Thrones would keep Westeros in perpetual upheaval; that younger brothers would rebel against elder brothers in any context, not just kingship, to try gaining their titles and lands; that at any given moment, open rebellion might break out or treasons might be plotted, because there is no real law of succession that is respected.

Not sure I have the energy for this tonight, might be part 1, we’ll see how we get on;

 

1) how…in any way…does w/e ‘Stannis attempted diplomacy’ with storm lords…what do you mean by this, btw, surely not the ravens…remotely disqualify a surprise attack against his own brother…introduced to us accompanied by being the only think Cersei and Tyrion celebrate/laugh at together, btw…as an act of naked aggression? Like seriously, how does that work in your head? And, to extend the metaphor, did you know that Pearl Harbour was preceded by literal months of diplomatic meetings and that the Japanese had officially walked out of them, but literally not even the Japanese thought that made PH anything but a surorise attack/naked aggression? And that was like I said, formal talks over months and months as opposed to…what were these remarkable diplomatic efforts? Anyways, this is helping me get my bearings on how you Stannis things in the Stannis about the Stannises, bit nostalgic for E-Ro if I’m honest. 
 

2) How would Edric change that either? Stannis lives in a world where if he thinks he has a reason for doing something everyone should get on board. Do you? Not that it would in any way be less naked aggression from Renly’s POV, but Penrose, Davos, subsequent events and the absolute un-usage of Edric in this dramatic court room drama you are imaging suggest Stannis might have slightly mixed motives for wanting his nephew. You know, the whole…stop me if this sounds familiar…killing his kin for a crown? 
 

3) You forgot the ambiguities of the shadow baby having his face, of his own defenders admitting he went there to kill Renly with Mel, etc. And what do you think Davos knew was wrong? Do you actually doubt his guilt? 
 

4) Yes, they were equally rebelling. As surprising as it might seem, hair colour does not a legal case make, nor does the understanding of readers of a series to the characters in it. Fwiw a big part of Stannis’ certainty comes from ‘knowing’ the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, so…But also, I can see an issue going forward; you apparently take anything Stannis says as gospel truth but handwave Renly’s statements about the twincest…which btw, given his openly stated motivation, he would have no reason to lie about, as pure lies. I can only say that I find it unlikely you will disagree with yourself here. Stannis does not have the ‘rightful’ claim, btw. Robert named Joff his heir. Hey, maybe he knew too? Anyways, you’ve built a claim on hair colour, so far as Stannis knows. Good stuff. Neither brother were traitors, btw, unless you count Stannis attacking Renly as a familial betrayal. Research feudalism; treason is the breaking of a personal oath sworn to your liege. This is not post-nationalism, nobody owes anyone allegiance just because they expect it. That’s what all the lords coming to WF was about.  

5) I have written too many essays on this stuff to want to go into it again, but feudal succession laws, in RL and the books, are more scorecard than rulebook. 
 

6) The fact that Stannis’ fans accept that incredibly weak non-excuse for not telling Robert is one of their more defining characteristics; so…it would have been better coming from JA, okay, I can go that far. But then, so Stannis thinks, they kill JA. These Lannisters surrounding his brother kill Jon Arryn, and so Stannis…leaves without a word, for, what, a year? Months anyways, while his brother and king is unknowingly surrounded by deadly enemies, and Stannis…sulks on DS? The guy who says everyone’s first duty is to their king…couldn’t even send a warning? That strike you as within an infinite number of miles as an excuse?

Here’s a thought exercise: Person A is, so far as he knows, the only person to know the king is surrounded by deadly enemies who will only realize their ambitions once he’s dead. Person A happens to be the king’s brother. Person A takes himself and his knowledge and the royal fleet and sets off to an island fortress for months on end without a word. Oh, did I mention that in person A’s opinion, the knowledge he possesses just happens to mean that in the entirely unforeseeable eventuality that the king’s secret deadly enemies secretly make the king dead, Person A inherits the kingdom? Quite an interesting scenario, no? Cui bono, all that. Oh, and in a complete aside, person A subsequently killed another brother for the crown, wanted to kill his nephew, and will probably kill his daughter. What would a complete outsider make of person A’s actions and motives, do you suppose? What would Occam suggest?

7) I feel like the Pearl Harbour example again. RENLY’s taking the throne would mean might makes right? Renly?!?! Not, say, let me think…wait, Robert? And you think everyone else would have thought ‘hmmmm, blond, you say? Yes, that one uncle is just doing the right thing and upholding truth, justice and the American way by taking his nephews throne, not like that younger brother and his ambitions…that way madness lies. What if Renly countered with the damning ‘Stannis is bald!’ campaign? Btw, might makes right is what feudal succession is about. It’s what feudal kingship is about, come to that. 

8) On the battle, Stannis had no chance. First, one of the absolute rules of warfare is ‘never get caught engaged in a siege with an enemy army in the field’. It’s as close to a sitting duck as you can get even without accounting for the vast differences in size and quality of troops. It’s as much of a no-brainer as GRRM could make it, though anyone can clutch at straws if they want. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by James Arryn

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

Walker Frey is easily the biggest sore loser in GoT. Murdered thousands because the boy he extorted, who was trying to save his father, broke a marriage pact, so he decided to outright murder his King because his pride was wounded. Hard to believe a man like that and with a rotten clan like that could have may pride to begin with.

[Many-Faced Votary]

55 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think we have fundamentally different views on Renly's character based on how we interpret the text.  I don't think it's likely any of us is going to change our view. I recommend we preemptively agree to disagree to avoid a lengthy argument.

Fair enough. In that case, I would like to cease the discussion here. I respect you and your views, and have no desire to engage in an unproductive argument with you; nor do I so dislike Renly, or so like Stannis, as to continue this conversation on principle.

Thank you for remaining respectful in your argument; it is unfortunately an increasingly rare phenomenon, but always appreciated.

@James Arryn: Ditto the above.

[Kierria]

I don't like Wayman Manderly.  He sent his son to war and supported a rebellion.  His pretender king botched the war and got his followers killed.  Wayman refuses to let the matter pass and murders the Freys.  He feasted on their flesh.  Sickening. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

33 minutes ago, Kierria said:

I don't like Wayman Manderly.  He sent his son to war and supported a rebellion.  His pretender king botched the war and got his followers killed.  Wayman refuses to let the matter pass and murders the Freys.  He feasted on their flesh.  Sickening. 

Nah it was pretty satisfying. Any Frey who willingly took part in the planning and carrying out of Red Wedding deserves whatever the universe sends their way. For those who break guest right it tends to be nasty.

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, Kierria said:

Wayman refuses to let the matter pass and murders the Freys. 

Because they murdered his son and king. People don't let that go in the real world, why would they let it go in Westeros? Did Daenerys 'let the matter pass' when Mirri killed Rhaego? No.

[Many-Faced Votary]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Did Daenerys 'let the matter pass' when Mirri killed Rhaego?

To be fair, I have seen an incredible amount of people saying she should have.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Many-Faced Votary said:

To be fair, I have seen an incredible amount of people saying she should have.

Expecting any parent to 'let the matter pass' after their child is killed so despicably is ignorant at best and insulting at worst.