Your Unpopular ASOIAF Opinions/Hot Takes

[sifth]

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

So you think it won't happen because you hate and GRRM will somehow change his mind? He is thousand of miles from Shireen but that can change through the course of events in TWOW.

Also saying he is gonna change it just because he has change certain things from his draft is like saying GRRM will change R+L=J. The are probably big plot events in the books that I doubt heavily will ever be changed.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Stannis killing his daughter doesn't even come close to being on the same level as R+L=J. If anything it's on the same level as "Victarion dies in his second chapter", you know, something he changed his mind about.

Edited August 22, 2023 by sifth

[BlackLightning]

5 hours ago, sifth said:

Because I hated it and the logical reason being that Stannis is thousands of miles from his daughter when last we saw him. So Stannis killing his daughter, because he thinks it will end a storm and help him win a battle doesn't even logically make sense, from where the character last was.

He also recently posted that the more he writes the more his story seems to be diverging from the events of the show.

Sorry friend but Stannis burning Shireen is 100% aligned with the character arcs of Stannis, Shireen, Melisandre, Selyse, Davos and hell...even Justin Massey. Now Stannis himself might not do it but I fully believe that Shireen is going to be sacrificed and burned and that sacrificing her will backfire catastrophically.

I am 100% it will not happen like it did in the show.

My personal theory is that Stannis burns Shireen at the Nightfort in an attempt to stop the Others or thwart/usurp the newly reinstated Starks but burning her ends up being the very thing that allows the Long Night to begin.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, BlackLightning said:

Sorry friend but Stannis burning Shireen is 100% aligned with the character arcs of Stannis, Shireen, Melisandre, Selyse, Davos and hell...even Justin Massey. Now Stannis himself might not do it but I fully believe that Shireen is going to be sacrificed and burned and that sacrificing her will backfire catastrophically.

I am 100% it will not happen like it did in the show.

My personal theory is that Stannis burns Shireen at the Nightfort in an attempt to stop the Others or thwart/usurp the newly reinstated Starks but burning her ends up being the very thing that allows the Long Night to begin.

I don't agree. In fact Stannis doing it on the show is the moment I knew the show was going in the wrong direction.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

If it happens, it will likely go down in a rather different way to the show. Stannis is already almost at Winterfell and neither Mel nor Shireen is with him. Even if the weather worsens and he can't make more progress, trying to fetch Shireen from Castle Black is impractical at this point, especially since he has what he considers to be valid sacrifices on hand (viz. the Greyjoys and Karstarks).

It's hard to see how Stannis will be in a position to sacrifice Shireen before he meets the Boltons.

Based on where we are both geographically and character-wise at the end of ADwD, Selyse seems much more likely to burn Shireen than Stannis.

Selyse would be only too happy to burn Shireen, if she thought it was the Will of R’hllor.

Edited August 23, 2023 by SeanF

[Lee-Sensei]

  

On 8/21/2023 at 5:01 AM, SaffronLady said:

I think this could go down into a broader category of "oathbreakers with reasonable reasons", something that is probably behind the comparisons of Jaime and Walder Frey I have seen - Jaime broke his KG vows and Walder his promise of guest right, then the Frey defenders try to spin it how the old man's slighted honor was as seriously reasonable a justification as a madman trying to blow up the largest city on the continent.

I mean, Jaime and Cersei did break guest rights at Winterfell when they pushed Bran out of the tower. I don't think killing Aerys qualifies as a breach of guest rights though.

 

19 hours ago, Legion88 said:

Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship was consensual and they're not the worst people on Westeros.

It's absolutely lovely how in asoiaf fandom the ONE event that encapsulates the absolute VILENESS of Targaryens/Rhaegar's usurpers (Elia and her children's death) has become all about Rhaegar's failings. I love how Robert, Aerys and the Lannisters are getting a pass.

Character are supposed to fuck up and create conflict, their actions are a way for the author to explore a theme. Every single character in this book makes mistakes that have horrible unintended results.

Reducing what Rhaegar and Lyanna means for the narrative, and Jon's themes of love vs duty in particular, to just "Rhaegar Bad" is just a bad faith way of engaging with the story.

Robert, Aerys and the Lannisters almost never get a pass, but Robert definitely should get more of a pass than Rhaegar when it comes to the Rebellion. He only went to war when his head was called for, even though he'd done nothing. He also never touched Elia and her children or gave the order. His "misdeed" was passive at best.

 

19 hours ago, sifth said:

GRRM also changes his mind as posted above. Read the notes of the original drafts of AFFC and ADWD if you don't believe me. Also let's not pretend D&D did change character arcs all over the place.

I thnk D and D basically confirmed that he's going to burn his daughter, but I still hope that he doesn't.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Lee-Sensei

[KingAerys_II]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:15 AM, SeanBeanedMeUp said:

Probably not the first person to raise this question, but slavery in Essos is outrageously unbelievable.

Like 1 free person per 3 slaves in the Disputed Lands? 1 free person per 5 slaves in Volantis? A system like that should be dead on arrival by the events of ASOIAF.

Daenerys is the first one trying to fix that, but slavery is part of Essos societies:eunuchs, bed slaves, people sacrificed for their blood, priests and more, it's important for the Dothraki too, they gain wealth by selling slaves to the Slaver's Bay. 

In Westeros slavery is forbidden, but not human sacrifices, some religions require human sacrifices 

Edited August 23, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[SaffronLady]

25 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

killing Aerys qualifies as a breach of guest rights though.

Killing your king does qualify as a breach of KG vows though.

[Lee-Sensei]

Just now, SaffronLady said:

Killing your king does qualify as a breach of KG vows though.

It does, but I can't really blame him for that. There are a lot of other bad things that Jaime does that he should be criticized for.

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

It does, but I can't really blame him for that. There are a lot of other bad things that Jaime does that he should be criticized for.

I realize you have entirely missed my original point. Nvm.

[Lee-Sensei]

33 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

I realize you have entirely missed my original point. Nvm.

 I went back and read your orignal post. You were saying that there's a difference between breaking your vows with reasonable reasons (Jaime) and unreasonable reasons (Walder Frey). I agree with that. My bad.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Lee-Sensei

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

  

I mean, Jaime and Cersei did break guest rights at Winterfell when they pushed Bran out of the tower. I don't think killing Aerys qualifies as a breach of guest rights though.

 

Robert, Aerys and the Lannisters almost never get a pass, but Robert definitely should get more of a pass than Rhaegar when it comes to the Rebellion. He only went to war when his head was called for, even though he'd done nothing. He also never touched Elia and her children or gave the order. His "misdeed" was passive at best.

 

I thnk D and D basically confirmed that he's going to burn his daughter, but I still hope that he doesn't.

I don’t give Robert a pass for Elia and her children.  Tywin’s goons did what Robert wanted, and Tywin was rewarded for it.

[Lee-Sensei]

39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t give Robert a pass for Elia and her children.  Tywin’s goons did what Robert wanted, and Tywin was rewarded for it.

That's your choice. I don't blame anyone for the crimes that other people commit.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Lee-Sensei said:

That's your choice. I don't blame anyone for the crimes that other people commit.

One can certainly criticise Robert for how he acted afterwards but it seems odd to put blame for the deaths on Robert when Robert had nothing to do with it. He didn't order it, he was never consulted about it. Tywin was acting of his own initiative there. We also don't know whether Robert wanted it or not. His reaction suggests he didn't particularly care, but I don't think that's quite the same as him always aiming for the  deaths in the first place.

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

One can certainly criticise Robert for how he acted afterwards but it seems odd to put blame for the deaths on Robert when Robert had nothing to do with it. He didn't order it, he was never consulted about it. Tywin was acting of his own initiative there. We also don't know whether Robert wanted it or not. His reaction suggests he didn't particularly care, but I don't think that's quite the same as him always aiming for the  deaths in the first place.

To be clear, I'm not saying Robert gave the orders.  I am saying he approved the deed, once he learned of it, and rewarded the perpetrator of it.

[Lee-Sensei]

25 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

One can certainly criticise Robert for how he acted afterwards but it seems odd to put blame for the deaths on Robert when Robert had nothing to do with it. He didn't order it, he was never consulted about it. Tywin was acting of his own initiative there. We also don't know whether Robert wanted it or not. His reaction suggests he didn't particularly care, but I don't think that's quite the same as him always aiming for the  deaths in the first place.

This is true. I definitely think his actions afterwards can be criticized. I think the Martells' anger at him is justified. But I'm not going to blame him for deaths and a rape that he had no part in. He was on the Trident taking care of Barristan at the time.

 

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

To be clear, I'm not saying Robert gave the orders.  I am saying he approved the deed, once he learned of it, and rewarded the perpetrator of it.

Jon Arryn chose Robert's wife for him. Robert didn't even want to get married. Out of curiosity, would you also blame him? I don't, but I'm curious.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Lee-Sensei

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

This is true. I definitely think his actions afterwards can be criticized. I think the Martells' anger at him is justified. But I'm not going to blame him for deaths and a rape that he had no part in. He was on the Trident taking care of Barristan at the time.

 

Jon Arryn chose Robert's wife for him. Robert didn't even want to get married. Out of curiosity, would you also blame him? I don't, but I'm curious.

I would criticise Jon Arryn, too.  It makes a mockery of his claim "As high as honour."

[Lee-Sensei]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I would criticise Jon Arryn, too.  It makes a mockery of his claim "As high as honour."

Fair enough. Anyways, I agree that Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch should have been punished at least.

[Alester Florent]

I can understand Jon's reasoning. 

While it becomes an open secret in time that Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane were responsible for what happened to Elia and her children, officially Tywin's position is that he doesn't know who did it and he didn't give the order. Punishing the guilty parties is not as straightforward as grabbing Lorch and Gregor and executing them/sending them to the Wall, especially if Tywin is in their corner. You'd have to have a trial, perhaps a trial by combat, and it all becomes a rather sour way to start off a new reign. 

And the war isn't over: the Reach and Dornish armies are still in the field; Viserys is on Dragonstone with the Targaryen navy. Even if, as it turns out, these can be dealt with without requiring major further battles, it is not a good time to be antagonising Tywin Lannister, who has an army right on your doorstep. So you hold your nose and agree to let it go.

I am sure Ned would have enthusiastically supported Oberyn's campaign for justice and Jon probably wouldn't have stood in his way. By that point, having his own grievances with Tywin, Robert would probably let the matter proceed so long as he didn't have to get involved. But Oberyn doesn't show up to make his case until years later, when all of them are dead. 

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I can understand Jon's reasoning. 

While it becomes an open secret in time that Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane were responsible for what happened to Elia and her children, officially Tywin's position is that he doesn't know who did it and he didn't give the order. Punishing the guilty parties is not as straightforward as grabbing Lorch and Gregor and executing them/sending them to the Wall, especially if Tywin is in their corner. You'd have to have a trial, perhaps a trial by combat, and it all becomes a rather sour way to start off a new reign. 

And the war isn't over: the Reach and Dornish armies are still in the field; Viserys is on Dragonstone with the Targaryen navy. Even if, as it turns out, these can be dealt with without requiring major further battles, it is not a good time to be antagonising Tywin Lannister, who has an army right on your doorstep. So you hold your nose and agree to let it go.

I am sure Ned would have enthusiastically supported Oberyn's campaign for justice and Jon probably wouldn't have stood in his way. By that point, having his own grievances with Tywin, Robert would probably let the matter proceed so long as he didn't have to get involved. But Oberyn doesn't show up to make his case until years later, when all of them are dead. 

My own view is that Tywin had nowhere else to go now, after turning on Aerys.  He's too powerful to punish, but Lorch and Clegane are not.  Tywin can always claim they exceeded instructions (and almost certainly, whatever orders he gave them were never given in the presence of a third party).

Executing them would have brought closure, and shown that the new regime was not like its predecessor.  It would be the clever thing to do, as well as the ethical thing.

[The Wolves]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I would criticise Jon Arryn, too.  It makes a mockery of his claim "As high as honour."

I’ve always criticized Arryn for that. What happened to Elia and her children were what tainted that rebellion. A bunch of men standing around as two children and a women who were brutalized is wrapped in Lannisters’ cloth and presented to the “King”. Arryn stood by and helped to reward that evil while Robert stood over their bodies and dehumanized and dismissed it was beyond anything the Targaryens did. 
 

The physical reaction to what was done to Elia and her children is and will always make seethe with hatred and make me team Targaryens in Robert’s Rebellion. The rebels dying the way they did is poetic and just(except Ned who is my favorite character) they all deserved their betrayals and deaths.