Padraig Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Maybe. But if he's in involuntary exile (and there's a clip where he tells Dany how much he wants to go home, so that's still part of the character), there has to be a reason why he can't go back.He could have lived in the South for a time but moved home after the rebellion (when his father joined the NW maybe). That could then be when his marriage broke down.Not sure why I didn't think of that before. We are then talking about a very marginal change.It would be a very silly lie to suggest he fought for Aerys when he didn't. Unless we are reading too much into this and his very next line to Dany was something like "I never wanted to fight against my king but my father choose Robert". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 He never said he fought for Aerys in the Usurper war.True but it was then a very misleading statement. Did he really mean "I served with your father for years but when it was important I turned against him?". I see nothing wrong with pointing out that on its own "I served your father for years" raises questions. Serving Aerys is grand but true loyalty can only be measured during the rebellion. I'm fine with these sort of questions because i'm fine with them changing a few minor details. And its fun to puzzle out these things. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anya, Vengeance Demon Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Semantics.What an odd objection to make, considering the basis of your strained interpretation is, well, semantics.But let's say you're right. Let's say that all Ser Jorah means is that he lived in Westeros at the same time as King Aerys. That fact is equally true of Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, Jaime Lannister and the Usurper himself. So why does Ser Jorah say it? It's a meaningless statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anya, Vengeance Demon Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What else would they say? Was he meant to say "OH i was factually a subject of the king but i turned against him and actually fought for usurper" in that moment? I think a simple "My name is Ser Jorah Mormont, and I am the former lord of Bear Island" would suffice. Nothing that implies a loyalty to Aerys Targaryen that didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 But he was loyal to Aerys, at least notionally, up to the time that the North rebelled.I don't know, I think it just makes most sense to wait and see where they go with it. You've got one line, not very much to go off of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anya, Vengeance Demon Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 But he was loyal to Aerys, up to the time that the North rebelled.Again, a very similar thing could be said of Ned and Robert. It's a meaningless claim, if that's all it means. Even Daemon Blackfyre wasn't a traitor from birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It's meaningless because Viserys and Dany have no real context in which to put the claim, but it's just the sort of meaningless something you might tell someone to get in good with them. If they then ask, "Did you fight for my father during the Usurper's rebellion?", well, you hem and haw and say you were Stark's man and had no choice but to fight for him when push came to shove, or you smile and nod your head and hope they never come across anyone who knows any better (paging Arstan Whitebeard, paging Arstan Whitebeard...)That's my guess as to where they're going with it, anyways. Maybe they'll have changed his backstory and made him a full-on loyalist who fought for Aerys against Ned, but I doubt it. We'll see, anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It's meaningless because Viserys and Dany have no real context in which to put the claim, but it's just the sort of meaningless something you might tell someone to get in good with them.Yes. But they can ask about the rebellion and put some context to the claim of loyalty. Because if you are a Targaryen, the number one question will always be about allegiance during the rebellion. Mormont could lie about his actions but that seems like a silly risk. (He would have to change most of his whole past).I accept that its just one line, so we might be missing some key facts in that conversation. But its clear to me that on its own, it does raise a question.OTOH, I don't expect any major change to be made because I don't see the point (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I wonder if we are making a big to do about a lie that someday will be revealed. Outside Meereen. Just before some fun spelunking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Its meaningful because its a white lie or a half-truth, that saves him from being distrusted and raises the confidence Daenerys has in him.But why would you even take the risk of a lie? The fact that he was exiled by the Starks would be a huge point in his favour. He doesn't need to say more in the books.The writers may have missteped with a misleading line. If so, its a small thing. But it definitely raises a question about his origins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Been here Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What happened to the auburn hair of the Tullys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.