A Thread for Small Questions VII

[Hazl]

Just as we do. They add 1 every year. Eg. 297 + 1 = 298. The year after 297 is 298. Seasons are unrelated.

Just as we do. One year is the time it takes for the planet to do one rotation around its sun.

How can you tell that the planet has concluded one rotation, though? By watching the movement of the stars?

I'm not saying the seasons define the year, but that they're the only really obvious sign of it, as far as I can tell. There probably are other ways to tell, but what I'm trying to get at is: why would you? The year as a measure of time is so essential to us because crops, game etc. changed so much with the seasons - we started counting winters long before we realized the Earth was moving around the Sun.

But I believe the seasons weren't always like this, correct? In that case, they might just be sticking with an age-old calendar which lasts a year.

[Maestress Sand]

How can you tell that the planet has concluded one rotation, though? By watching the movement of the stars?

Most ancient societies studied the movements of the stars. Some were in more temperate climates where knowing the solstice and the equinox could help you know about the ending and coming of the season and help plant crops appropriately. However, some were not. Ancient people studied the stars because they thought they could tell more about their world through that study.

The ancient Mayas (who lived in a nearly tropical environment, and therefore wouldn't really need to pay much attention to the seasons) developed and understanding of the rotation of the earth and the stars that led to an even more exact calendar than the one we use today. They never had to have leap years - they fit their year perfectly into the suns rotation just by astronomical study.

A lot of times such research was fueled by mystical or religious beliefs, but it still happened nonetheless.

[zmflavius]

Some parts of the world didn't use a solar calendar, but a lunar calendar, which is based on the rotations of the moon, which cycle out to approx. 1 year as well. I know that the Islamic calendar is lunar, as well as the Chinese calendar. I believe such a calendar would be independent of seasons.

[Hazl]

Some parts of the world didn't use a solar calendar, but a lunar calendar, which is based on the rotations of the moon, which cycle out to approx. 1 year as well. I know that the Islamic calendar is lunar, as well as the Chinese calendar. I believe such a calendar would be independent of seasons.

Yeah, I suggested that in my original post. I suppose with both lunar and stellar calendars it would make sense for them to stick with the year, despite the seasons.

Thanks to everyone who answered! Makes much more sense to me now :)

[Shrimp]

My wife is reading AGOT for the first time and asked me this question:

A raven is sent by Pycelle to Castle Black informing Mormont that Ned Stark has been arrested for treason, etc. Jon Snownfinds out about this and is all upset. In his misery, he thinks something like, "at least I have ghost to comfort me. Sansa and Arya don't even have their wolves any more." the question my wife asked is how does Jon know about what happened with Lady and Nym? It seems unlikely that Pycelle would summarize those events in a letter intended to be about Ned's situation. It doesn't seem like he would consider the incident on the road with the wolves and the kids relevant at all.

So how does Jon know? Is it mentioned in the books that he received a previous letter or anything like that?

[mummer]

But I believe the seasons weren't always like this, correct? In that case, they might just be sticking with an age-old calendar which lasts a year.

Maybe. We don't know. Everything everyone's been saying on this subject is total guesswork-- the books haven't provided any clues to this at all, I'm fairly sure.

[mummer]

... how does Jon know about what happened with Lady and Nym? ... Is it mentioned in the books that he received a previous letter or anything like that?

It's not mentioned. When this question has come up before, most people have said either something like "I just assumed Jon got some other letters from Winterfell now and then, that just weren't mentioned in the book because he had more immediate concerns on the Wall", or else "Maybe Martin forgot."

[Ran]

It's clear in the book that he receives correspondence from his family. He's informed of Bran's waking, after all. Is it strange to think that in the course of a message, telling him "no change in Bran's condition", other news might have been shared? :)

[KyleLitke]

Cersei has now inherited Casterly Rock. At the back of AFFC the Lannister House page it says "CERSEI, twin to Jaime, now Lady of Casterly Rock" or on her own page as Regent "CERSEI LANNISTER, the First of Her Name, widow of {King Robert I Bar atheon}, Queen Dowager, Protector of the Realm, Lady of Casterly Rock, and Queen Regent." Men inherit first, then the women, just like Sansa is now the heir to Winterfell to those who don't know Bran and Rickon are alive. In AFFC something is even said about her going back there and being Lady of the Rock, it might even be in her POV that that is all she intends to be, not to marry again. At this point whoever married her would get the Rock as well.

After Cersei her Baratheon children can inherit it, just as Sansa's children with Tyrion would inherit Winterfell. Unless Cersei marries again and then I assume those children are first in line for the Rock, I think. Though this is getting confusing. Hypothetically, if Tyrion was not totally disinherited, say he had children with Sansa, who would inherit Winterfell and who the Rock? The first would inherit the Rock and the second Winterfell? It feels like there are so few people left.

And beyond that you STILL have Storms End, AND you have the heir to the throne. We'd be up to 4 children here just to inherit everything. That's what I mean, I guess, I have no clue who is technically either running Storms End or who it would be being held for. Myrcella? I mean, Tommen's king, so he wouldn't get any of this. If Cersei has the Rock, then I guess that leaves Myrcella for Storms End? Tommen having two children (the first being heir to the throne) is so distant it's not reasonable to hold Storms End and the Stormlands for that child.

Maybe. We don't know. Everything everyone's been saying on this subject is total guesswork-- the books haven't provided any clues to this at all, I'm fairly sure.

I don't believe the books themselves have, but I do think GRRM has openly said that the seasons are like this due to something magical (which would imply it hasn't always been that way). I do know the new printings of the books (for the TV show) openly state as much on the back cover. So you're right that it's not in the books as far as I can remember but I'm not sure it's total guesswork.

[Hazl]

And beyond that you STILL have Storms End, AND you have the heir to the throne. We'd be up to 4 children here just to inherit everything. That's what I mean, I guess, I have no clue who is technically either running Storms End or who it would be being held for. Myrcella? I mean, Tommen's king, so he wouldn't get any of this. If Cersei has the Rock, then I guess that leaves Myrcella for Storms End? Tommen having two children (the first being heir to the throne) is so distant it's not reasonable to hold Storms End and the Stormlands for that child.

Doesn't Stannis still hold both Storm's End and Dragonstone?

[zmflavius]

Doesn't Stannis still hold both Storm's End and Dragonstone?

He no longer has Dragonstone, since Loras conquered it at the end of AFFC.

However, Storm's End is holding out, but was about to fall before Mace Tyrell lifted the siege to march on King's Landing, after Margaery was arrested.

[Mara Jade]

It's clear in the book that he receives correspondence from his family. He's informed of Bran's waking, after all. Is it strange to think that in the course of a message, telling him "no change in Bran's condition", other news might have been shared? :)

Well the book is otherwise so specific about every single communication, making a big deal of it as a special occasion, I've not been sure if Lady's body has arrived back at Winterfell by the time of this letter. Also it seems to surprise many on re-reading; things are set up by GRRM like Jon is only told life or death information, selectively by Mormont. The impression I get is that he's to sever ties with his old life before he takes his vows.

So not to disrespect the King here, but I don't think Jon's getting other letters from home.

[Hazl]

He no longer has Dragonstone, since Loras conquered it at the end of AFFC.

However, Storm's End is holding out, but was about to fall before Mace Tyrell lifted the siege to march on King's Landing, after Margaery was arrested.

Thanks, been a while since I finished AFFC, so many details as well as bigger points slip away...

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

...things are set up by GRRM like Jon is only told life or death information, selectively by Mormont. The impression I get is that he's to sever ties with his old life before he takes his vows.

That impression is incorrect. Mormont doesn't have a policy of censoring personal correspondence. The only time that we saw Mormont try to keep something from Jon, (1) it was because of a specific concern that Jon might desert to support Robb; and (2) Jon found out anyway. It's not like Jon was kept in a cloister, and in general Mormont was unwilling (or unable) to censor reports from the outside world.

Well the book is otherwise so specific about every single communication, making a big deal of it as a special occasion...

I don't understand this argument. So you don't think that Jon's getting letters that we never see because we didn't see Jon get those letters?

[GreatswordIce]

Hey guys, im relatively new to the series really, only starting reading a few weeks ago, however im up to the beginning of A Feast for Crows now.

My question is sort of half question and half my take on what I have read so far.

It seems to me that so much more bad things happen to the 'good' characters of the story than they do to the 'bad' ones. There has been so many times that I have felt like throwing the books against the wall because the Lannisters would just continuously win out with everything in the end. Yeah they have had a few things happen to them, Joff, Tywin, Jaime's hand for some, just seems as though its just one hit after another on the Starks who are my favourite characters. (I was personally very upset by Eddards death, for a bloke anyway haha)

I dunno, anyone else feel the same? Or am i just missing something.

[Manderly`s Personal Chef]

Who was in the small council at the time of king Aerys`s reign? I guess Pycelle, Varys and Gerold Hightower were, but do we know who the others were?

[Sera dy Relandrant]

What was the general format of a tourney, like the jousting at the Tourney of Harrenhal say?

[KyleLitke]

Doesn't Stannis still hold both Storm's End and Dragonstone?

Well, I guess what I mean is, who has Storms End as far as the Crown is concerned?

I mean, if they stripped Riverrun from the Tully's, there's no way Stannis is still considered the rightful lord of Storms End by them, I should think. They likely wouldn't strip it from the family, but with Tommen the King and Myrcella both his current heir AND the heir to Casterly Rock, and Tommen too young to be even thinking about children anytime soon, they'd presumably have to name someone to have Storms End. And they'd also presumably need someone to be the "overlord" (whatever they call them in that area, equivalent of the Lord Paramount in the Riverlands) of the Stormlands. Considering they had already named someone to take over Riverrun even while the castle was still held by Edmure, I assumed they would do the same with Storms End, even though Stannis has technical control over it (even though he has essentially abandoned it to fight up north at this point).

[Buckwheat]

Hey guys, im relatively new to the series really, only starting reading a few weeks ago, however im up to the beginning of A Feast for Crows now.

My question is sort of half question and half my take on what I have read so far.

It seems to me that so much more bad things happen to the 'good' characters of the story than they do to the 'bad' ones. There has been so many times that I have felt like throwing the books against the wall because the Lannisters would just continuously win out with everything in the end. Yeah they have had a few things happen to them, Joff, Tywin, Jaime's hand for some, just seems as though its just one hit after another on the Starks who are my favourite characters. (I was personally very upset by Eddards death, for a bloke anyway haha)

I dunno, anyone else feel the same? Or am i just missing something.

First, welcome to the board.

Second, I do not think there is such a thing as a difference between "good" and "bad" characters. There are only the ones you like and the ones you do not. In AGOT, the Starks are really introduced quite as the "good guys", but then you also have Tyrion who is a Lannister and quiet a sympathetic person (although I did not like him either at first:)). And after Jaime's story at Harrenhal the reader changes the opinion about him for about 180°, yet he is still the same person. In short, what I am trying to say is that the characters are described so realistically that none of them can be exclusively good/bad - even Eddard, the one who could be the real hero, is not perfect because he was pretty stupid on occasions and he had some dark secrets, and on the other hand, even such an unsympathetic character as Walder Frey sr. had the beautiful habit of taking care of all the members of his family, even the retarded Jinglebell and the drunken Merret.

[valacirca]

Hi guys, I'm a newbie to the forum and to the ASoFaI series. I just wanted to ask if there is anything planned to put the events preceding AGoT into a book or some similar presentation? Like a prequel or something like that?

Or do the books in the ASoIaF series touch on those events sufficiently enough that it would be redundant to lay out the story in novel form?