[ADWD] Brienne Collecting Jaime

[NotToday]

As far as we know, taking Jaime to Stoneheart was not the mission. The mission we heard proposed was "Take the sword and kill the Kingslayer."

She knew that Jamie had done all he could to keep his oath. Judging by her past actions, she seems far too honourable (and too stupid to be honest)to lure away and murder a cripple, even if it will save her own skin. That was one of the things Jamie remarked about her when she told her Renly was killed by a shadow story.

[iamthedave]

As far as we know, taking Jaime to Stoneheart was not the mission. The mission we heard proposed was "Take the sword and kill the Kingslayer."

We don't know for sure that's the one she accepted, or the one that Stoneheart eventually put to her. She might have altered the wording or - as appears to be the case - asked for Jaime to be brought to her for justice.

Likewise, we don't know what's going through Brienne's head. For all we know she did accept the mission and has no intention of going through with it, due to some shift in the character caused by her near-death experience.

The fact that she lured him away weeks or months ago, and he has not been heard from since, sounds like an indication to me.

If that's not what you want to happen, that is fine. YOu could just say "That's not what I want to happen, and I hope you are wrong." Sure, maybe George is just trying to create tension, and make Jaime fans nervous. But to deny that he has given them any reason whatsoever to be nervous is just silly.

And if that's what you want to happen, that's fine. You could just say that instead of claiming that 'the evidence' points to this arbitrary conclusion you've come to, when it does nothing of the sort.

The only thing it points to is that something is happening or has happened, and obfuscates every relevant detail about that event. You don't know what Brienne is there to do, you don't know where she's taking Jaime, you don't know what's happened to him, and you've got no evidence whatsoever to come to any sort of conclusion.

Sansa Stark has been 'missing for months' as far as everyone in Kings Landing is concerned. Is she dead?

Lack of compassion or normal human feeling. As with Stoneheart.

This argument is a non-starter and I'm stunned you'd even attempt to make it. Lady Stoneheart and Beric Dondarrion are the only people we know who've been given the kiss of life. One of these people saw her family systematically betrayed and - as far as she believed - murdered right in front of her and in-POV lost her mind in her dying moments. In a shocking turn of events she's a bit unhappy about this turn of events in her second go round.

The other was every bit as honourable, just and dedicated to his morals as he was in normal life, and as far as we can tell remained so until his death, which I might add came about due to an altruistic act: breathing his life into Catelyn's.

So how can you compare these two and assume that the process will make Brienne in any way like Lady Stoneheart?

[Happy Ent]

She knew that Jamie had done all he could to keep his oath.

She knows nothing of that sort. She knows that Jaime did one tiny thing to “keep his oath”: send Brienne out. A fool’s errand. Compare to the resources that Cersei has invested.

Since then, Brienne may have learned that Jaime took Riverrun by threatening to fling babies over the ramparts. Also, from her perspective, Roose and Jaime had a mighty strange and secret conversation at Harrenhal that completely went over her head. Next thing, Roose kills Lady Stark and sends Jaime’s regards. That can’t look good. Not to mention that Jaime is complicit in the fake!Arya scheme.

Jaime has done almost nothing “to keep his oath”. He could have, but it would have cost him. (Maybe his precious job, for crying out loud.) Brienne knows these things. It looks even worse from her perspective than from ours.

[Clash]

She knows nothing of that sort. She knows that Jaime did one tiny thing to “keep his oath”: send Brienne out. A fool’s errand. Compare to the resources that Cersei has invested.

Since then, Brienne may have learned that Jaime took Riverrun by threatening to fling babies over the ramparts. Also, from her perspective, Roose and Jaime had a mighty strange and secret conversation at Harrenhal that completely went over her head. Next thing, Roose kills Lady Stark and sends Jaime’s regards. That can’t look good. Not to mention that Jaime is complicit in the fake!Arya scheme.

Jaime has done almost nothing “to keep his oath”. He could have, but it would have cost him. (Maybe his precious job, for crying out loud.) Brienne knows these things. It looks even worse from her perspective than from ours.

Except that it's apparent that she's in love with Jaime and in debt to him for saving her life from the bear. She was ready to die for him but only changed her mind when she realised that Pod would die too.

And we don't know that she knows any of these actions/inactions of his.

[Happy Ent]

Except that it's apparent that she's in love with Jaime and in debt to him for saving her life from the bear. She was ready to die for him but only changed her mind when she realised that Pod would die too.

Nobody doubts she’s in love with Jaime. That’s her problem, not her excuse. The conflict is between doing what is honourable (following her oath to Catelyn) and what is desirable. What duty tells her versus what love tells her. Being a knight or being a love-sick girl.

And we don't know that she knows any of these actions/inactions of his.

It’s certainly more plausible that she has been updated about Jaime’s actions (and inactions) by the members of the Brotherhood (such as Thoros) than by readers of the books. Remember, we have a uniquely skewed Jaime-perspective on this. We’re in his head. Nobody else is. To anybody else, even those very close to him, Jaime is a ruthless general willing to kill babies. He is “not Ryman Frey” as he reminds Lord Blackwood. Nobody in the entire land shares “our” view that Jaime is on an arc of redemption. On the contrary. Jaime’s the Lord Commander of Tommen’s kingsguard, currently quenching the remains of Robb’s rebellion using whatever means necessary. This includes killing Lannister deserters, for example.

I claim that after Brienne has been cut down, Thoros gives her an update on what Jaime’s been doing. There is no way that update looks good even to members of this board, who’ve been inside Jaime’s head. (Just take his betrayal of Arya’s birthright as an example.) Thoros won’t be painting a pretty picture of this. And Brienne herself has plenty of missing puzzle pieces, such as Jaime’s conversation with Roose. She bloody heard Jaime say “give my regards to Robb Stark”. Now Catelyn can give her first-hand confirmation of what that meant. Catelyn was present when Roose gave those regards. She was bloody killed. When Brienne hears this, she will be overwhelmed by the feelings of betrayal that have been carefully constructed in Feast: Jaime’s just another pretty boy who made a fool of her. And, of course, Jaime took Riverrun. Brienne was there when he gave his oath.

Am I right in this claim? Who knows. But it sounds pretty plausible to me, all the puzzle pieces are there. The opposite idea (Brienne choosing love over honour, ignoring all new information about Jaime, refusing a direct order from her liege, jeopardizing Pod) seems less plausible to me. But of course we know nothing.

[Clash]

Nobody doubts she’s in love with Jaime. That’s her problem, not her excuse. The conflict is between doing what is honourable (following her oath to Catelyn) and what is desirable. What duty tells her versus what love tells her. Being a knight or being a love-sick girl.

Which oath to Catelyn? The later or earlier one? She went to KL and found both daughters gone and was still searching for them when caught by the band. We are only surmising that she has sworn an oath to kill Jaime although it's most likely that she did.

It’s certainly more plausible that she has been updated about Jaime’s actions (and inactions) by the members of the Brotherhood (such as Thoros) than by readers of the books. Remember, we have a uniquely skewed Jaime-perspective on this. We’re in his head. Nobody else is. To anybody else, even those very close to him, Jaime is a ruthless general willing to kill babies. He is “not Ryman Frey” as he reminds Lord Blackwood. Nobody in the entire land shares “our” view that Jaime is on an arc of redemption. On the contrary. Jaime’s the Lord Commander of Tommen’s kingsguard, currently quenching the remains of Robb’s rebellion using whatever means necessary. This includes killing Lannister deserters, for example.

I claim that after Brienne has been cut down, Thoros gives her an update on what Jaime’s been doing. There is no way that update looks good even to members of this board, who’ve been inside Jaime’s head. (Just take his betrayal of Arya’s birthright as an example.) Thoros won’t be painting a pretty picture of this. And Brienne herself has plenty of missing puzzle pieces, such as Jaime’s conversation with Roose. She bloody heard Jaime say “give my regards to Robb Stark”. Now Catelyn can give her first-hand confirmation of what that meant. Catelyn was present when Roose gave those regards. She was bloody killed. When Brienne hears this, she will be overwhelmed by the feelings of betrayal that have been carefully constructed in Feast: Jaime’s just another pretty boy who made a fool of her. And, of course, Jaime took Riverrun. Brienne was there when he gave his oath.

My observations aren't based on what we know about Jaime, they're based on the actual facts. He sent Brienne to look for the Stark girls and especially Sansa, he also told her that 'Arya' was an imposter. These are things the band does not know and Brienne does. As for taking up arms against Tullys or Starks, no battle actually ever takes place, Jaime negotiates the surrender of Riverrun without spilling anything other than Frey blood in the process. As for the 'regards' conversation, he had made an oath to Catelyn not to take up arms against Stark or Tully, he can't make the same oath for Roose Bolton, his father or anyone else. In any case, all she has to do is ask him. She must also know that Roose Bolton was a betrayer of the Starks before he left Harrenhal, so whatever guilt Jaime bears for that betrayal, she shares as well.

Am I right in this claim? Who knows. But it sounds pretty plausible to me, all the puzzle pieces are there. The opposite idea (Brienne choosing love over honour, ignoring all new information about Jaime, refusing a direct order from her liege, jeopardizing Pod) seems less plausible to me. But of course we know nothing.

You may be right, but your theory implies that Brienne has to discard many things she actually knows about Jaime's actions in favour of second-hand reports. At the very least, her honour would demand that she confront hum with these accusations rather than kill him out of hand.

[Cold Pies]

no matter what was in Bryienes mind when she met Jamie at Pennytree she and Jamie would surely have a couple of days ride to plot what comes next

[Fearsome Fred]

We don't know for sure that's the one she accepted [...]

Nobody ever claimed we knew anything "for sure." Why are you wasting your time and mine, pointing out the obvious?

And if that's what you want to happen, that's fine. You could just say that instead of claiming that 'the evidence' points to this arbitrary conclusion you've come to, when it does nothing of the sort.

It is what I want to happen. But I also have presented reasons why I think it is probable. I have presented evidence.

And I have no problem with my opponents attempting to do the same to support their positions and undermine mine. What I object to is ad-hominem attacks and crybaby whining and attempts to shout me down with entirely false claims that I have given no reasons for my opinions.

The only thing it points to is that something is happening or has happened, and obfuscates every relevant detail about that event.

Then discuss the relevant details. Find something intelligent to add to the discussion.

If you cannot do that, then I suggest you take my suggestion. Just say you don't like my theory and hope I am wrong. I do not deny that I may be wrong.

Sansa Stark has been 'missing for months' as far as everyone in Kings Landing is concerned. Is she dead?

We know she is not, because we know where she is. Probability is always based on limited knowledge. But the others at Kings Landing, who do not have our inside knowledge, do not assume she is dead either, because another more probable explanation for her disappearance has been proposed.

Arya is a better example. From the perspective of those who lack our inside information, the judgment that she is "probably dead" is not an unreasonable assessment.

This argument is a non-starter and I'm stunned you'd even attempt to make it.

Spare me the hyperbole. She is called "Stoneheart" for a reason. GRRM has made comments in interviews to the effect that people do not REALLY come back from the dead in his world, at least not fully or without cost, and that there are reasons Catelyn no longer has a POV.

The other was every bit as honourable, just and dedicated to his morals as he was in normal life, and as far as we can tell remained so until his death, which I might add came about due to an altruistic act: breathing his life into Catelyn's.

I thought it was made pretty clear that that was not altruism. Dondarion wanted release. He makes it clear that his ressurrections have had a cost. And we don't know for sure that that was what Dondarion wanted, or merely what Rh'llor wanted.

As for his being "just as honorable", your "as far as we can tell" comment admits that we cannot tell.

So how can you compare these two and assume that the process will make Brienne in any way like Lady Stoneheart?

Well, in part because the evidence suggests that she has (probably) already killed Jaime, the man she was once in love with. In any event, you cannot be sure that her love will survive undeath. So the possibility of undeath undermines the argument that Brienne would never kill Jaime.

[Hotpie Targaryen]

Dead horse, I declare thee to be fully beaten.

[Clash]

Well, in part because the evidence suggests that she has (probably) already killed Jaime, the man she was once in love with. In any event, you cannot be sure that her love will survive undeath. So the possibility of undeath undermines the argument that Brienne would never kill Jaime.

You are bolstering one weak argument with another. There's no evidence that Brienne is 'undead' and no reason for her to be. In fact if she were already dead and brought back, what motive has she now to carry out Lady Stoneheart's mission? Kill her again? I'm sure she'd welcome that, as Beric did. Having died already rather than kill Jaime, what's the reason for her change of heart?

And there's no 'evidence' that Jaime is dead either. He's missing, that's for sure, but we already knew that he left with Brienne alone. We don't know how far they have to go or how long it will take if Brienne means to take him to Lady Stoneheart. If she was just there to kill him, then surely his body would have turned up close to Raventree Hall or somewhere in the Blackwood Vale.

And Cersei is sure he's still alive. Not evidence, but a strong indication given the twin connection.

[Fearsome Fred]

No, you were adamant it was sword... only sword.... no other possibility... to think otherwise is ridiculous. And clearly I have to repeat myself because you aren't listening to anything I say.

I am not going to reread my posts. However I am 100% certain did not MEAN to say such, and I am 99.9% certain that I did not say anything like that. If, by some chance, I did say something that was subject to such misinterpretation, the matter has already been clarified multiple times. You can either accept the clarification, or continue to disrupt the discussion with your the ad-hominem accusation that I have somehow changed my position.

Yes, I do think that "sword" is the only "good theory" we have at present. Not only do I think it is probably correct, but I also think it is the only option that rises above the status of a wild one-in-a-thousand guess. But that is not the same thing as saying that it is the only possibility.

Unlike you, I'm not saying that WAS the word, I'm just saying it is a possibility. And it does make sense, because it was in context. UnCat called it oathbreaker, so she would clearly know the context.

UnCat, if still in hearing distance, might guess that "oathbreaker" really means "sword". But "sword" is an easier word the scream when you are in the process of being strangled to death. And why force UnCat to guess?

Also, another possibility is that it was a 'fake hanging' to test the resolve of Brienne.

That does not strike me as probable.

Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

The possibilities are always endless. Shall we therefore shut down all discussion? Is that what you want?

Yes, so far in this thread my discussion has been largely limited to counter-balancing yours.

What's wrong with that?

And please stop with the simply "presenting theories" line, you were presenting them as facts. And I was merely pointing out that they weren't.

Yes. And you are apparently going to keep "pointing it out" forever, because you are a crybaby with nothing else to say. Are you going to throw this childish tantrum EVERY time someone presents an opinion without the "I could be wrong" or "I am not infallible" disclaimers, that you think ought to be mandatory for the benefit of those who are too stupid to figure it out for themselves?

It's not speculative theories that annoy me, it's people presenting their theories as fact, and leaving little room for discussion.

Then report me to the moderators. Let them decide which one of us is trying to disrupt the discussion.

[Clash]

And I have no problem with my opponents attempting to do the same to support their positions and undermine mine. What I object to is ad-hominem attacks and crybaby whining and attempts to shout me down with entirely false claims that I have given no reasons for my opinions.

Yes. And you are apparently going to keep "pointing it out" forever, because you are a crybaby with nothing else to say. Are you going to throw this childish tantrum EVERY time someone presents an opinion without the "I could be wrong" or "I am not infallible" disclaimers, that you think ought to be mandatory for the benefit of those who are too stupid to figure it out for themselves?

Less of the name calling please. It's nice to be nice ;)

[Fearsome Fred]

There's no evidence that Brienne is 'undead' and no reason for her to be.

I never claimed to have absolute proof, if that's what you mean by "evidence." However, I have presented the clues that I believe support my theory. Do you want me to repeat them? Or are you going to keep repeating YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. You are boring me to death. Find something new to say, please.

In fact if she were already dead and brought back, what motive has she now to carry out Lady Stoneheart's mission?

The evidence suggests that when people are brought back from the dead with the "kiss of fire", they tend to behave, at least superficially, as if they had their former minds and memories, except that something has been subtly changed or lost.

Assuming Un-Brienne still has a POV of sorts, it might seem, from her POV as if she were still alive. There would be no reaon, therefore, not to carry out her final promise. In life, she was one who used to take her oaths seriously.

Having died already rather than kill Jaime, what's the reason for her change of heart?

She made a promise, signified by the word "sword". And, since those who return are changed in subtle ways, there is no reason to assume her love for Jaime will stop her any longer.

In any event, my theory assumes she was not, in the end, willing to die for Jaime, which is why her final word was "sword".

And there's no 'evidence' that Jaime is dead either.

{sigh} It all depends on how you define "evidence". Nobody ever claimed there was absolute proof.

He's missing, that's for sure, but we already knew that he left with Brienne alone.

We knew then that he would be missing for 2 or 3 days ... that at least was how long he expected to be missing. He has been missing alot longer. I forget how long, but I am pretty sure it has been weeks if not months.

We don't know how far they have to go or how long it will take if Brienne means to take him to Lady Stoneheart.

Brienne says she is taking him on a day's ride. Presumably, then, it will take a day or less for the other shoe to drop.

If she was just there to kill him, then surely his body would have turned up close to Raventree Hall or somewhere in the Blackwood Vale.

False premise. Dead bodies are far less likely to turn up than live ones, and are far more likely to be recognized when they do.

And Cersei is sure he's still alive. Not evidence, but a strong indication given the twin connection.

I disagree that Cersei's twin intuition is "not evidence". However (1) evidence is not absolute proof, and must be weighed; and (2) It does not seem to me that Cersei's evidence, even if believed, necessarily rules out UnDeath?

Cersei, at leasts, understands that Jaime's prolonged disappearance amounts to evidence that he is dead. That's exactly why she is considering the possibility. In her case, however, she feels the evidence of her twin intuition outweighs it.

[RobSnow]

My guess is that Jamie is going to become the (unwilling at first probably) leader of the Brotherhood and confront Cersei and Tommen - and Strong B) .

[Ishuäl]

My guess is that Jamie is going to become the (unwilling at first probably) leader of the Brotherhood and confront Cersei and Tommen - and Strong B) .

That would be awesome. And I would cheer him if he disposed of UnCat first :box:

[Clash]

I never claimed to have absolute proof, if that's what you mean by "evidence." However, I have presented the clues that I believe support my theory. Do you want me to repeat them? Or are you going to keep moronically shouting YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. You are boring me to death. Find something new to say, please.

It was you who used the word 'evidence' in the post where I quoted you. You've linked this so-called 'evidence' of Brienne killing Jaime to her also being undead in a previous post:

And yet, the evidence suggests that she has already killed him. This may be out of character for Brienne; but you can hardly make that argument for UnBrienne. If anything, this sounds like an argument FOR my position.

Your clues as you now call them, are assumptions based on nothing other than wishful thinking.

The evidence suggests that when people are brought back from the dead with the "kiss of fire", they tend to behave, at least superficially, as if they had their former minds and memories, except that something has been subtly changed or lost.

What evidence? Beric Dondarrion was a much changed man from the one that left KL, but that could be as much the result of his experiences in the Riverlands as his undeadness. Catelyn Stark lost her mind at the Red Wedding - and we have her POV evidence for that, and her undead self reflects that madness.

Assuming Un-Brienne still has a POV of sorts, it might seem, from her POV as if she were still alive. There would be no reaon, therefore, not to carry out her final promise. In life, she was one who used to take her oaths seriously.

You again assume she's undead without providing any 'clues' other than her appearance to Jaime. An appearance that's consistent with her injuries and subsequent fever. You continually whinge that we don't accept your so called 'clues' yet at the same time refuse to even recognise that there are other more mundane and realistic explanations for these 'clues'.

She made a promise, signified by the word "sword". And, since those who return are changed in subtle ways, there is no reason to assume her love for Jaime will stop her any longer.

Again the undead argument. A gratuitous and unnecessary one, but one you must cling to in order to bolster the other one. What you're saying essentially, is that alive Brienne would never kill Jaime, but undead Brienne would, so therefore Brienne must be undead.

{sigh} It all depends on how you define "evidence". Nobody ever claimed there was absolute proof.

Nope, you're the one who has used the word evidence to bolster your argument and then get stroppy when others call on you to provide this evidence.

We knew then that he would be missing for 2 or 3 days ... that at least was how long he expected to be missing. He has been missing alot longer. I forget how long, but I am pretty sure it has been weeks if not months.

We have no idea how long he's missing. All we know is that he's missing long enough for word of his disappearance to reach Kings Landing and we only learn this in the Epilogue to ADWD.

Brienne says she is taking him on a day's ride. Presumably, then, it will take a day or less for the other shoe to drop.

Or she could tell him everything as soon as they've got away from Raventree Hall.

False premise. Dead bodies are far less likely to turn up than live ones, and are far more likely to be recognized when they do.

Far more likely to be recognised? Jaime has an army looking for him. If Brienne killed him almost immediately or even within a days ride, he'd still be relatively easy to find in that time span. Why would she hide his body or his horse for that matter? Actually how does your theory account for his horse not being found?

I disagree that Cersei's twin intuition is "not evidence". However (1) evidence is not absolute proof, and must be weighed; and (2) It does not seem to me that Cersei's evidence, even if believed, necessarily rules out UnDeath?

Cersei, at leasts, understands that Jaime's prolonged disappearance amounts to evidence that he is dead. That's exactly why she is considering the possibility. In her case, however, she feels the evidence of her twin intuition outweighs it.

She assuredly does not believe he is dead, she cuts her uncle off before he can even state the possibility of it with a confident declaration that she'd know it if he was.

As for the zombie walking dead argument, he has to die first before he can be resurrected, that's the moment that would echo through a twin link, the resurrection (if your reading of it is correct) may not even register as life with his twin.

There are only two people so far who've lived an 'undead' life; Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn Stark. They have not existed in this state contemperaneously, yet you seem to have them multiplying like rabbits or passing unlife from one to another like a demented game of pass the parcel.

[Duskfire]

I am more annoyed that we never found out whether Podrick Payne or Hyle Hunt survived.

[iamthedave]

Yes. And you are apparently going to keep "pointing it out" forever, because you are a crybaby with nothing else to say. Are you going to throw this childish tantrum EVERY time someone presents an opinion without the "I could be wrong" or "I am not infallible" disclaimers, that you think ought to be mandatory for the benefit of those who are too stupid to figure it out for themselves?

Then report me to the moderators. Let them decide which one of us is trying to disrupt the discussion.

Well, you're the one accusing other people of being 'crybabies' which seems to be an obvious attempt to lower the tone of the discussion.

If you're hearing the same argument over and over, it's because you're doing an abominable job of dealing with it.

I am more annoyed that we never found out whether Podrick Payne or Hyle Hunt survived.

I take that as a given. Why would Brienne accept any mission for Stoneheart if they're dead? The clearest and only obvious motivator for her not to die was to save the lives of two innocent people.

[Ishuäl]

I am more annoyed that we never found out whether Podrick Payne or Hyle Hunt survived.

Pod must live. It is known.

[Clash]

Pod must live. It is known.

He is now unPod. It's a bit of a payne really ;)