Ladywhiskers Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I believe they just felt uncomfortable because nobody has seen a direwolf south of the Wall for the last I-do-not-know-how-many years, so they sensed some kind of danger solely because of that. It showed that Winter is coming, somehow.Then why bother to describe them looking at the ANTLER at all? Why even mention it? Because of the symbolism. These symbols have been synonymous with these families for hundreds, even thousands of years. If they just felt uncomfortable about the direwolf, it would say that. It wouldn't say that they all stared at the antler. The antler through the direwolf's neck is as loaded as a swastika or a burning cross. It might just as well be the word "Baratheon" cut into the wolf. And, of course, the damage is mutual, and so one could also read "The Starks are going to kill the king" into the spectacle of the stag disembowled by the direwolf. They're digesting that as much as they are the natural implications, here.Ned's reaction is interesting, and may have as much to do with denial as with skepticism. He's every bit as shocked at seeing the antler, as the other men are, even though it makes sense for an antler to be there, given that they've already seen the dead deer. There's nothing particularly strange or surprising about a stag goring a wolf in self-defense, nor should it strke the men dumb with dread to see it, were it not for the blatant symbolism. Ned focuses narrowly on the weather and wildlife aspect of it, rejecting the significance of wolf and stag dead from their struggle.Jon Snow's suggestion that they keep the pups forces Ned to deal with the imagery, though understandably the last thing he wants to do is see his children in those pups, or himself or Catelyn in that dead mother wolf. He keeps his side of the conversation practical, so as not to imbue the scene with any more power, but he's smart enough to take Jon Snow's suggestion. Once the pups begin to symbolize the Stark children, he's as invested in wanting to keep them alive as Snow is, but once that symbolism is established and accepted by everyone, the rest of the scene becomes harder to deny. Ned is understandably very reluctant to take the Hand position, now that he's seen that Stark and Baratheon will be one another's undoing. We find it hard to understand the sort of fatalism that Ned lives with, because we live in this world, not his. In his world, there is magic. Prophecies are real. Sigils are more than just pretty pictures sewn onto vests--they are a family's magical protection.I'm not sure Bloodraven could have made sure that a direwolf pregnant with just the right number of pups would come south of the wall and fight a stag. I think a force even bigger than he is, might be at work here, especially since there's an albino wolf in the mix. Ghost's resemblance to a heart tree is not, I think, a coincidence, and the fact that he belongs to Jon Snow is probably the biggest bit of symbolism at work. He has no voice, and so what he symbolizes is secret, unspoken, perhaps even unspeakable. The gods themselves, the old gods, Ned's gods, are at work here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Goldengrill Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 i thought of two more small questions that i had, i figured i'd post em here:1) Does anyone know (roughly) what the conversion rates are for the currencies in Westeros? Like how many 'coppers' equals one 'Silver Stag', and how many 'Silver Stags' equals one 'Gold Dragon'? I'm pretty sure it's not directly stated in the books, but has the community been able to deduce any rough estimations? It would be interesting to know I think... Like when one prostitue charges a 'Silver Stag' and another a 'Gold Dragon', what exactly is the difference there (10 times more expensive, 100 times more expensive, etc)...2) How much do the Faceless Men actually charge for an assassination? I remember reading in an Arya chapter something about 2/3... Something about someone having to give up 2/3 of their wealth for an assassination... Is that how it works? Is it a percentage of your total wealth thing, as opposed to a flat rate? Does it vary depending on the target? Or is this information just unknown as of now?thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 i thought of two more small questions that i had, i figured i'd post em here:1) Does anyone know (roughly) what the conversion rates are for the currencies in Westeros? Like how many 'coppers' equals one 'Silver Stag', and how many 'Silver Stags' equals one 'Gold Dragon'? I'm pretty sure it's not directly stated in the books, but has the community been able to deduce any rough estimations? It would be interesting to know I think... Like when one prostitue charges a 'Silver Stag' and another a 'Gold Dragon', what exactly is the difference there (10 times more expensive, 100 times more expensive, etc)...http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Currency2) How much do the Faceless Men actually charge for an assassination? I remember reading in an Arya chapter something about 2/3... Something about someone having to give up 2/3 of their wealth for an assassination... Is that how it works? Is it a percentage of your total wealth thing, as opposed to a flat rate? Does it vary depending on the target? Or is this information just unknown as of now?I believe that it varies from person to person and is relative to their wealth. The idea is that you have to give up a lot in order to buy them, both in terms of wealth and personal possessions of value to you (that guy also had to lose his daughter). The motivation being, I imagine, that you'll think long and hard before coming to them and not take it lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyacinthGirl Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 What happened to Edric Dayne? He's not with Stoneheart or Thoros... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredward Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 What happened to Edric Dayne? He's not with Stoneheart or Thoros...Found this in the wiki:Following Beric Dondarrion’s final death, Edric and a part of Beric’s band went their separate way from those who chose to follow the resurrected, vengeful Catelyn Stark and he has not appeared in the series since, his current whereabouts unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 1) How did the Queen of Thorns know that the gemstones in Sansa's hairnet were poison? I was under the impression that Littlefinger didn't directly plot the murder of Joff with the Queen of Thorns, but rather indirectly pushed her into thinking it would be better if Joff were killed. I'm also under the impression that it was Littlefinger who gave the hairnet with the poison gemstones to Sansa (via Dontos, i believe). If that's the case, then how exactly did the Queen of Thorns know to take the gemstone from Sansa's hairnet and use it to poison Joff?Well, this seems like evidence that Littlefinger and the Queen of Thorns did directly plot the murder together, though perhaps it's possible that the Queen of Thorns didn't know who she was plotting with (i.e.-she may have arranged for the poison to be smuggled using her "contacts," without realizing that her contacts were in Littlefinger's pocket). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartell Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Thank you very much FanTasy. I agree with you as well that those bonds did need to be created. A question I have is that Sansa has been forever separated from her direwolf, and though Arya is separated by miles, she still has a bond. Arya may be 'no one' but she is still connected to that wolf. What does this mean for Sansa? And what do the miles mean for Arya? (this may have been discussed elsewhere, I just haven't found it yet)I'm pretty sure Arya has been able to slip into Nymeria's skin from Braavos. I don't remember in which chapter of book 4 or five, but I remember it happening for Arya at night.In any of Sansa's chapters, there is never any indication that she is a skinchanger, unlike Bran or Arya. With Jon, we know he resists it, and with Robb we didn't really know one way or another. My belief is that with Lady dead, Sansa's potentially abilities with skinchanging/warging have been seriously compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In any of Sansa's chapters, there is never any indication that she is a skinchanger, unlike Bran or Arya. With Jon, we know he resists it, and with Robb we didn't really know one way or another. My belief is that with Lady dead, Sansa's potentially abilities with skinchanging/warging have been seriously compromised.Martin has said that all six Stark children are wargs. Lady's death might delay Sansa's development, but I don't think it will stop it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartell Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Martin has said that all six Stark children are wargs. Lady's death might delay Sansa's development, but I don't think it will stop it altogether.I don't think so either, but it's going to be harder for her without Lady, since they had such a natural and easy bond. It's obviously something that's innate in a person so it's always going to be there. Whether she embraces it or not is another matter and I hope we get to see it happen. I have high hopes for Sansa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kermischocolate Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 2) What was Jaqen H'Ghar doing in Kingslanding in the first place?I've always wondered this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexy Boleyn Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 That's not a crucial point, but while re-reading Storm of Sword, I noticed that when Oberyn tells of his journey to Casterly Rock, he mentions "my mother and her consort", not "her consort, my father", or "my lord father": could it mean that the former Lady of Dorne had more than one husband ( at last her kids's father and another one after him)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Yeah, that's my read of it. A consort who was not their father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helyn Snow Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Not sure if this has been answered elsewhere (it probably has, so please excuse my laziness...), but I'm re-reading AGOT at the moment and just past the point when Maester Luwin brings the box to Cat that has Lysa's letter accusing the Lannisters of killing Jon Arryn. My question is, is it ever mentioned who might have delivered the box? I mean, although the letter is hidden at the bottom, the lens' on the top of it with the message about helping them see clearly is kind of suspicious itself, and I can't see any of King Bob's people sneaking it in there unchecked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Tywin's Privy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 is the bloodraven weirwood tree guy that bran meets the same guy as the bloodraven who is hand of the king in the dunk & egg stories??bloodraven - brynden rivers, hand of the king 100 yrs before ASOIAF - seems like a really nasty conniving guy. whereas the weirwood bloodraven seems much kinder & willing to help bran. sorry if this has already been explained, just wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chise Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 is the bloodraven weirwood tree guy that bran meets the same guy as the bloodraven who is hand of the king in the dunk & egg stories??.Yawp, same guy! How exactly is he "nasty" in Dunk & Egg? He sounded like he was just doin his job, and doin it damn well as The Hand, considering how the King was off in la-la fantasy book-land more than anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Tywin's Privy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Yawp, same guy! How exactly is he "nasty" in Dunk & Egg? He sounded like he was just doin his job, and doin it damn well as The Hand, considering how the King was off in la-la fantasy book-land more than anythingIve only finished 2 out of the 3 dunk and egg books (and incidentally theyre damn hard to find in bookstores for some reason, maybe cuz theyre in compilations of short works by other fantasy writers) ... but i dunno, -- whenever he's mentioned (at least so far) its with a negative connotation-- like he's an evil sorcerer, or the king is just his puppet and he's filled the small council with his cronies. the last few things are pretty much par for the course for any powerful guy, but the sorcery and the whole "how many eyes does bloodraven have? a thousand and none," all seem to cast him in a negative light, dont ya thikn?idk maybe the third book changes that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chise Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 all seem to cast him in a negative light, dont ya thikn? idk maybe the third book changes thatThe "No man is so accursed as the Kinslayer" doesn't exactly help his rep either... But during Blackfyre Rebellion he did fight for the true-born Targ and all, thats gotta count for something!and Aerys I is mentioned as being far more interested in his books than even his wife, so Bloodraven actually doing the work of running the country can't be all that negative, can it? Someone had to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanthemedium Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think it may be that the Starks and Arryns hold less land directly because they have been the pre-eminent force in their areas for so long that they have granted much of their land away. The Cerwyns are important bannermen to the Starks, but they live less than a days ride from Winterfell. So they have probably grown powerful over centuries of being loyal to Stark, and the petty lords sworn to Cerwyn probably once owed fealty directly to Winterfell. Stark pre-eminence is such that they will always get support from enough of their bannerman even when a major house like Umber or Bolton is in rebellion, so they do not need to rely on armies with direct fealty to Winterfell. The Tyrells on the other hand have ruled their region for a relatively short amount of time and they only just edge out the Hightowers, so it is beneficial to have large numbers sworn directly to Highgarden.Plus I think how many links in the chain from men-at-arms to high lord will vary depending on wars, rebellions, marriages. For instance, Tywin came down on Castermere a generation ago and though he probably granted some of the land away as rewards maybe not all of it. Some of the petty lords and landed knights once sworn to the Reynes and Tarbecks may now owe their fealty directly to Casterly Rock = one less link in the chain.As for so many common men wearing the Lannister colours; a landed knight who musters 10 peasants is supposed to buy arms and equipment for them, but he can probably only just afford to outfit himself. So he may apply to his liege lord to provide those things, and if that liege lord is rich Tywin Lannister it is simplest to send out items from his own stores and armories in his own colours.Great points all. I also think that the Arryns and Baratheons are peculiarly placed in the history of Westeros at this point. Jon Arryn being the hand not too long ago and away in KL, must have dispersed his forces to the care of the castellan at the Eyrie or the next most powerful house in the Vale which would obviously not be an Arryn house. So the same 'rich liege lord provides colors' thing applies. Baratheons on the other hand do not need a standing army because, well, the armies of the seven kingdoms are their standing army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanthemedium Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 My question is regarding the lost Lannister, Gerion. I wonder if we'll ever find out his fate and through that (or some other way) the nature of the Doom of Valyria. I believe it was the simultaneous eruption of all the volcanic peaks on the island. Hence the 'smoking seas' made from the perpetual steaming of magma meeting water. Do you think the Doom-secret will have any direct bearing on the events in the SoIaF? Will it have some effect on Victarion? Did it have any effect on Euron? Will it be a part of Dany's journey? Will Tyrion finally meet his genial lost uncle, who after Kevan, Tywin, Jaime, Lancel and Tyrion's circumstances, is the heir to Casterly Rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 A small question.Did the Starks, (over the centuries), ever send any of their daughters to Court?While I know there is some snobbery on the part of the South regarding the North, and the Targaryens generally held themselves higher than everyone, it would almost seem to be a back-handed slight on the part of the Starks, being prominent Lords nonetheless, to not present a daughter at Court as I'm sure it would have, (or should have), been an honor.Just wondering if there is a pattern of the Starks holding themselves as exclusively apart as the Targaryens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.