[TWoW Spoilers] Theon I, Part 3

[Melifeather]

And once again your quote just proves my point.

We all know, that if maester Tybald comes from Dreadfort, and not from Karhold, his lord is Roose Bolton, and NOT Arnolf Karstark.

Yes, I agree. What was your point then?

[Melifeather]

Well, the way I see it it's only obeying his master's orders. This is not a maester, who's treason is important for Stannis.

Melisandra, your quote just proves my point IMO:

"You are maester at the Dreadfort. How is it you are here with us?"

"Lord Arnolf brought me to tend to his wounded."

"To his wounded? Or his ravens?"

If it was really a Dreadfort maester, and not Karhold, Stannis's reply to maesters answer should be something like:

'Lord Arnolf? How come it is Lord Arnolf brought you if your lord is Roose Bolton, the enemy we're fighting against?"

This is, in effect, what Stannis is saying.

[Melifeather]

guess you didnt read the early posts on the sample chapter where ahsa is taking Lady Glover back to the Iron Ilands and in the sample chapter She is called Lady Bolton. Go to the error tread for ADWD. There are a few with people being called the wrong name and that was with editors edting it and people reading it before it was released to find these errors. GRRM is a very good writer but He is know to make mistakes with eye color, horses switching for male to female and people being called the wrong name. It happens.

I'm not familiar with the sample chapter regarding mistaking Lady Bolton for Glover. I understand that mistakes can happen, but there is no such mistake in the Theon chapter.

[3CityApache]

In your opinion, you should add, I think. Some people here have a different one and I guess it'll stay that way for a while.

BTW please give up on multiposting, it makes it hard to read.

[slayer420]

.

ETA: posted this while the above post was posted. LOL why is anybody debating this? It's freaking obvious... this isn't a topic for debate, it's a fact.

If it was fact you wouldnt be having to tell us what GRRM is trying to say with you adding words to it and your take on the meaning of his words are.

[Ghost714]

"How many eyes does a maester need to read a letter?" asked Stannis. "One should suffice, I'd think. I would not wish to leave you unable to fulfill your duties to your lord. Roose Bolton's men may well be on their way to attack us even now, however, so you must understand if I skimp on certain courtesies.

Stannis specifically says lord here,

"I would not wish to leave you unable to fulfill your duties to your lord."

Arnolf Karstark is not a Lord, but Roose sure as hell is.

Emediatly after referring to Maester Tybald's lord, Stannis says,

"Roose Bolton's men may well be on their way to attack us even now, however, so you must understand if I skimp on certain courtesies."

It makes sense that Roose is the LORD, in which Stannis is referring to, because right after he says, "your Lord." Stannis then names the Lord in which he is speaking of, when he says,

"Roose Bolton's men may well be on their way to attack us even now, however, so you must understand if I skimp on certain courtesies."

I really can not fathom why people are so hung up on this, it makes complete sence that there was NO MISTAKE.

The reason why Roose sent a Maester from the Dreadfort could be, because the simple fact that Karstark had no Maester. Roose probably knew the risk of him being discovered, but the reward was worth the risk, because Roose really needed that map. Roose finding out where Stannis was so he could attack him unawares, probably is worth more than the men Karstark can offer. So it is a risk he was willing to take , especially because there was no certainty that Maester Tybald would be discovered. I mean really think about it, what Karstark brings to the table for Roose, is not worth more then a map telling of Stannis's location.

[slayer420]

Stannis specifically says lord here,

"I would not wish to leave you unable to fulfill your duties to your lord."

Arnolf Karstark is not a Lord, but Roose sure as hell is.

Emediatly after referring to Maester Tybald's lord, Stannis says,

"Roose Bolton's men may well be on their way to attack us even now, however, so you must understand if I skimp on certain courtesies."

It makes sense that Roose is the LORD, in which Stannis is referring to, because right after he says, "your Lord." Stannis then names the Lord in which he is speaking of, when he says,

"Roose Bolton's men may well be on their way to attack us even now, however, so you must understand if I skimp on certain courtesies."

This doesnt mean anything. He could have used Your lords men or his men. but he doesnt he states Roose Bolton. Just because one line ends with lord and the next one Starts with Roose Bolton that is no sign he is talking about the same person. In fact that would point to the fact there not the same person.

[Happy Ent]

Arnolf Karstark is not a Lord, but Roose sure as hell is.

Incredibly lazy argument. I count 6 occurrences of “Lord Arnolf” in the sample chapter alone, including from Tybald, the moth knight, Stannis, and the authorial voice.

[Melifeather]

Ghost714...you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink! lol

[slayer420]

Ghost714...you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink! lol

we fill the same way. But we think your the horse.

also you can get more flys with honey too. guess you never heard of that on one before.

[Happy Ent]

Folks, you are going to be involved in hundreds of these arguments over the next few thousand posts you will write on this forum. We’re all friends here, and would like to remain so.

Displays of condescension and exasperation have no place here. Stop it.

[bemused]

Mistakes have happened , and not only in pre-publication releases. For confirmation , look no further than the misuse of wroth for wrath all through ADWD , when in GRRM's previous books , both words have been used correctly.( I'm betting that will be corrected in the paperback )

Then again , GRRM purposely teases and misleads all the time. I wouldn't put my money down either way , on this one.

[Melifeather]

Why are my words offensive? All I'm saying is Ghost and I (and a few others) are trying to explain what we believe is a reasonable and logical explanation as to what's happening with the Maester Dreadfort/Karhold situation, and you two still aren't getting it. Furthermore, I am pointing out to him that reason and logic are not enough and we cannot force you to understand.

[Ghost714]

Incredibly lazy argument. I count 6 occurrences of “Lord Arnolf” in the sample chapter alone, including from Tybald, the moth knight, Stannis, and the authorial voice.

When you look at all my posts that are about this argument, and not just the last one, it is by no means a "lazy argument". My last post was just arguing the subject in a different way then the previous posts. And I love how you only quoted the first half of the post. I can understand why you wouldn't want to quote the second half, considering it was the stronger part of the post. I would like to see you argue against the logic pointed out in that second half.... You know the part you failed to quote the first time(because it's a strong point, that disproves your argument)

[Happy Ent]

Why are my words offensive? All I'm saying is Ghost and I (and a few others) are trying to explain what we believe is a reasonable and logical explanation as to what's happening with the Maester Dreadfort/Karhold situation, […]

… and these things are welcome and appreciated. That’s why we’re all here. We want more of that.

What you might want to consider editing a bit more stringently are those parts of your posts that do nothing else than communicate your exasperation and condescension. You have written messages that do nothing else than that. That has to stop.

Oh, and never use “you’re not getting it” or variations thereof. Not here, nor any form of communication. Always say (and think) “I’m not explaining this sufficiently well.” Your arguments will improve much, and you will influence many more people.

[Melifeather]

… and these things are welcome and appreciated. That’s why we’re all here. We want more of that.

What you might want to consider editing a bit more stringently are those parts of your posts that do nothing else than communicate your exasperation and condescension. You have written messages that do nothing else than that. That has to stop.

Oh, and never use “you’re not getting it” or variations thereof. Not here, nor any form of communication. Always say (and think) “I’m not explaining this sufficiently well.” Your arguments will improve much, and you will influence many more people.

OK. Point taken. I'll try harder.

[slayer420]

how would you fill if someone keep saying your posts were not thought out and not logical. No one likes to be told that they are wrong. If i am really trying to convice someone of something I use phases like You make a good point BUT or I understand what your saying but I think it is this way. Not come on I cant belive your not getting this or this is so easy I cant understand way your not geting it or Let me try to explain it alot easyer for you. The last ones make it seem like your getting talked down to.

[slayer420]

When you look at all my posts that are about this argument, and not just the last one, it is by no means a "lazy argument". My last post was just arguing the subject in a different way then the previous posts. And I love how you only quoted the first half of the post. I can understand why you wouldn't want to quote the second half, considering it was the stronger part of the post. I would like to see you argue against the logic pointed out in that second half.... You know the part you failed to quote the first time(because it's a strong point, that disproves your argument)

Can you please explain that point again because I really wasnt getting what you were saying. Is your point that Karstark was not alord? Thats what I got out of it but I could be wrong.

[Wouter]

I understand Melisandra's frustration and his feeling of beeing trolled. Do you honestly believe GRRM would write a huge error like this (dreadfort >< karhold) in a sample chapter, let alone in any of his books?

Yes of course GRRM is capable of making an error in a sample chapter (or even in a chapter of a released book, if his editors don't catch it, which occasionally they don't).

I'm getting a feeling of frustration too, that some not only don't understand what a terrible mistake it would be to bring a maester of the Boltons to the rendez-vous with Stannis' forces, but that the ones pointing out the logical flaws in this are even being called trolls!

I wonder if those same people would also accept it if Karstark had brought Walton Steelshanks (the veteran sergeant of the Boltons, introduced to us in Jaime chapters) with him? I can see it already:

Stannis: "so you are actually a commander from the Dreadfort? How is it you are here with us?"

Steelshanks: "Lord Karstark brought me to command his troops. This is entirely normal, it's like how in the war of the five kings Jaime Lannister brought Robb Stark to see to the safety of his siege camps. My presence here is definitely not a sign that Karstark is in league with Bolton, it's perfectly normal that my lord Bolton lends his best troops to his enemies so they can use them against him. Nothing to see here, move along (makes Jedi hand gesture)."

Stannis: "Since you don't have any suspicious ravens with you, I feel forced to believe you. Welcome to my camp and may you have ample chances to turn on my forces at your earliest convenience."

[Happy Ent]

These are not the ravens you’re looking for.