Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ran

[Pre-ADwD Spoilers] Jon 1

Recommended Posts

And yes, she is going to the Wall, but that can have other reasons as well, could have something to do with those inconvenient hinges of the world...

It's not like she had a choice really about going to the Wall after what Davos said in aSoS. At this point for Mel it's go to the Wall or be exposed as a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is another point that puzzles me. In a book where heads are lopped off left and right, were pretty much every king and pretender has a lot of raped barmaids to answer for, along comes Mel and OMG she's burning things made of wood! Now, from an arboreal perspective, I can understand the horror of it. But for you mammals the outrage seems to be misplaced.

HE- If the question is whether Mel is evil or not, I don't know how one could label her differently considering the things she has done and proposed. Whether it be in her god's name or not.

She's burned much more than some wooden statues. I'm not sure how I can rate the burning of Guncer Sunglass or Hubard Rambton's sons for the sake of their faith as anything other than evil (Perhaps you consider something like the Spanish inquisition or the Salem witch trials moral policy?). Burning those men was Mel's way of scaring Stannis followers into line, nothing more. And what did Edric Storm do that makes you think it's not evil for her to want to burn him? And what about Alester Florent who was burned for the sake of some helpful wind? And what about Ser Courtnay Penrose? He was merely doing the duty he was given by his lord and trying to protect Edric Storm, and for that he deserved to die? I don't think so.

And I think you're being rather harsh on Cressen and Davos as well. Yes they (and Mel) have all plotted to kill. It's only Mel who has succeeded in perpetrating the crime. Cressen felt like a father figure to Stannis and Renly, and saw Mel manipulating Stannis into a course that would bring him to try and kill Renly and cause a large amount of bloodshed. Cressen tried to stop that, and failed. To me that's a more noble motivation that what Mel is doing. If Mel was that benevolent she would have just spilled the cup.

Davos saw the true dark nature of Mel's magic at work, he lost 3 of his sons on the Blackwater, and was delerious with fever from the aftermath of that battle and his stay on the Spear of the Merling King. I for one can understand where he was coming from.

And again why was it that Davos had to bring the news of the Wildings to Stannis and suggest saving the NW at the Wall? If she knows so much, why did she not suggest that? And why does she see nothing of Dany and the dragons in her flames?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Other-in-law

Another thing that always made me think of Mel as a fraud, hasn't actually happened, and it's not certain that she'll be the one to do it...though she's the obvious candidate. The third part of Dany's 'Slayer of Lies' triplet was about a stone beast breathing shadow fire. Between the 'lies' part and the shadows and her obsession with waking a dragon from stone, that sounds like she'll pull off some very impressive magical feat to try and fake creating a dragon.

Of course, there's the usual question if it's fraudulent if you really believe it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, I find myself half agreeing with HE, even though I doubt that he fully believes his argument himself. I do like the comparison of Melisandre to Gandalf though. :) So a post to stop it looking like everyone is ganging up on him.

Saying that Stannis should not have opposed Renly, and that once he had chosen to, his followers were justified in killing people to ensure that his attempt failed, is highly debatable at best. Stannis is the rightful king, as pointed out by Ned, Robb, and the Queen of Thorns. What sort of precedent does it create if Renly is allowed to grab the Throne by mere force of arms? Consider the destabilising consequences of having two people around with better claims to the throne than the king - what are the chances of Stannis and Shireen regretfully having to be killed? Stannis has far more justification for his actions than, say, Robb has in defying the Iron Throne. Also this decision was clearly Stannis'es alone, not one he was pushed into by Melisandre.

Melisandre and Stannis'es assassination of Renly is hardly that heinous an act. Renly was an usurper and a rebel in arms, and his assassination could be considered an attempt to save bloodshed. We know that Tywin, for example, would have had no hesitation in assassinating Robb, given the chance. You might find Melisandre's magic repulsive, but this is not objective. Incidentally Dany has also burnt people.

Sure one can see where Cressen and Davos were coming from in their attempts to kill Melisandre. But their reasons are mitigations, not justifications.

In the end, much of the case against Melisandre rests solely on assumptions as to her motives. These assumptions may be right, but they may equally be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wildling,

In the end, much of the case against Melisandre rests solely on assumptions as to her motives.

I assume her motive is to win the war against the Great Other, to glorify R'hllor, and to spread the R'hllorian faith. I also think she's a dangerous zealot who will cause more harm than good in her folly.

I don't think it matters what you assume her motives are. Whether they're good or bad, she's still leading Stannis into bad decisions that will ultimately destroy him (does anyone really think he'll survive the series?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it matters what you assume her motives are. Whether they're good or bad, she's still leading Stannis into bad decisions that will ultimately destroy him (does anyone really think he'll survive the series?)

It does matter, because will his death save Westeros, or will it only in some way serve Mellisandre. In the first part Mel (and Stannis) are heroes, in the last part Mel is bad, and Stannis a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought I'd see the day where Happy Ent would defend such a wanton tree burner so vociferously. Would somebody please think of the saplings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does matter, because will his death save Westeros, or will it only in some way serve Mellisandre.

I am fairly sure the answer is, "Neither." He is not Azor Ahai reborn. Melisandre believes he is, and will continue to convince him of this until he dies (probably after killing his own daughter). And his death won't really be necessary, and it certainly won't be part of the prophecy -- if it does any good, it's inadvertent and not what Melisandre intended.

I think Melisandre is misguided. I think she's a zealot. I don't harbor conspiracy theories that she's really on the side of the Others or anything of that sort. But the fact that she honestly believes her interpretations of prophecy and the roles of Stannis and herself in it doesn't change the fact that she's wrong and dangerous because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Melisandre is misguided. I think she's a zealot. I don't harbor conspiracy theories that she's really on the side of the Others or anything of that sort. But the fact that she honestly believes her interpretations of prophecy and the roles of Stannis and herself in it doesn't change the fact that she's wrong and dangerous because of it.

Thus you really think that Melisandre thinks her leeches, Lightbringer and Azor Ahai are really what she says they are? In that case, why does she drain the true hero?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roi,

Thus you really think that Melisandre thinks her leeches, Lightbringer and Azor Ahai are really what she says they are?

She thinks Azor Ahai is what she says it is. I am certain she really is convinced that Stannis is Azor Ahai.

She believes that what she did with a sword satisfies the need for Azor Ahai to have Lightbringer.

The leeches were outright flimflammery which she had to use (in her mind) to convince the promised prince to take the course she is absolutely certain must be taken (she still believes this course must be taken -- Davos only thwarted her in the short term).

She is irrevocably wedded to beliefs that require her to lie, to manipulate, and to kill in pursuit of those beliefs, and she believes this good and just.

She is, in other words, a zealot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it matters what you assume her motives are. Whether they're good or bad, she's still leading Stannis into bad decisions that will ultimately destroy him (does anyone really think he'll survive the series?)

I have noticed a very doom-and-gloom feeling surrounding Stannis on the boards for a long time. I have certainly developed the opinion that Stannis' days are numbered, but it comes more from the suggestion of posters rather than from my own feelings from reading the books.

I have always thought Stannis is a really interesting and essential character. Not necessarily the most likeable, but the books are much better for him. I've always loved the Davos chapters for this reason, even if the Davos character is a bit bland.

If you are all correct, I hope Stannis makes it a ways and doesn't go on page 350 of ADwD.

One more thing. If Stannis is the true and proper king of Westeros if we're being technical, then should he fall, who does the crown belong to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also believe that she is a zealot. And, as we have seen numerous times IRL zealotry often results in outcomes that are counter to the doctrines of said belief. Aside from a ‘gut feeling’ about Mel’s nature there is one thing that really puts her righteousness in jeopardy in my opinion…

Renly’s last word: “Coldâ€

I just find it odd that a victim of the power of someone associated with fire would feel cold at the moment of his death. Might this be a hint at her true nature, or just a foreshadow of what her power/actions will do (or usher in) regardless of her intentions or what side she believes she's on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing. If Stannis is the true and proper king of Westeros if we're being technical, then should he fall, who does the crown belong to?

Shireen, obviously. After that, it would probably be up for grabs. Edric Storm might make a convenient replacement, in that he's definitely Robert's child and raised in court rather than, say, Flea Bottom. But he has no inherent rights to inherit. Stannis next closest legitmate living relative that isn't on his mother's side is probably Dany herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear me Roar,

but it comes more from the suggestion of posters rather than from my own feelings from reading the books.

I always found this statement from Stannis to be rather suggestive -- and Stannis seems to consider it similarly suggestive:

"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning ... burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody minded Umber being a zealous or bad since he was cheering our favourite hero. Mel is CONVINCED Stannis is the one and we know she is wrong because we have much more info available than she. And her burning people must also be considered in context to their (medieval) society. Like she (and tywin) said: sacrificing one child to save all the others can be morally defended. the fact that this one burning one matter (we BELIEVE) doesn't change the fact that she is willing to fight the enemy and back the rightful king.

and zealous people never question their own visions (by definition they are not clear headed and cannot reason logical) ...

I hope she is the new POV !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect Stannis to survive the series, but I do expect that his death will be a meaningful sacrifice in the war.

Heck, Stannis and Mel has already made a meaningful contribution. Since I believe Jon will be crucial in winning the war. And if Melissandre does not use her magic to kill Renly, Stannis would almost certainly have been killed in the following battle, and there would be no army who shows up in time to save Jon from certain death in Mance's camp.

In other words. No shadowbaby, dead Jon Snow, and victory for the Others.

Which leads me to believe that if Mel is misinterpreting prophecies, her misinterpretations are exactly what's needed to bring about real prophecy. Kinda like Rhaegar misinterpreting prophecies. If he doesn't try to bring about the prophecy, there is no abduction of Lyanna, no War of the Usurper, and no Dany in Dothraki hatching dragons. So both Mel and Rhaegar were crucial in fulfilling the prophecy, just not the parts they thought they were playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says Renly wouldnt have heeded the advice of the NW and sent reinforcements, or lost the war? Without the Lannisters in power at that time maybe the Red Wedding would have not taken place and the North alot more secure. It seems the more you chase a prophecy the more doom you bring upon your own head like Rhaegar and Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×