Passages you personally feel most take the wrong way

[Pikachu101]

Jon's crypt dreams implies there's something in there to prove his legitimacy, when I first read that I was like WTF did that come from? :shocked:

The purpose of the crypt dreams was to show how much emotional pain Jon goes through every day because he knows he doesn't belong in WF with his trueborn siblings. It does not show there's "evidence" in the crypts <_<

[A Man Has Said]

I think the scene where Stannis finds out that Davos has spirited Edric Storm away to save him from being sacrificed by Mel is misconstrued by a lot of people. I don't know if it's 'most' without taking a survey. :P

My interpretation is that

1) Stannis has DEFINITELY decided that Edric is to be sacrificed. He's inquiring about his whereabouts and asking that he be 'fetched.'

2) He is FURIOUS with Davos for having thwarted his will.

He says, "Some would call it treason" and draws his sword as if to execute Davos there on the spot. Davos kneels.

Then the scene is suddenly defused by Davos reading the letter from the NW (by the light of 'Lightbringer.')

It's kind of left up in the air, and there's some small amount of wiggle room, but since it's one of the defining moments for THE most controversial character some are (I think) forcing another interpretation on it. Like Stannis hasn't really made up his mind on the issue of the sacrifice of an innocent child, and he's really grateful to Davos for keeping it from happening. I don't read it that way.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I think the scene where Stannis finds out that Davos has spirited Edric Storm away to save him from being sacrificed by Mel is misconstrued by a lot of people. I don't know if it's 'most' without taking a survey. :P

My interpretation is that

1) Stannis has DEFINITELY decided that Edric is to be sacrificed. He's inquiring about his whereabouts and asking that he be 'fetched.'

2) He is FURIOUS with Davos for having thwarted his will.

He says, "Some would call it treason" and draws his sword as if to execute Davos there on the spot. Davos kneels.

Then the scene is suddenly defused by Davos reading the letter from the NW (by the light of 'Lightbringer.')

It's kind of left up in the air, and there's some small amount of wiggle room, but since it's one of the defining moments for THE most controversial character some are (I think) forcing another interpretation on it. Like Stannis hasn't really made up his mind on the issue of the sacrifice of an innocent child, and he's really grateful to Davos for keeping it from happening. I don't read it that way.

Havent you heard about idubio pro stannis principle? In case of doubt you got to choose the way Stannis ends in better place.

[Night'sQueen]

Jon's crypt dreams implies there's something in there to prove his legitimacy, when I first read that I was like WTF did that come from? :shocked:

The purpose of the crypt dreams was to show how much emotional pain Jon goes through every day because he knows he doesn't belong in WF with his trueborn siblings. It does not show there's "evidence" in the crypts <_<

Thank you! Finally someone is talking sense.

I think the scene where Stannis finds out that Davos has spirited Edric Storm away to save him from being sacrificed by Mel is misconstrued by a lot of people. I don't know if it's 'most' without taking a survey. :P

My interpretation is that

1) Stannis has DEFINITELY decided that Edric is to be sacrificed. He's inquiring about his whereabouts and asking that he be 'fetched.'

2) He is FURIOUS with Davos for having thwarted his will.

He says, "Some would call it treason" and draws his sword as if to execute Davos there on the spot. Davos kneels.

Then the scene is suddenly defused by Davos reading the letter from the NW (by the light of 'Lightbringer.')

It's kind of left up in the air, and there's some small amount of wiggle room, but since it's one of the defining moments for THE most controversial character some are (I think) forcing another interpretation on it. Like Stannis hasn't really made up his mind on the issue of the sacrifice of an innocent child, and he's really grateful to Davos for keeping it from happening. I don't read it that way.

I would guess that most people read it the way you do, but there is a very vocal minority who opt to believe there is a question there.

[Pod The Impaler]

#1 -

I think the lines where Tyrion is threatening to Cersei that he would harm Tommen or Myrcella is pure trolling on his part. He loves them both means no such thing, but he wants to provoke Cersei, and since she's always treating him like a monster, she might as well fear him if that's the case.

As well, the part in ADWD where Tyrion muses about being allowed to rape and murder Cersei is also pretty much bullshit. He despises her, no doubt, and I can see him wanting to kill her, but I do not believe raping her is a desire he actually has. She disgusts him, so the only value his statement has is a sort of humourous quality where he pictures making her worst nightmare come true.

#2 -

Maybe this is a bit crackpot, but I think Darkstar's "I am of the night" may have been his cynical sense of humour: To him, the other Dayne's are such paladin-ish "good guys" that being considered the family's bad apple, if they're of the light (epitomized by Dawn), then he is ... (well, you know). I'm not convinced that he honestly thinks of himself in the most pretentiously goth terms.

Dany's last chapter of ADWD is a huge one for me.

I think everyone can agree that it's a definite turning point for her in terms of her mentality and her priorities. But I see a lot of people fist-pumping it as something positive. I see it as the opposite — she has tried and failed to be the tree-planter, and now she's going to try her hand at being the dragon, and dragons plant no trees. This just strikes me as her setting down the path of destruction and conquest, which is one thing, but I can't fathom how anyone can read it and come away thinking that, if her mentality doesn't continue to change, she'll end up being a hero or an effective or good queen.

It may be that she comes back more destructive or hard-hearted, but whether in her situation that is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

The Hound telling Arya he should have raped Sansa. If he had wanted to rape her, he would have. There was no one to stop him. He is trying to goad Arya into killing him with that statement.

Aye, there's another.

[Jon of the Dead]

Dany's prophecy of "bride of fire", I think many people are reading way too much into it. It literally says "bride", as in 3 husbands. Hizdahr is her 2nd husband, I'm pretty sure he's the corpse in the ship.

[mindchap]

I think the scene where Stannis finds out that Davos has spirited Edric Storm away to save him from being sacrificed by Mel is misconstrued by a lot of people. I don't know if it's 'most' without taking a survey. :P

My interpretation is that

1) Stannis has DEFINITELY decided that Edric is to be sacrificed. He's inquiring about his whereabouts and asking that he be 'fetched.'

2) He is FURIOUS with Davos for having thwarted his will.

He says, "Some would call it treason" and draws his sword as if to execute Davos there on the spot. Davos kneels.

Then the scene is suddenly defused by Davos reading the letter from the NW (by the light of 'Lightbringer.')

It's kind of left up in the air, and there's some small amount of wiggle room, but since it's one of the defining moments for THE most controversial character some are (I think) forcing another interpretation on it. Like Stannis hasn't really made up his mind on the issue of the sacrifice of an innocent child, and he's really grateful to Davos for keeping it from happening. I don't read it that way.

I have to agree with you there, I mean Davos is already Hand, so he can't be drawing the sword to promote him again.

[Pikachu101]

Don't know if this counts but the quote: "Prince Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna and thousands died for it"

Basically the quote is saying Rhaegar caused the deaths of innocents because he liked some chick, but the only thing fans saw is how romantically tragic the whole thing is.

Are you serious?

[A Man Has Said]

Havent you heard about idubio pro stannis principle? In case of doubt you got to choose the way Stannis ends in better place.

Haha! I thought it was more the George RR Martin, "Keep 'em guessing" principle. He really likes to write things that can be interpreted more than one way, and leave it up to the reader. People trying to prove a point by referring to one of his SSMs; it's like going into the briar patch after B'rer Rabbit.

Thank you! Finally someone is talking sense.

I would guess that most people read it the way you do, but there is a very vocal minority who opt to believe there is a question there.

Thank you. At least it confirms that I'm not the one trying to force an interpretation.

I have to agree with you there, I mean Davos is already Hand, so he can't be drawing the sword to promote him again.

The funny thing is that the chapter ends with Davos reading the letter by the light of the sword. Seconds before that he's kneeling obediently before Stannis expecting to be beheaded. Talk about keeping your cool under pressure! Who could not love Davos?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Dany's prophecy of "bride of fire", I think many people are reading way too much into it. It literally says "bride", as in 3 husbands. Hizdahr is her 2nd husband, I'm pretty sure he's the corpse in the ship.

I have the opposite approach. I think people take it too literally by interpreting it as three husbands. She's a "daughter of death," but isn't the actual daughter of any of the three people she sees (Viserys, Rhaegar and Rhaego), so why would bride be literal where daughter wasn't?

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I think it's kind of creepy and off putting, something that knocked Littlefinger down a peg. I don't like that he did it but I don't think it's wrong in the world they live in and I try to judge characters based on their culture, not by my modern morality.

Cultural Relativism yet again? I don't give LF any excuse because of it. It's the same as saying Robert/Cersei was not rape because they were married, and In medieval times, It would not be considered rape. I don't think we really can justify his behavior there.

[Jon of the Dead]

I have the opposite approach. I think people take it too literally by interpreting it as three husbands. She's a "daughter of death," but isn't the actual daughter of any of the three people she sees (Viserys, Rhaegar and Rhaego), so why would bride be literal where daughter wasn't?

It's a possibility, I admit. But there's a difference, however small, and it's that she didn't see her father or mother with the "daughter of death" thingy, but the "bride of fire" starts with Drogo, so it could signal a pattern.

But yes, it may not be as straight-forward, who knows. I like other theory I read about all the people she loved being burned or being killed by fire. My money is still on Hizdahr, though. Vic said he would kill him.

[Dr. Pepper]

There are several passages that characters interpret one way that some in the fandom agree with that I think are often interpreted the wrong way. Especially when the character doing the interpreting has a history of poor understanding or knowledge.

My main one is "the dragon has three heads" thingamajig. First, Rhaegar got shit wrong wrt prophecies several times. Second, Dany is known for her ignorance about Targ and Westeros history. It seems so strange to automatically agree with them about what the three-headed dragon means. I don't think this is three different people. The leading candidates for the three different people have little foreshadowing for working harmoniously for the same cause, which is what the imgaery of a three headed dragon represents. Even when Dany and Jorah discuss Aegon and his sister-wives as the original, it's three people of one unified unit and working harmoniously towards one goal. I think any prophecy about a three-headed dragon meant to identify one single figure with three 'heads'.

There are some others. In general, when a character says specifically, "X is Y" I tend to have some disbelief and I think those in the fandom who support the theory "X is Y" simply because a character said so are wrong more often than not.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It's a possibility, I admit. But there's a difference, however small, and it's that she didn't see her father or mother with the "daughter of death" thingy, but the "bride of fire" starts with Drogo, so it could signal a pattern.

But yes, it may not be as straight-forward, who knows. I like other theory I read about all the people she loved being burned or being killed by fire. My money is still on Hizdahr, though. Vic said he would kill him.

You sure it's Drogo? It's her horse she sees, not his. If the blue rose "is" Jon and the corpse on the ship "is" whoever it is, then she should see Drogo's red stallion, not her silver mare. The silver mare "is" ... Dany herself.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I have the opposite approach. I think people take it too literally by interpreting it as three husbands. She's a "daughter of death," but isn't the actual daughter of any of the three people she sees (Viserys, Rhaegar and Rhaego), so why would bride be literal where daughter wasn't?

She's the daughter of death because the death of those three molded her in Daenerys Targaryen, Queen of Westeros, Mother of Dragons. She was "made" for them in the way that their deaths directly affected her. Dany's journey in AGOT is about self-discovering - And discovering she does not need a male figure in her life. Rhaegar's death, in his romanticized way, paved the way for the Targaryen's fall, and he was meant to be the last Dragon, as Dany believed. Viserys was the Heir and His notion that he was the last Dragon got him killed, and after that Dany put her faith that her child would be the Targaryen Dragon. When he died, Daenerys realized that herself was the hero, not any male figure in her life. The moment she entered that pyre, she died, or as in, the person that existed before died. She was reborn amongst Fire and Smoke, as Daenerys Targaryen, the last of her family, with her own claim to the throne, Mother of Dragons. That's why Rhaella and Aerys did not appear. At least that's my opinion.

As in Bride of Fire, It did start with her Silver, a gift from Khal Drogo, so It seemed more straightforward. He was obviously the husband she was meant to bed, as in, he was the first men she had to marry, and he made her grew from a young girl to a strong Khaleesi. The one to dread might be Victarion or Hizdahr, though I'm not sure which, and the last one (The one she'll love) is "A blue flower grew from a chink of a wall, and filled the air with sweetness." (The wall is probably the Wall, the blue flower is a good symbol to Winterfell, as the flower only grows there, and a reference to Lyanna Stark, that got her Crown for Queen of Love and Beauty, and grew seems to be as in someone that grew as a person there. To fill the air to sweetness, and the initial purpose ("To love") means It will be a good/positive relationship, probably a romantic one, as it does refers to romantic interests.), so for me It's pretty obvious.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

... At least that's my opinion.

Yeah OK. I think "mounts" are just that, mounts. Not anything sexual. Otherwise "mount to bed" is redundant. The "mount to bed" would be her silver that she rode to where she lost her virginity, "mount to dread" is probably a dragon, etc.

As to the rest of it, I'm sorry but my eyes glazed over.

As in Bride of Fire, It did start with Khal Drogo, so It seemed more straightforward.

Does it? Again, it's her horse she sees, not his.

ETA: This just reminds me that I think a lot of people completely misread the House of the Undying sequence.

[StannisBamfatheon]

House of the undying for me, not close. People have taken the vaguery and ambiguity of that passage and morphed it into some sort Dany deus ex machina prophecy. Slayer of lies= automatically queen of Westeros and going to kill Stannis and Aegon? Really guys? Really?

[Jon of the Dead]

You sure it's Drogo? It's her horse she sees, not his. If the blue rose "is" Jon and the corpse on the ship "is" whoever it is, then she should see Drogo's red stallion, not her silver mare. The silver mare "is" ... Dany herself.

She sees the place where she and Drogo consumated their marriage:

aGoT:

"Afterward she could not say how far or how long they had ridden, but it was full dark when they stopped at a grassy place beside a small stream."

aCoK:

"Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars."

It's the same place, it reminds her of Drogo. She wasn't married to her silver or to herself, so why on earth would that appeared in a prophecy that says "bride of fire"?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She sees the place where she and Drogo consumated their marriage:

aGoT:

"Afterward she could not say how far or how long they had ridden, but it was full dark when they stopped at a grassy place beside a small stream."

aCoK:

"Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars."

It's the same place, it reminds her of Drogo. She wasn't married to her silver or to herself, so why on earth would that appeared in a prophecy that says "bride of fire"?

I'm saying that you're reading "bride" too narrowly. Like I said, it's weird to me that people can accept a broader definition for "daughter of death" but think "bride of fire" can only refer to actual husbands.

[Jon of the Dead]

I'm saying that you're reading "bride" too narrowly.

Well, that's the only way I can see it making sense, because I honestly don't get your interpretation with the horse