Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    At this point I’m starting to believe that this is probable.
  3. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    Hmmm. Would that take the Ned right past the Martells. And Mamma Martell seems to have been exiled after delivering a true heir in Quentyn?
  4. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    Quite possibly. But it seems like it might be the most complicated one.
  5. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    And now, is it possible that Quaithe has given us the formula to figure out exactly whose child is whose? Or do we still have too many kids?
  6. rocksniffer

    Acrophobia #37: Tourists! Come See My Beautiful Kingdom!!

    ok less ambivalent today...in fact i agree with this...the first part we do regularly when we have a larger group of entries, voting for 4 vs 3 with 3rd and 4th getting 1 point... and upon reflection i agree giving equal points does defeat the purpose... ...that is all
  7. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    Now I’m adding the Martells to the list. Was Arianne paranoid or not? Maybe Arianne is NOT actually the true heir.
  8. Lord Varys

    How should 'House of the Dragon' go?

    I don't think they would have to go that far back, but George's own narrative structure is that 'the root of all evil', i.e. the ultimate cause of the Dance of the Dragons, begins with the succession of Jaehaerys I, namely with the Great Council of 101 AC. On the conceptual/symbolic level there is no doubt that it taking place at Harrenhal is no coincidence - George puts it there to give the reader the opportunity to interpret the succession/the Realm itself and House Targaryen as 'cursed' - just as the Tourney of Harrenhal in the Year of the False Spring also 'cursed' all attendants/the Realm as such, laying the groundwork for Robert's Rebellion and setting things in motion that continue to plague Westeros even during the main series. In that sense I'm all for this being the natural starting point. It would mean they would have to take their time to get to the Dance, but how broad a narrative the Dance has to be is actually another question. We certainly don't need the entire Ironborn/Westerlands story to make sense of it. In fact, aside from some crucial campaigns/locations (Riverlands campaigns, Hightower army and eventual Tumbleton, Kingsroad in the end) there is not much campaigning outside of the Crownlands to be shown - much more important would be the personal stories of the core cast and how the war affects them.
  9. rocksniffer

    Acrophobia 36 - Gone Fishin' - FINAL BONUS ROUND!!

    you will be good at it, Rhaeny...
  10. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    I think the careful reader will only conclude it is a possibility (and to be fair, R+L=J remains a possibility to this day).  Hmmm. Maybe we need to add more pieces to the puzzle. The Lannister’s are involved in this somehow as well. Don’t forget the dreams of Jaime and Cersei. Does that mean that we should be adding them to the mix as well? And what of Tyrion dreaming of Dragons. Just how many people are we locking together into a room now? And how many times does this occur. To me, looking back I can see at least twice. Which is now making me wonder about the legitimacy of Brandon Stark, the original too. Wow. What a tangled web among all of these people. No wonder there are so many clues. Think of how many babies there are in each generation around the same age. And apparently who you live with or are married to has absolutely no impact on the child’s parents or where they are raised.
  11. If you do have them and need them to defend yourself then you're most likely still in a world of trouble... If they break the law, arrest them. The US has no problem arresting vast numbers of drug users who aren't willing to give those up! There might be a lengthy process to buy a new gun, but you've just said you support private sales that bypass all that. Though if there were no sales of new guns, the supply to the second hand market would shrink drastically. Travelling to the next state over is hardly a major imposition on criminals who want guns; state-level restrictions are basically worthless. And it's easy enough for sellers to avoid provably knowing things about their customers! I would assume gun shops are not a good place to carry out private sales, since the shop owner is likely to take a dim view of competitors operating on their premises!
  12. Lyanna<3Rhaegar

    On Janos Slynt

    Jon didn't kill Janos because of what he might do in the future. This has already been explained a couple times in this thread. He was executed for insubordination. The reason he was executed & not given a lesser punishment is because Jon deduces these lesser punishments will only cause more issues.
  13. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    This is why we all need more sleep.
  14. DMC

    The Crown Season 3 [Spoilers]

    So I watched all but the season finale by the end of last night/early morning. Now I'm pretty depressed I only got one left! I think Menzies comes off much more likeable than Smith, but I'm not sure if that's due to how the character is being written. I mean, the overarching storyline of season 2 was them being on the verge of divorce (if they could), and that was in large part to due Show Philip's major douchebaggery. They've toned that down considerably this season, which reflects the characters maturing. Also enthusiastically agree with you and Helena that it is very refreshing to see HBC in a great role as it seems she's spent the past twenty years in weird Burton roles/Bellatrix Lestrange.
  15. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    Well, you can’t blame Dorne. They at least attempted to bring her back. Even if they did get a bit burnt in the process. You’re a lot more patient than I am. I’m still on the fence about reading Winds if and when it comes out. I honestly never read much fantasy period. Always thought I didn’t like it. Turns out that was just LotR. Still, that was the whole reason that I wound up finding Westeros. I wanted to see if anyone else had seen RLJ coming. Turns out many had. Which is the exact reason I believe it is NOT the answer. Especially with the comments we have received from both GRRM and his wife.... I’m really hoping that the books end differently than the show. Otherwise I would be disappointed. It’s a very unsurprising ending for someone who claims to like to surprise and delight his fans. Could be that there are two separate events surrounding the same thing. Kinda seems like we might have that cycle on repeat throughout the books. That’s why I believe there to be echoes or ripples. I mean so far I have found a minimum of 9 occurrences of a mother being in a tower. And at least three occurrences of the fight against the squires. Seems there must be a reason for the repetition. I believe that it might be to show the reader that everything can be altered by our own choices. I mean looking at it all, doesn’t it maybe seem more practical that we might be looking at Ned+Ashara=Brienne (our most prevalent on screen bastard, who happens to live on an island Ned would need to pass to get to KL) And a separate occurrence of ALJ? Wouldn’t that make sense of all of the current clues as well?
  16. This is true of any law. If the fact that criminals will commit crimes serves to undermine the value of the law, we’d have no laws. The advantages to being able to actually take guns away from/punish anyone using them greatly outweighs the value of being able to Die Hard your way out of an encounter with an armed criminal. Barring Wild West scenarios where we’re all walking around strapped and ready to rumble...a myth, btw, and even the in the Wild West they often outlawed guns in town because it was self-evidently the problem...criminals undertaking violent crime are always going to have an advantage over you, and your carrying a gun really only makes you more likely to die. Bank guards are killed far more often than customers during bank robberies, for example.
  17. I don't think things would have gone that differently. If Aegon III, Viserys, Baela, Rhaena, and Jaehaera had all died in 131 AC, then chances are pretty good that Alyn Velaryon and Cassandra Baratheon would have been put on the throne by the Sea Snake. The dragons were effectively gone by that time, anyway, and there were tendencies for secession anywhere. How stable such a dynasty would have been cannot really be said, perhaps things would have deteriorated much further, perhaps such a new dynasty descended from the Targaryens would have produced some really great kings. We have no way to know.
  18. Lord Varys

    On Janos Slynt

    That isn't the point. The point is that we don't know how exactly Jon made up his mind about what to do when Slynt (as had been expected) would refuse the order to go. Because it is crystal clear the decision to hang him then was not made on the fly but is basically something Jon and his inner circle had agreed on before. In fact, the entire scene is obviously written as a variation of Ned's execution. Slynt was part of a setup to execute Ned, having been briefed by somebody before what to do when King Joffrey would command to execute Eddard Stark rather than pardoning him, and a similar thing happens to Slynt now. Sure, Slynt isn't set up the way Ned was, but the author creates a scenario where he is fed his own medicine. And it is also quite clear that Jon gave Slynt the chance Slynt himself never gave Ned. I'd not be so quick to condemn Slynt for pointing out that Jon is a beastling freak - wargs and skinchangers are not popular in Westeros, neither beyond the Wall nor in the Seven Kingdoms. Jon himself doesn't like what he is because his culture doesn't like that. Slynt certainly misjudges how skinchangers are seen this close to the Wall, but one assumes he only expresses a sentiment there that's shared by the average Kingslander. Hanging certainly is seen as a more cruel execution method than beheading (that is why nobles get beheading, while lowborn scum get hanged) - and the original plan of Jon's was to hang Slynt. I'm not saying Jon was not well within his rights to execute Slynt for talking back at him - apparently he was. I'm merely pointing out that this kind of 'justice' is closer to, say, Jon's granddad burning Jon's uncle (allegedly) because he demanded that Jon's father 'come out and die' - which I'd say was somewhat of an overreaction to, if it truly was the reason why Brandon was killed - than, you know, a measured way at doing justice. Edd and Emmett are in on the plot. They know what to do. They are there with Jon so they go through with the execution if there is going to be one. And Thorne realizes this - he realizes Jon is prepared to have him killed, too, should he interfere. Jon is not making the decision to execute Slynt spontaneously, just as he doesn't spantaneously give the speech he gives in the Shieldhall. Not sure I'll still be around when TWoW is coming out. Got some health problems. Jon had a rudimentary power base in the Watch but, like Ned, he sent away all those men who could have helped him, who could have warned him, most importantly, protected him from the men who murdered him. In the end he is pretty much alone. I'd also be very surprised if TWoW would give as a lot of talk about the size of Jon's power base or the knowledge various tertiary characters had on the assassination of Jon's politics in general. The book is hopefully moving the plot along, not dwelling the past. No, we are not there when he makes the plan for the confrontation. And George never gives us all the thoughts and motivations of a character, especially not when there are those weirdo time jumps. We still don't know how much Haldon told Tyrion and what he figured out himself. Oh, we can certainly agree on the fact that Jon wouldn't have called his guards in to drag Sam out to the Wall to hang him there had he told him he could go fuck himself with his order to send him to Oldtown early on in ADwD. He would have thrown him out of his office. Then he would have talked to him again and again ... and when he had remained defiant he would have started to punish him. But he wouldn't have executed his best friend for something like that. The very thought of it is ridiculous. I mean, you are also aware that Jon wants Sam as his maester, right? He is a valuable resource - Slynt could that be, too, but in Slynt case Jon doesn't give enough about Slynt's possible worth in relation to his desire to see him death in combination with Slynt being insubordinate. I have no big issue with that. I'm just saying he could also sent home the fact that he was the guy in charge in less lethal manner. There are so many ways in a medieval justice system to break a person that you don't have drag out the block or the noose all the time. Jon could have taken Slynt's tongue, putting an end to him talking back. That kind of thing very effectively establish dominance. He could have given him a beating, he could have publicly humiliated him, etc. And if that hadn't worked he could have taken his head. There was no need to rush things, was there? And I certainly maintain that Jon was sending Slynt's buddies (and other people having doubts about him) the wrong message there. There is an all-or-nothing element there. A 'you are with me or you are dead' kind of thing, that cannot be that great in an order like the NW. The lord commander is neither a proper lord, nor a king. He doesn't own the Wall the way the lords own their castles and lands, he just administers it. And he is chosen by his brothers - who remain his brothers after his election. He is not their stern father and they his obedient children, he is still a brother among brothers. Sure. And even if they were defying him in public in a straightforward manner - they are his friends while Slynt is one of the murderers of his father (and a guy who wanted to see him dead, too). There is a difference there. A difference that did and should influence Jon's decision-making process. He is not a machine. He may have punished that one more harshly, but executing him? No, I don't see that. I actually think Jon sort of missed the point about Aemon's counsel, by the way. Egg was already a man grown when he became king, whatever boy he had to kill was likely some carefree, mischievous side - him having fun with his children and his wife, him hanging out with the commoner friends he may have made during his travels (aside from Dunk), him taking on course that were, compared to the common good of the Realm and its people, pretty insignificant, etc. But Aegon V did not banish/send away the men he needed to rule when he took the throne. He did not send away Dunk, for starters (a man who could easily have become a liability considering he was once his knightly master and may have still viewed Egg as the boy he trained rather than the king he had to serve). Meaning that, by comparison, that it certainly was right for Jon to no longer joke and hang out with his buddies, but not necessarily right to send them away. Instead some sort of middle ground could have worked nicely - making Pyp and Grenn Jon's bodyguards, squires, attendants, whatever - a position where they could continue their friendship under the changed circumstances. I'd say there were alternatives to killing to establish that authority. But in principle I certainly agree. A public insult demanded severe punishment. See above. I meant the decision-making for the setup/plan what to do if Slynt refuses again. I think he definitely decides to switch to beheading and does it himself because of the Stark thing - not because he finds Lord Janos deserves the death of a nobleman. You only kill a person because you want to - especially if you do it with your own hands. The framework of this shitty society is no excuse. One can say that toxic nobility/honor easily pushes people to points where they think they have not other choice - but they do have such choices. Just as Tytos Lannister. And we don't have to take those thoughts as 'the truth'. Especially since they do not account for other possibilities Jon doesn't think about - like, as I said, a good beating, cutting out of his tongue (which certainly would put a stop his talking; and not many men at the Watch could read what he may write). Because such things do not happen in a vacuum. The whole thing was a show of force and meant as such - and I don't think it is completely ineffective there. I just also think it sent the message to Slynt's followers and friends that everything Slynt said about the guy is right. In a way, Jon is Cersei there, giving credence to Stannis' lie by persecuting the people who repeat it. It is not a completely accurate analogy because something had to be done about Slynt - and I think those men who were not working with Slynt got the right message (i.e. Jon's friends and the neutral brothers). But it certainly could - and likely did - harden the hearts of the others. I mean, who knows? Perhaps Marsh wouldn't have considered murdering Jon had he not had the image that Jon might take his head, too, were he to push him too far. I think I have a pretty nuanced view of Jon. I actually find his character more interesting right now than I did in the past (ADwD's Jon was a huge letdown for me, both because of the end and Jon's overall stupidity in the book) because there are rather interesting themes and conflicts addressed with this character. I found him becoming Lord Commander a great idea (and I'd also have liked to see him as Lord of Winterfell when Stannis made him that offer) and, the arrow nonsense aside, I find the Jon chapters about the battle of Castle Black to be among the most gripping chapters in ASoS (the best dialogue scene is Lysa's rambling monologue in Sansa's last chapter, though), but I don't really think the character was well-used in ADwD. I mean, George really spent a lot of time telling us that Jon is the smart one. He is more perceptive than Robb, he can think, and he is pretty smart in the earlier books, and then he is just such a letdown in ADwD. The point is that feudal politics can, essentially, be reduced to favoritism. If you get into high office you ensure your family and friends profit from your success. That's how this is done, that's how noble families acquire and remain in power. Jon was chosen as a compromise candidate. He wasn't a favorite of the Watch, he was the surprise guy they came up with when they could not elect one of the people who should have been chosen. That is a pretty weak position to start with - meaning you should erode the power of the establishment - which are basically all the other officers Jon confirms rather than replace them - by putting your own men in high places. Jon is a favorite of the young gang - most of his fellow recruits as well as those who came after him worship him. That would be the people he could turn to - in addition to those who he also befriended like Edd, Emmett, etc. And Jon does that later - but instead of realizing that it is not going to work to have both Marsh and Leathers as officers in the Watch, he thinks he can do both. That doesn't work. I didn't see the Jon murder coming at all. Honestly, I couldn't see that happening because I actually thought if Marsh were to betray Jon he would not only see that coming but he would actually prevent it. I mean, Robb was foolish enough to believe a house known for their desire to side with the winner would actually see any profit in restoring their alliance after the Blackwater. That was just stupidity and complacency - and then we get essentially the same thing from Jon, too. He talks to his officers and dismisses them and their opinions because he can predict what they would offer as advice - like it is enough for a politician to predict what you are told in conversation everyday when in fact you have to know what they are planning and doing what they are not saying to you. I think it certainly played a part in him deciding to make an example of Slynt. I'm not saying he looked forward to/wanted to kill him in any possible scenario - I just say he was prepared to kill if push came to shove. That was his plan there. Jon goes down a slippery slope. He sends a clear message to KL that he is Stannis' man and not willing to work with Tommen/the Lannisters. Slynt was their man, so killing Slynt certainly sent a message. And then he certainly does much more than he has to to help Stannis - I'm not saying that's wrong in principle (I'd have done the same), I just say it is not what a lord commander should be doing. The point here was just to illustrate that you judge people you like much better than people you don't like - which is part of the reason why the Westerosi justice system sucks pretty hard. I mean, Tywin sort of tries to keep appearances when he invites Oberyn as a judge in the Tyrion trial - which is an utter sham considering Tywin is Tyrion's own father and the late king's grandfather and Mace the father-in-law of the late king. I'm not saying Jon does a bad job at being partial to his own family and their cause - but as a black brother and eventually the Lord Commander he is rightfully held to other standards than the rest of them.
  19. Blue Eyed Wolf Girl

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    Yes. That definitely clears things up. Lmao. Do you have any references to support this conclusion?
  20. corbon

    Heresy 227 and the Great Turtle

    Even with that ... theory, there is no 'sands of Dorne' in Ned's past. Which is the reference you used. It was you who clearly referenced a path through Dorne that Ned took which we have no reference for or indication of. I am looking at the map, the canon one from ADwD that clearly shows the location of ToJ (so much for the Maegor's Holdfast theory!), and it does not show that the best way to Starfall is by sea. The sea is a long way away (literally as physically far as Starfall, assuming one must go through the pass to ether end before turning for the coast) and once there its a very long sail around. Its almost certain there are trails, even roads, in some places from one side of the N-S spine of the Red Mountains to the other, say between Kingsgrave and Blackmont, or Skyreach and High Hermitage. Then down the Torentine to Starfall. I noted the sands reference, and objected, because of the old, silly, 'no roses at ToJ because its too dry' argument. Which was repeatedly debunked in thorough detail yet never acknowledged. It looked like the same wrong head-canon operating.
  21. Today
  22. Centurion Piso

    Suppose that the Targaryens had died out with their dragons?

    Game of Thrones will be the first and the last book in the series. I can't imagine anybody wanting to buy the next book without the story of Daenerys, Viserys, and her dragons. I love the Targaryens and hate the Starks.
  23. Lord Varys

    Was Robert's Rebellion justified ?

    I'd say that the rebellion as such was very much justified - if what we know about the motivations at this point is accurate and it was indeed Aerys II's command to kill Ned and Robert that caused them to rebel, and Robert hadn't already made up his mind to call his banners because of what Rhaegar did as soon as he was back at Storm's End (which I find not unlikely). Making a new king over the dead bodies of the king's rightful - and innocent - heirs is another matter entirely. Deposing a cruel/mad king is fine, but the way to do that is to make the proper heir the next king (or at least some of his heirs who are not involved in his crimes - like all the children were) In fact, if you look at George's historical models for this kind of thing - the deposition and murder of Richard II by a guy who wasn't his immediate heir, say - then it is quite that the overall 'original sin' of the Baratheon dynasty is supposed to bite them in the ass.
  24. Centurion Piso

    Was Robert's Rebellion justified ?

    No. The rebellion was not justified. It created more problems for the present and the future. Westeros was better off under Aerys than it was under Robert. Jon Arryn was a moron for calling a rebellion that would kill hundreds of thousands of people. His reasons were not good. He should have sent Eddard and Robby to King's Landing in a shoe box. One shoe box.
  25. john

    His Dark Materials Series

    I was impressed by how Boreal bounced back from his car getting clamped to immediately getting hold of a Tesla. Tbh he seems very street smart, can use a smartphone and understand computers. You’d think he would know about urban parking restrictions. One other thing which reoccurred to me after 20 years - John Parry must have been really excited about changing his boring name for the new world - “Henceforth I shall be known as Stanislaus!”
  26. kissdbyfire

    On Janos Slynt

    Sigh. Jon didn’t execute Slynt because of what he might have done. He had to punish Slynt for his defiance and the utterly unacceptable behaviour of disobeying a direct order from his LC in a very public and nasty way. Jon ponders a few options, like confining Slynt in an ice cell or forcibly taking him to Greyguard, but in the end decides, correctly, that execution is the way to go. You know, because Slynt is blatantly defiant and insubordinate.
  27. sweetsunray

    On Janos Slynt

    He killed him for insubordination, for what he did already.
  1. Load more activity
×