|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On May 24 2011 05:21 Isengrim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 05:06 Naib wrote:On May 24 2011 02:34 Sevryn wrote:
When syrio talked about there only being one god and it being death did anyone else think he might be a faceless one? On May 24 2011 02:44 Jyvblamo wrote:
There's been serious speculation that Jaqen H'gar and Syrio are the same person, but I'm not sure I buy that. I do not think that plausible either. A more likely explanation is that (as hinted by Arya's stay in the "House of Black and White" in Braavos) braavosi all share beliefs in 'one god above all' - the Many-Faced God, who is death itself (just as Syrio says in episode 6 of the series). That's why Braavos has a temple for all the gods people worship - because they think they're sort of irrelevant, and their god stands above them all. On May 24 2011 04:06 Maginor wrote:
I wasn't talking about in-story characters, but about the viewers. But fair enough. I think Illyrio's motives are pretty obvious. He sees that the Targaryens have a small chance of taking back power, and if he was the one that helped them, he will be handsomely rewarded. He doesn't have that much to lose either. He invested some money in the venture, but it was probably little in relation to the wealth he posesses. Look at it as a high-risk/high-gain investment. When it comes to Varys, it is not that obvious. After all he aided Robert in trying to assassinate Daenerys. It may be that he wants to leave his options open so that whoever ends up in power, he can claim that he supported them from the beginning. Also, he claims to serve the realm, and maybe he actually thinks what is best for the realm is to have the Targaryens back in power to have a stable dynasty. I think saying "aided Robert trying to assasinate Daenerys" might not be that obvious. Yes, he nodded at the notion of the murder in the small council meeting, but do you really think if he wanted Dany dead, he'd have butchered it so carelessly? He's the master of whisperers after all. I think Varys' plan was a bit deeper than that. He wanted to act like he's not on Dany's side (which we know that he is, for some reason), and maybe speed up the dothraki invasion a bit ("delay, you say, make haste, I reply!") by angering Khal Drogo. I'm pretty sure he knows how dothraki ways are, and is able to manipulate them when he needs to. Another point to consider is that he's not that powerful, he can't state his opinions in the open. Maybe he didn't want to draw suspicions on himself, that's why he didn't speak up against Robert's idea? Remember, when Ned loses the conspiration game and gets killed off, Varys knows he can't save him (even though he would want to, as he's the honorable man he was looking for to help keeping the realm in one piece). The most he does is to make the arrangements to send Ned to the Wall, and even that gets shattered to pieces by the more powerful players of the game... I often wonder about Illyro. He gave Daenerys the dragons, sent her to Khal Drogo. Then later, he sent her Barristan to lead her queensguard. I don't think he's some merchant out for a payday if/when Dany sits on the Iron throne. Obviously this is just speculation, but I sense in the later books we'll find out that a lot of what's happened to Daenerys was planned out by forces unknown. As for Varys, I view him as a "true neutral" sort of character. He does what he does to keep the peace, without loyalty to any one side. And as things stand Daenerys is about the only chance at reuniting the seven kingdoms.
I have the same thoughts. As things stand now, Daenerys basically has a paved path to take over the Seven Kingdoms, with just a few ragtag armies that would stand in her way, and quite a bit that would potentially join forces with her. I could even see Stannis be willing to support her (but of course Melisandre is going to have nothing of that). Myrcella's claim to the Throne is a joke at this point; that particular storyline is going to get demolished by Dany (who now has the most powerful army + dragons); same with the Iron Islands mess.
All of this seems to be a bit too convenient. Illyrio and Melisandre seem to be the key players in the Seven Kingdoms, but what are their true goals? And what's with all of the walking dead south of the Wall? So far, we know that the Others can create wights, but now so can the Red Priests?
The Others have always kinda been the "final boss" type of bogeyman, the one final battle that will be fought with the combined armies of a united world, probably led by Dany, Jon and Tyrion (if he makes it that long; which he will at this point; his role as comic relief in the TV series guarantees him survival in the books). Somehow, this just doesn't jive with GRRM's style that we have seen thus far; I think that he has one more huge twist in store for us. I don't think that the Others / the "Lord of Darkness" are the final antagonists.
My 2 cents on this - there has been a gradual up-play of the various deities of the SoIaF universe. We know about the Old Gods, the Seven, the Fire God, the Death God, etc. If I remember correctly, the Seven basically overthrew the Old Gods, and the rest of the deities have been on the fringes. We can already see that they have real power. The Others are most likely the minions of the Old Gods (probably related to the Children). So, what do we really know about the other deities, besides the Red Priests of the Fire God and the Faceless of the Death God? Why is the Fire God suddenly becoming so much more prominent at the onset of winter? Are we perhaps going to have a showdown between Fire and Ice, with the Seven Kingdoms caught in the crossfire? Makes sense if you consider that the Fire God is essentially trying to take over the Seven Kingdoms to get an army (and Stannis beelined directly for the Wall as soon as he heard that it was in danger), and the Old Gods' strategy for increasing the size of their army is the creation of undead by invading human lands.
We already know that there is a graveyard of defeated gods in Vaes Dorthak, but who is really defeating them?
|
On May 24 2011 03:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 02:51 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:57 Skilledblob wrote:On May 24 2011 00:54 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:40 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 00:30 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:24 1Eris1 wrote:On May 23 2011 23:24 Conquest101 wrote:
Hoh boy, it's been a long time since I've posted.
I find myself wanting to defend the Starks as well. Robb's "mistake" was being too honorable if anything. While grief-stricken over his brothers' deaths, he slept with Jeyne Westerling, who was taking care of him (IIRC he got wounded by a crossbow when taking the Crag). Instead of going "oh hey, thanks for that, peace out", he chose to do the "honorable" thing and marry her. That, of course, led to the whole downward spiral culminating in the Red Wedding.
And you can't really say that anything Sansa or Arya did was evil. Misguided, sure, but not evil.
Also, speaking of Arya, she'd better not be permanently blind, or I'm going to rage. They are not evil, they merely commited evil acts. This goes for for some of the lannisters too. Jaime doesnt push Bran out the window because he's evil he does it for "love". Its really no different then arya killing a young guard so she can escape. The only evil people, are guys like gregor clegane who commit evil acts solelyy for amusement or pleasure I'm curious to know what explanation you will have to explain how Cersei act with Lancel, how she act with Qyburn or how Tywin act with Shae and the previous lover of Tyrion. Im not arguing that all the lannisters are good, just like not all starks are. Tywin is probably evil, ill give you that, but cersei is borderline. The only person that loves her is the one person she cant be with, thats gotta be frustrating. Couple that with being a strong willed woman in a male dominated society and you start to pity her Then tell me which Starks are bad ? Every time they killed it wasto survive/ for revenge / for power. and the lannisters are different? So murdering the whore of Tyrion is for survive revenge or power ? Killing a bunch of Night Guards is for power ? Using Lancel as a sexual substitution while Jaime is away, while having the intention to kill him as soon as Jaime come back is certainely to survive... Come on... Don't you see any difference ? I don't think anyone will argue that Tywin is a good guy, but you can't just lump the Lannisters together in one big pot labeled evil. Yes, cersei and jaime have done bad things, but they've also done good things, same as certain Starks. It's not that black and white. They are very few Wholey Good characters in this book and most of them are dead or not main characters. And I don't believe Cersei ever actually said she was going to murder Lancel, I believe that was just something Tyrion was speculating. I'd rather think you're the one too blind to see how the book was written. As it is right now, Tyrion has decided to rise against his own familly and help Daenerys while Jaime also decided to turn the head and forget about his sister. And they did that because, and since the beginning, they had remorse about what they did for Cersei / Tywin / the Lannisters. Using corpses as test subjects is not "evil" ? I'm not saying they're all "bad", like they are dark sith or something, of course it's not that easy, but they were what was closer to the main vilain during the first two books, except for Tyrion who was more or less hated by everyone in his familly except Jaime (who was non existent during the entire second book, in cell). Now sure they are changing, since Martin killed all his PoV or made them useless to the main storyline, but saying they are, since the beginning, just the "opponent" of the Starks is absolutly wrong. The first two books were written so that you take the side of Tyrion (who said he liked Jon Snow / Robert Baratheon / Ned Stark and hated Cersei / Tywin) and the whole Stark familly. That's how Martin explain the way he whrite : he makes it in a way that you take the side of the PoV. PoV of the first 2 books : Jon Sansa Arya Catelyn Bran Ned Tyrion Daenerys Davos Theon All of them are ennemies of the Lannister (yes Tyrion is too, he hate his sister / tywin more than Robert or Ned, just keep by their side because of his sense of the familly). It's actually the only thing they all have in common. Edit: I added Theon, which I had forgot like a noob, thx to my fellow TLer.
Arguing based on POV is kinda silly. To, Eddard the Lannisters are evil. To the Lannisters, the Starks are the bad ones. We see it from the point of the Starks view first, but that does not mean the Lannisters are evil.
You can't simply say. Books 1-2: Lannisters are bad. Books 3-4: Lannisters are suddenely nicer people. They are the same people, + a few events, but you understand the concept.
Yes, the Lannisters are probably crueler overall, but I'd argue thats a result of suffering. If you compare the families, the Starks haven't really faced hardship in the beginning of book 1, besides from Eddard. The Lannisters all have, be it losing friends, being mocked, losing loved ones, being short, etc etc. And Ned's suffering is related in a direct line to a few specific individuals, who are now dead, so he's less likely to take it out on others. And guess what, as the Starks suffer, they start to do more radical and less good acts.
I like the Starks more personally, but it's not because of good/evil, but personailty rather. I don't think GRRM wanted the book to be Starks vs Lannisters with some Dragon girl on the side. It's a lot more complicated than that, and I think each individual reader maps out his own thoughts
|
On May 24 2011 06:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 03:31 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 02:51 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:57 Skilledblob wrote:On May 24 2011 00:54 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:40 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 00:30 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:24 1Eris1 wrote:On May 23 2011 23:24 Conquest101 wrote:
Hoh boy, it's been a long time since I've posted.
I find myself wanting to defend the Starks as well. Robb's "mistake" was being too honorable if anything. While grief-stricken over his brothers' deaths, he slept with Jeyne Westerling, who was taking care of him (IIRC he got wounded by a crossbow when taking the Crag). Instead of going "oh hey, thanks for that, peace out", he chose to do the "honorable" thing and marry her. That, of course, led to the whole downward spiral culminating in the Red Wedding.
And you can't really say that anything Sansa or Arya did was evil. Misguided, sure, but not evil.
Also, speaking of Arya, she'd better not be permanently blind, or I'm going to rage. They are not evil, they merely commited evil acts. This goes for for some of the lannisters too. Jaime doesnt push Bran out the window because he's evil he does it for "love". Its really no different then arya killing a young guard so she can escape. The only evil people, are guys like gregor clegane who commit evil acts solelyy for amusement or pleasure I'm curious to know what explanation you will have to explain how Cersei act with Lancel, how she act with Qyburn or how Tywin act with Shae and the previous lover of Tyrion. Im not arguing that all the lannisters are good, just like not all starks are. Tywin is probably evil, ill give you that, but cersei is borderline. The only person that loves her is the one person she cant be with, thats gotta be frustrating. Couple that with being a strong willed woman in a male dominated society and you start to pity her Then tell me which Starks are bad ? Every time they killed it wasto survive/ for revenge / for power. and the lannisters are different? So murdering the whore of Tyrion is for survive revenge or power ? Killing a bunch of Night Guards is for power ? Using Lancel as a sexual substitution while Jaime is away, while having the intention to kill him as soon as Jaime come back is certainely to survive... Come on... Don't you see any difference ? I don't think anyone will argue that Tywin is a good guy, but you can't just lump the Lannisters together in one big pot labeled evil. Yes, cersei and jaime have done bad things, but they've also done good things, same as certain Starks. It's not that black and white. They are very few Wholey Good characters in this book and most of them are dead or not main characters. And I don't believe Cersei ever actually said she was going to murder Lancel, I believe that was just something Tyrion was speculating. I'd rather think you're the one too blind to see how the book was written. As it is right now, Tyrion has decided to rise against his own familly and help Daenerys while Jaime also decided to turn the head and forget about his sister. And they did that because, and since the beginning, they had remorse about what they did for Cersei / Tywin / the Lannisters. Using corpses as test subjects is not "evil" ? I'm not saying they're all "bad", like they are dark sith or something, of course it's not that easy, but they were what was closer to the main vilain during the first two books, except for Tyrion who was more or less hated by everyone in his familly except Jaime (who was non existent during the entire second book, in cell). Now sure they are changing, since Martin killed all his PoV or made them useless to the main storyline, but saying they are, since the beginning, just the "opponent" of the Starks is absolutly wrong. The first two books were written so that you take the side of Tyrion (who said he liked Jon Snow / Robert Baratheon / Ned Stark and hated Cersei / Tywin) and the whole Stark familly. That's how Martin explain the way he whrite : he makes it in a way that you take the side of the PoV. PoV of the first 2 books : Jon Sansa Arya Catelyn Bran Ned Tyrion Daenerys Davos Theon All of them are ennemies of the Lannister (yes Tyrion is too, he hate his sister / tywin more than Robert or Ned, just keep by their side because of his sense of the familly). It's actually the only thing they all have in common. Edit: I added Theon, which I had forgot like a noob, thx to my fellow TLer. Arguing based on POV is kinda silly. To, Eddard the Lannisters are evil. To the Lannisters, the Starks are the bad ones. We see it from the point of the Starks view first, but that does not mean the Lannisters are evil. You can't simply say. Books 1-2: Lannisters are bad. Books 3-4: Lannisters are suddenely nicer people. They are the same people, + a few events, but you understand the concept. Yes, the Lannisters are probably crueler overall, but I'd argue thats a result of suffering. If you compare the families, the Starks haven't really faced hardship in the beginning of book 1, besides from Eddard. The Lannisters all have, be it losing friends, being mocked, losing loved ones, being short, etc etc. And Ned's suffering is related in a direct line to a few specific individuals, who are now dead, so he's less likely to take it out on others. And guess what, as the Starks suffer, they start to do more radical and less good acts. I like the Starks more personally, but it's not because of good/evil, but personailty rather. I don't think GRRM wanted the book to be Starks vs Lannisters with some Dragon girl on the side. It's a lot more complicated than that, and I think each individual reader maps out his own thoughts
This is a dumb post. The phrases "good" and "evil" simply do not apply to anything that has happened thus far in any of the books. The fact that you said that Eddard thinks someone is evil just says that this is not the only thing that you have misunderstood.
Everyone has their own agenda. It all boils down to this. In the beginning, things were fairly clear-cut, generally along family lines, but now, it's a big mess.
You are meant to identify with the Starks, as their dearly departed leader was one of the few "men of honor" in the story. This does not make his enemies evil, however.
|
On May 24 2011 07:00 Shaithis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 06:47 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 03:31 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 02:51 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:57 Skilledblob wrote:On May 24 2011 00:54 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:40 1Eris1 wrote:On May 24 2011 00:30 WhiteDog wrote:On May 24 2011 00:24 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
They are not evil, they merely commited evil acts. This goes for for some of the lannisters too. Jaime doesnt push Bran out the window because he's evil he does it for "love". Its really no different then arya killing a young guard so she can escape. The only evil people, are guys like gregor clegane who commit evil acts solelyy for amusement or pleasure I'm curious to know what explanation you will have to explain how Cersei act with Lancel, how she act with Qyburn or how Tywin act with Shae and the previous lover of Tyrion. Im not arguing that all the lannisters are good, just like not all starks are. Tywin is probably evil, ill give you that, but cersei is borderline. The only person that loves her is the one person she cant be with, thats gotta be frustrating. Couple that with being a strong willed woman in a male dominated society and you start to pity her Then tell me which Starks are bad ? Every time they killed it wasto survive/ for revenge / for power. and the lannisters are different? So murdering the whore of Tyrion is for survive revenge or power ? Killing a bunch of Night Guards is for power ? Using Lancel as a sexual substitution while Jaime is away, while having the intention to kill him as soon as Jaime come back is certainely to survive... Come on... Don't you see any difference ? I don't think anyone will argue that Tywin is a good guy, but you can't just lump the Lannisters together in one big pot labeled evil. Yes, cersei and jaime have done bad things, but they've also done good things, same as certain Starks. It's not that black and white. They are very few Wholey Good characters in this book and most of them are dead or not main characters. And I don't believe Cersei ever actually said she was going to murder Lancel, I believe that was just something Tyrion was speculating. I'd rather think you're the one too blind to see how the book was written. As it is right now, Tyrion has decided to rise against his own familly and help Daenerys while Jaime also decided to turn the head and forget about his sister. And they did that because, and since the beginning, they had remorse about what they did for Cersei / Tywin / the Lannisters. Using corpses as test subjects is not "evil" ? I'm not saying they're all "bad", like they are dark sith or something, of course it's not that easy, but they were what was closer to the main vilain during the first two books, except for Tyrion who was more or less hated by everyone in his familly except Jaime (who was non existent during the entire second book, in cell). Now sure they are changing, since Martin killed all his PoV or made them useless to the main storyline, but saying they are, since the beginning, just the "opponent" of the Starks is absolutly wrong. The first two books were written so that you take the side of Tyrion (who said he liked Jon Snow / Robert Baratheon / Ned Stark and hated Cersei / Tywin) and the whole Stark familly. That's how Martin explain the way he whrite : he makes it in a way that you take the side of the PoV. PoV of the first 2 books : Jon Sansa Arya Catelyn Bran Ned Tyrion Daenerys Davos Theon All of them are ennemies of the Lannister (yes Tyrion is too, he hate his sister / tywin more than Robert or Ned, just keep by their side because of his sense of the familly). It's actually the only thing they all have in common. Edit: I added Theon, which I had forgot like a noob, thx to my fellow TLer. Arguing based on POV is kinda silly. To, Eddard the Lannisters are evil. To the Lannisters, the Starks are the bad ones. We see it from the point of the Starks view first, but that does not mean the Lannisters are evil. You can't simply say. Books 1-2: Lannisters are bad. Books 3-4: Lannisters are suddenely nicer people. They are the same people, + a few events, but you understand the concept. Yes, the Lannisters are probably crueler overall, but I'd argue thats a result of suffering. If you compare the families, the Starks haven't really faced hardship in the beginning of book 1, besides from Eddard. The Lannisters all have, be it losing friends, being mocked, losing loved ones, being short, etc etc. And Ned's suffering is related in a direct line to a few specific individuals, who are now dead, so he's less likely to take it out on others. And guess what, as the Starks suffer, they start to do more radical and less good acts. I like the Starks more personally, but it's not because of good/evil, but personailty rather. I don't think GRRM wanted the book to be Starks vs Lannisters with some Dragon girl on the side. It's a lot more complicated than that, and I think each individual reader maps out his own thoughts This is a dumb post. The phrases "good" and "evil" simply do not apply to anything that has happened thus far in any of the books. The fact that you said that Eddard thinks someone is evil just says that this is not the only thing that you have misunderstood. Everyone has their own agenda. It all boils down to this. In the beginning, things were fairly clear-cut, generally along family lines, but now, it's a big mess. You are meant to identify with the Starks, as their dearly departed leader was one of the few "men of honor" in the story. This does not make his enemies evil, however.
Did you not read my post? Thats exactly what I'm arguing, that good/evil is not black and white at all, besides from a few specific individuals like Gregor, etc.
|
On May 24 2011 06:08 Shaithis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 05:21 Isengrim wrote:On May 24 2011 05:06 Naib wrote:On May 24 2011 02:34 Sevryn wrote:
When syrio talked about there only being one god and it being death did anyone else think he might be a faceless one? On May 24 2011 02:44 Jyvblamo wrote:
There's been serious speculation that Jaqen H'gar and Syrio are the same person, but I'm not sure I buy that. I do not think that plausible either. A more likely explanation is that (as hinted by Arya's stay in the "House of Black and White" in Braavos) braavosi all share beliefs in 'one god above all' - the Many-Faced God, who is death itself (just as Syrio says in episode 6 of the series). That's why Braavos has a temple for all the gods people worship - because they think they're sort of irrelevant, and their god stands above them all. On May 24 2011 04:06 Maginor wrote:
I wasn't talking about in-story characters, but about the viewers. But fair enough. I think Illyrio's motives are pretty obvious. He sees that the Targaryens have a small chance of taking back power, and if he was the one that helped them, he will be handsomely rewarded. He doesn't have that much to lose either. He invested some money in the venture, but it was probably little in relation to the wealth he posesses. Look at it as a high-risk/high-gain investment. When it comes to Varys, it is not that obvious. After all he aided Robert in trying to assassinate Daenerys. It may be that he wants to leave his options open so that whoever ends up in power, he can claim that he supported them from the beginning. Also, he claims to serve the realm, and maybe he actually thinks what is best for the realm is to have the Targaryens back in power to have a stable dynasty. I think saying "aided Robert trying to assasinate Daenerys" might not be that obvious. Yes, he nodded at the notion of the murder in the small council meeting, but do you really think if he wanted Dany dead, he'd have butchered it so carelessly? He's the master of whisperers after all. I think Varys' plan was a bit deeper than that. He wanted to act like he's not on Dany's side (which we know that he is, for some reason), and maybe speed up the dothraki invasion a bit ("delay, you say, make haste, I reply!") by angering Khal Drogo. I'm pretty sure he knows how dothraki ways are, and is able to manipulate them when he needs to. Another point to consider is that he's not that powerful, he can't state his opinions in the open. Maybe he didn't want to draw suspicions on himself, that's why he didn't speak up against Robert's idea? Remember, when Ned loses the conspiration game and gets killed off, Varys knows he can't save him (even though he would want to, as he's the honorable man he was looking for to help keeping the realm in one piece). The most he does is to make the arrangements to send Ned to the Wall, and even that gets shattered to pieces by the more powerful players of the game... I often wonder about Illyro. He gave Daenerys the dragons, sent her to Khal Drogo. Then later, he sent her Barristan to lead her queensguard. I don't think he's some merchant out for a payday if/when Dany sits on the Iron throne. Obviously this is just speculation, but I sense in the later books we'll find out that a lot of what's happened to Daenerys was planned out by forces unknown. As for Varys, I view him as a "true neutral" sort of character. He does what he does to keep the peace, without loyalty to any one side. And as things stand Daenerys is about the only chance at reuniting the seven kingdoms. I have the same thoughts. As things stand now, Daenerys basically has a paved path to take over the Seven Kingdoms, with just a few ragtag armies that would stand in her way, and quite a bit that would potentially join forces with her. I could even see Stannis be willing to support her (but of course Melisandre is going to have nothing of that). Myrcella's claim to the Throne is a joke at this point; that particular storyline is going to get demolished by Dany (who now has the most powerful army + dragons); same with the Iron Islands mess. All of this seems to be a bit too convenient. Illyrio and Melisandre seem to be the key players in the Seven Kingdoms, but what are their true goals? And what's with all of the walking dead south of the Wall? So far, we know that the Others can create wights, but now so can the Red Priests? The Others have always kinda been the "final boss" type of bogeyman, the one final battle that will be fought with the combined armies of a united world, probably led by Dany, Jon and Tyrion (if he makes it that long; which he will at this point; his role as comic relief in the TV series guarantees him survival in the books). Somehow, this just doesn't jive with GRRM's style that we have seen thus far; I think that he has one more huge twist in store for us. I don't think that the Others / the "Lord of Darkness" are the final antagonists. My 2 cents on this - there has been a gradual up-play of the various deities of the SoIaF universe. We know about the Old Gods, the Seven, the Fire God, the Death God, etc. If I remember correctly, the Seven basically overthrew the Old Gods, and the rest of the deities have been on the fringes. We can already see that they have real power. The Others are most likely the minions of the Old Gods (probably related to the Children). So, what do we really know about the other deities, besides the Red Priests of the Fire God and the Faceless of the Death God? Why is the Fire God suddenly becoming so much more prominent at the onset of winter? Are we perhaps going to have a showdown between Fire and Ice, with the Seven Kingdoms caught in the crossfire? Makes sense if you consider that the Fire God is essentially trying to take over the Seven Kingdoms to get an army (and Stannis beelined directly for the Wall as soon as he heard that it was in danger), and the Old Gods' strategy for increasing the size of their army is the creation of undead by invading human lands. We already know that there is a graveyard of defeated gods in Vaes Dorthak, but who is really defeating them?
I really don't see the story turning into some destiny/puppetmasters driven war between gods. GRRM has written highly critical blog posts of the endings of both the new Battlestar Galactica and Lost, he hates when human-driven stories are reduced to some external force overriding everything else. He loves his flawed characters making frustrating but realistic decisions and the consequences playing out. Religion historically has usually been a driving factor or justification in wars, conquests and cultural shifts. I think it is just part of GRRM's realistic and rich style to have religion playing a part.
|
On May 24 2011 06:08 Shaithis wrote:
We already know that there is a graveyard of defeated gods in Vaes Dorthak, but who is really defeating them?
That part is metaphorical. The Dothraki prove (to themselves at least) that their stallion god (and other gods? I don't recall their pantheon atm.) is superior to other people's gods by going out and conquering. They then take the defeated religious symbols back with them to Vaes Dothrak as proof of the conquest and superiority.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
Anyone knows exactly at which chapter/page the cliffhanger ends at? I just can't wait 2weeks... seriously I want to start reading the book from exactly the ending of episode 7, if you know either reply to me by pm or just post here. Thanks
|
On May 24 2011 08:12 Gunman_csz wrote:
Anyone knows exactly at which chapter/page the cliffhanger ends at? I just can't wait 2weeks... seriously I want to start reading the book from exactly the ending of episode 7, if you know either reply to me by pm or just post here. Thanks
"I did warn you not to trust me, you know" Page 529 of the US paperback. It is an Eddard chapter, and the next one is an (awsome) Arya chapter.
|
Ok, this might sound a little weird but reading these posts about the different religions reminded me of a few thoughts I had a few weeks back. This is just my speculation, and not a judgment call or anything, just bear with me. I am not a religious person, not at all.
To me, it seemed like the belief of the Seven, the "New Gods" (the most popular religion in the 'civilized' world) is a bit similar to Christianity - the Andals drew the first men from everywhere and forced their religion on them (except in the North where it didn't succeed), wiping out every other religion if possible (it's also hinted quite a few times that the people really look down to Stannis' newfound "faith" in R'hllor). However, it seems that this is the only really "fake" religion (as in it's gods do nothing really, only the priests take some power and wealth. Just see how corrupt the former High Septons were.)
Now, let's look at the other religions! It seems every last one of them is "true" to an extent: the Old Gods were the gods of the children of the forest, and they could do some real magic. The crannogmen are hinted to remember some of their ways (one might say Jojen is a living proof).
R'hllor's followers seem to have the gist of the eternal battle between darkness and light, too: the red priests clearly have some magical powers, so does Melisandre - and I guess I don't need to argue the fact that the "Nameless One" exists too, using the Others as his means to an end.
And then there's the braavosi religion, with their god of death...I'm not sure about this, but I think the power of the Faceless Men has to come from him...it's not a coincidence that Arya "needs to forget who she is". Maybe if you don't know who you are anymore, you can change like your face like you can change clothes?
A counter-argument would be the dothraki religion (or the one from the 'lamb-people', I can't recall who their god is actually), but then again: they're just "savages" to the modern west, and the civilized free cities - "of course" they believe in primitive deities.
And from what we've seen, there's no religion in the Far East (Qarth for example). But then again, true magic exists there. Is that a coincidence? 
|
On May 24 2011 08:17 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:12 Gunman_csz wrote:
Anyone knows exactly at which chapter/page the cliffhanger ends at? I just can't wait 2weeks... seriously I want to start reading the book from exactly the ending of episode 7, if you know either reply to me by pm or just post here. Thanks "I did warn you not to trust me, you know" Page 529 of the US paperback. It is an Eddard chapter, and the next one is an (awsome) Arya chapter.
Damn, that chapter is awesome. You just made the next 2 weeks more painful.
|
On May 24 2011 07:47 mucker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 06:08 Shaithis wrote:On May 24 2011 05:21 Isengrim wrote:On May 24 2011 05:06 Naib wrote:On May 24 2011 02:34 Sevryn wrote:
When syrio talked about there only being one god and it being death did anyone else think he might be a faceless one? On May 24 2011 02:44 Jyvblamo wrote:
There's been serious speculation that Jaqen H'gar and Syrio are the same person, but I'm not sure I buy that. I do not think that plausible either. A more likely explanation is that (as hinted by Arya's stay in the "House of Black and White" in Braavos) braavosi all share beliefs in 'one god above all' - the Many-Faced God, who is death itself (just as Syrio says in episode 6 of the series). That's why Braavos has a temple for all the gods people worship - because they think they're sort of irrelevant, and their god stands above them all. On May 24 2011 04:06 Maginor wrote:
I wasn't talking about in-story characters, but about the viewers. But fair enough. I think Illyrio's motives are pretty obvious. He sees that the Targaryens have a small chance of taking back power, and if he was the one that helped them, he will be handsomely rewarded. He doesn't have that much to lose either. He invested some money in the venture, but it was probably little in relation to the wealth he posesses. Look at it as a high-risk/high-gain investment. When it comes to Varys, it is not that obvious. After all he aided Robert in trying to assassinate Daenerys. It may be that he wants to leave his options open so that whoever ends up in power, he can claim that he supported them from the beginning. Also, he claims to serve the realm, and maybe he actually thinks what is best for the realm is to have the Targaryens back in power to have a stable dynasty. I think saying "aided Robert trying to assasinate Daenerys" might not be that obvious. Yes, he nodded at the notion of the murder in the small council meeting, but do you really think if he wanted Dany dead, he'd have butchered it so carelessly? He's the master of whisperers after all. I think Varys' plan was a bit deeper than that. He wanted to act like he's not on Dany's side (which we know that he is, for some reason), and maybe speed up the dothraki invasion a bit ("delay, you say, make haste, I reply!") by angering Khal Drogo. I'm pretty sure he knows how dothraki ways are, and is able to manipulate them when he needs to. Another point to consider is that he's not that powerful, he can't state his opinions in the open. Maybe he didn't want to draw suspicions on himself, that's why he didn't speak up against Robert's idea? Remember, when Ned loses the conspiration game and gets killed off, Varys knows he can't save him (even though he would want to, as he's the honorable man he was looking for to help keeping the realm in one piece). The most he does is to make the arrangements to send Ned to the Wall, and even that gets shattered to pieces by the more powerful players of the game... I often wonder about Illyro. He gave Daenerys the dragons, sent her to Khal Drogo. Then later, he sent her Barristan to lead her queensguard. I don't think he's some merchant out for a payday if/when Dany sits on the Iron throne. Obviously this is just speculation, but I sense in the later books we'll find out that a lot of what's happened to Daenerys was planned out by forces unknown. As for Varys, I view him as a "true neutral" sort of character. He does what he does to keep the peace, without loyalty to any one side. And as things stand Daenerys is about the only chance at reuniting the seven kingdoms. I have the same thoughts. As things stand now, Daenerys basically has a paved path to take over the Seven Kingdoms, with just a few ragtag armies that would stand in her way, and quite a bit that would potentially join forces with her. I could even see Stannis be willing to support her (but of course Melisandre is going to have nothing of that). Myrcella's claim to the Throne is a joke at this point; that particular storyline is going to get demolished by Dany (who now has the most powerful army + dragons); same with the Iron Islands mess. All of this seems to be a bit too convenient. Illyrio and Melisandre seem to be the key players in the Seven Kingdoms, but what are their true goals? And what's with all of the walking dead south of the Wall? So far, we know that the Others can create wights, but now so can the Red Priests? The Others have always kinda been the "final boss" type of bogeyman, the one final battle that will be fought with the combined armies of a united world, probably led by Dany, Jon and Tyrion (if he makes it that long; which he will at this point; his role as comic relief in the TV series guarantees him survival in the books). Somehow, this just doesn't jive with GRRM's style that we have seen thus far; I think that he has one more huge twist in store for us. I don't think that the Others / the "Lord of Darkness" are the final antagonists. My 2 cents on this - there has been a gradual up-play of the various deities of the SoIaF universe. We know about the Old Gods, the Seven, the Fire God, the Death God, etc. If I remember correctly, the Seven basically overthrew the Old Gods, and the rest of the deities have been on the fringes. We can already see that they have real power. The Others are most likely the minions of the Old Gods (probably related to the Children). So, what do we really know about the other deities, besides the Red Priests of the Fire God and the Faceless of the Death God? Why is the Fire God suddenly becoming so much more prominent at the onset of winter? Are we perhaps going to have a showdown between Fire and Ice, with the Seven Kingdoms caught in the crossfire? Makes sense if you consider that the Fire God is essentially trying to take over the Seven Kingdoms to get an army (and Stannis beelined directly for the Wall as soon as he heard that it was in danger), and the Old Gods' strategy for increasing the size of their army is the creation of undead by invading human lands. We already know that there is a graveyard of defeated gods in Vaes Dorthak, but who is really defeating them? I really don't see the story turning into some destiny/puppetmasters driven war between gods. GRRM has written highly critical blog posts of the endings of both the new Battlestar Galactica and Lost, he hates when human-driven stories are reduced to some external force overriding everything else. He loves his flawed characters making frustrating but realistic decisions and the consequences playing out. Religion historically has usually been a driving factor or justification in wars, conquests and cultural shifts. I think it is just part of GRRM's realistic and rich style to have religion playing a part.
Good point. Seems like all of the supernatural forces are in fact being directly controlled by the characters (Melisandre, Dany, Beric / Catelyn, etc). I agree that there is no way that this is going to turn into a destiny / puppetmaster war at this point.
|
On May 24 2011 08:43 Shaithis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 07:47 mucker wrote:On May 24 2011 06:08 Shaithis wrote:On May 24 2011 05:21 Isengrim wrote:On May 24 2011 05:06 Naib wrote:On May 24 2011 02:34 Sevryn wrote:
When syrio talked about there only being one god and it being death did anyone else think he might be a faceless one? On May 24 2011 02:44 Jyvblamo wrote:
There's been serious speculation that Jaqen H'gar and Syrio are the same person, but I'm not sure I buy that. I do not think that plausible either. A more likely explanation is that (as hinted by Arya's stay in the "House of Black and White" in Braavos) braavosi all share beliefs in 'one god above all' - the Many-Faced God, who is death itself (just as Syrio says in episode 6 of the series). That's why Braavos has a temple for all the gods people worship - because they think they're sort of irrelevant, and their god stands above them all. On May 24 2011 04:06 Maginor wrote:
I wasn't talking about in-story characters, but about the viewers. But fair enough. I think Illyrio's motives are pretty obvious. He sees that the Targaryens have a small chance of taking back power, and if he was the one that helped them, he will be handsomely rewarded. He doesn't have that much to lose either. He invested some money in the venture, but it was probably little in relation to the wealth he posesses. Look at it as a high-risk/high-gain investment. When it comes to Varys, it is not that obvious. After all he aided Robert in trying to assassinate Daenerys. It may be that he wants to leave his options open so that whoever ends up in power, he can claim that he supported them from the beginning. Also, he claims to serve the realm, and maybe he actually thinks what is best for the realm is to have the Targaryens back in power to have a stable dynasty. I think saying "aided Robert trying to assasinate Daenerys" might not be that obvious. Yes, he nodded at the notion of the murder in the small council meeting, but do you really think if he wanted Dany dead, he'd have butchered it so carelessly? He's the master of whisperers after all. I think Varys' plan was a bit deeper than that. He wanted to act like he's not on Dany's side (which we know that he is, for some reason), and maybe speed up the dothraki invasion a bit ("delay, you say, make haste, I reply!") by angering Khal Drogo. I'm pretty sure he knows how dothraki ways are, and is able to manipulate them when he needs to. Another point to consider is that he's not that powerful, he can't state his opinions in the open. Maybe he didn't want to draw suspicions on himself, that's why he didn't speak up against Robert's idea? Remember, when Ned loses the conspiration game and gets killed off, Varys knows he can't save him (even though he would want to, as he's the honorable man he was looking for to help keeping the realm in one piece). The most he does is to make the arrangements to send Ned to the Wall, and even that gets shattered to pieces by the more powerful players of the game... I often wonder about Illyro. He gave Daenerys the dragons, sent her to Khal Drogo. Then later, he sent her Barristan to lead her queensguard. I don't think he's some merchant out for a payday if/when Dany sits on the Iron throne. Obviously this is just speculation, but I sense in the later books we'll find out that a lot of what's happened to Daenerys was planned out by forces unknown. As for Varys, I view him as a "true neutral" sort of character. He does what he does to keep the peace, without loyalty to any one side. And as things stand Daenerys is about the only chance at reuniting the seven kingdoms. I have the same thoughts. As things stand now, Daenerys basically has a paved path to take over the Seven Kingdoms, with just a few ragtag armies that would stand in her way, and quite a bit that would potentially join forces with her. I could even see Stannis be willing to support her (but of course Melisandre is going to have nothing of that). Myrcella's claim to the Throne is a joke at this point; that particular storyline is going to get demolished by Dany (who now has the most powerful army + dragons); same with the Iron Islands mess. All of this seems to be a bit too convenient. Illyrio and Melisandre seem to be the key players in the Seven Kingdoms, but what are their true goals? And what's with all of the walking dead south of the Wall? So far, we know that the Others can create wights, but now so can the Red Priests? The Others have always kinda been the "final boss" type of bogeyman, the one final battle that will be fought with the combined armies of a united world, probably led by Dany, Jon and Tyrion (if he makes it that long; which he will at this point; his role as comic relief in the TV series guarantees him survival in the books). Somehow, this just doesn't jive with GRRM's style that we have seen thus far; I think that he has one more huge twist in store for us. I don't think that the Others / the "Lord of Darkness" are the final antagonists. My 2 cents on this - there has been a gradual up-play of the various deities of the SoIaF universe. We know about the Old Gods, the Seven, the Fire God, the Death God, etc. If I remember correctly, the Seven basically overthrew the Old Gods, and the rest of the deities have been on the fringes. We can already see that they have real power. The Others are most likely the minions of the Old Gods (probably related to the Children). So, what do we really know about the other deities, besides the Red Priests of the Fire God and the Faceless of the Death God? Why is the Fire God suddenly becoming so much more prominent at the onset of winter? Are we perhaps going to have a showdown between Fire and Ice, with the Seven Kingdoms caught in the crossfire? Makes sense if you consider that the Fire God is essentially trying to take over the Seven Kingdoms to get an army (and Stannis beelined directly for the Wall as soon as he heard that it was in danger), and the Old Gods' strategy for increasing the size of their army is the creation of undead by invading human lands. We already know that there is a graveyard of defeated gods in Vaes Dorthak, but who is really defeating them? I really don't see the story turning into some destiny/puppetmasters driven war between gods. GRRM has written highly critical blog posts of the endings of both the new Battlestar Galactica and Lost, he hates when human-driven stories are reduced to some external force overriding everything else. He loves his flawed characters making frustrating but realistic decisions and the consequences playing out. Religion historically has usually been a driving factor or justification in wars, conquests and cultural shifts. I think it is just part of GRRM's realistic and rich style to have religion playing a part. Good point. Seems like all of the supernatural forces are in fact being directly controlled by the characters (Melisandre, Dany, Beric / Catelyn, etc). I agree that there is no way that this is going to turn into a destiny / puppetmaster war at this point.
It may be that everybody think they are getting power from their gods, but actually they are just doing magic that has some kind of (in-universe) logic behind it. Kind of like how there had to be a god that made day and night come in a cycle, because there was no other possible ways to explain it.
There is some propecy/destiny stuff going on, but it may as well not turn out how we expect, and it does not have to have been set in motion by some sentient power.
|
On May 24 2011 06:08 Shaithis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 05:21 Isengrim wrote:On May 24 2011 05:06 Naib wrote:On May 24 2011 02:34 Sevryn wrote:
When syrio talked about there only being one god and it being death did anyone else think he might be a faceless one? On May 24 2011 02:44 Jyvblamo wrote:
There's been serious speculation that Jaqen H'gar and Syrio are the same person, but I'm not sure I buy that. I do not think that plausible either. A more likely explanation is that (as hinted by Arya's stay in the "House of Black and White" in Braavos) braavosi all share beliefs in 'one god above all' - the Many-Faced God, who is death itself (just as Syrio says in episode 6 of the series). That's why Braavos has a temple for all the gods people worship - because they think they're sort of irrelevant, and their god stands above them all. On May 24 2011 04:06 Maginor wrote:
I wasn't talking about in-story characters, but about the viewers. But fair enough. I think Illyrio's motives are pretty obvious. He sees that the Targaryens have a small chance of taking back power, and if he was the one that helped them, he will be handsomely rewarded. He doesn't have that much to lose either. He invested some money in the venture, but it was probably little in relation to the wealth he posesses. Look at it as a high-risk/high-gain investment. When it comes to Varys, it is not that obvious. After all he aided Robert in trying to assassinate Daenerys. It may be that he wants to leave his options open so that whoever ends up in power, he can claim that he supported them from the beginning. Also, he claims to serve the realm, and maybe he actually thinks what is best for the realm is to have the Targaryens back in power to have a stable dynasty. I think saying "aided Robert trying to assasinate Daenerys" might not be that obvious. Yes, he nodded at the notion of the murder in the small council meeting, but do you really think if he wanted Dany dead, he'd have butchered it so carelessly? He's the master of whisperers after all. I think Varys' plan was a bit deeper than that. He wanted to act like he's not on Dany's side (which we know that he is, for some reason), and maybe speed up the dothraki invasion a bit ("delay, you say, make haste, I reply!") by angering Khal Drogo. I'm pretty sure he knows how dothraki ways are, and is able to manipulate them when he needs to. Another point to consider is that he's not that powerful, he can't state his opinions in the open. Maybe he didn't want to draw suspicions on himself, that's why he didn't speak up against Robert's idea? Remember, when Ned loses the conspiration game and gets killed off, Varys knows he can't save him (even though he would want to, as he's the honorable man he was looking for to help keeping the realm in one piece). The most he does is to make the arrangements to send Ned to the Wall, and even that gets shattered to pieces by the more powerful players of the game... I often wonder about Illyro. He gave Daenerys the dragons, sent her to Khal Drogo. Then later, he sent her Barristan to lead her queensguard. I don't think he's some merchant out for a payday if/when Dany sits on the Iron throne. Obviously this is just speculation, but I sense in the later books we'll find out that a lot of what's happened to Daenerys was planned out by forces unknown. As for Varys, I view him as a "true neutral" sort of character. He does what he does to keep the peace, without loyalty to any one side. And as things stand Daenerys is about the only chance at reuniting the seven kingdoms. I have the same thoughts. As things stand now, Daenerys basically has a paved path to take over the Seven Kingdoms, with just a few ragtag armies that would stand in her way, and quite a bit that would potentially join forces with her. I could even see Stannis be willing to support her (but of course Melisandre is going to have nothing of that). Myrcella's claim to the Throne is a joke at this point; that particular storyline is going to get demolished by Dany (who now has the most powerful army + dragons); same with the Iron Islands mess. All of this seems to be a bit too convenient. Illyrio and Melisandre seem to be the key players in the Seven Kingdoms, but what are their true goals? And what's with all of the walking dead south of the Wall? So far, we know that the Others can create wights, but now so can the Red Priests? The Others have always kinda been the "final boss" type of bogeyman, the one final battle that will be fought with the combined armies of a united world, probably led by Dany, Jon and Tyrion (if he makes it that long; which he will at this point; his role as comic relief in the TV series guarantees him survival in the books). Somehow, this just doesn't jive with GRRM's style that we have seen thus far; I think that he has one more huge twist in store for us. I don't think that the Others / the "Lord of Darkness" are the final antagonists. My 2 cents on this - there has been a gradual up-play of the various deities of the SoIaF universe. We know about the Old Gods, the Seven, the Fire God, the Death God, etc. If I remember correctly, the Seven basically overthrew the Old Gods, and the rest of the deities have been on the fringes. We can already see that they have real power. The Others are most likely the minions of the Old Gods (probably related to the Children). So, what do we really know about the other deities, besides the Red Priests of the Fire God and the Faceless of the Death God? Why is the Fire God suddenly becoming so much more prominent at the onset of winter? Are we perhaps going to have a showdown between Fire and Ice, with the Seven Kingdoms caught in the crossfire? Makes sense if you consider that the Fire God is essentially trying to take over the Seven Kingdoms to get an army (and Stannis beelined directly for the Wall as soon as he heard that it was in danger), and the Old Gods' strategy for increasing the size of their army is the creation of undead by invading human lands. We already know that there is a graveyard of defeated gods in Vaes Dorthak, but who is really defeating them?
Actually im gonna feel like a bit of a prick and correct you 
The children of the forest were the ones that originally worshipped the Old Gods. The first men came and adopted those gods. During the long night (the last time the others invaded) the first men and the children of the forest fought together. The way the old gods has been described in the series so far it seems they are not behind the white walkers. It seems they are trying to fight them, If gods even exists in asoiaf.
The andals beat the first men because they had steel and the first men had bronze weapons/armor, not because of their gods.
And Dany's army is not the most powerful. The best trained foot. But they are only ten thousand and not mounted either. They need knights and a fleet aswell. The seven kingdoms is war torn and divided, but i have a feeling everything wont be smooth sailing (pun haha) for Dany either. That's just how grrm writes.
|
Once the dragons are full-grown Dany will command the most fearsome known army in the world.
|
On May 24 2011 13:27 GDbushido wrote:
Once the dragons are full-grown Dany will command the most fearsome known army in the world.
For all we know the army of the others could match it easely. I do believe mister Martin is setting us up for a decent fight i expect atleast 1 dragon to die in the coming books due to a battle.
|
I recently finished book 4 and I don't remember anything about "Coldhands". Where is this referred to?
And how did people ever come up with the Jon = Lyanna + Rhaegar theory?
|
On May 24 2011 15:55 Sentient wrote:
I recently finished book 4 and I don't remember anything about "Coldhands". Where is this referred to?
And how did people ever come up with the Jon = Lyanna + Rhaegar theory?
You can find him in Sam's chapters.
Also for the theory you can look a few pages back there's a link, where all the hints for all the theories about Jon's mother are shown and explained with logic.
Edit: Here you go http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html
|
Did anyone else laugh at them using romantic music in the Sansa Joffrey scene? Such epic trolling.
|
Given the rate of how fast the TV series is going through the books, what's an estimate of how long the series is going to finish? > 3 seasons?
I really don't want to wait around that long, should I just read the books?
|
At a season per book, 7 seasons, and AGOT is the shortest book. I doubt that the last book will even be out when the 3rd season finishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
