A Song of Ice and Fire: GRRM announces A Dance With Dragons publication date.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

It seems to me that a church that does that is hardly one that is going to protect the poor from the wealthy and privileged.

It was hardly out of empathy and noble virtue for the smallfolk. The smallfolk were necessary in the generation of wealth through labor and taxes. But really that's incidental. The warriors had to be kept on a leash to keep the nobles and clergy safe from their pillaging as well. This isn't an issue of the church protecting the poor old,....poor from the mean old rich. It was an issue of keeping the strong trained elite forces from being wild roving bands ruled by whoever was able to be the warlord before being killed and replaced.

It was an issue of power and control rather than the way you seem to be portraying this as the church protecting the powerless from those with power.

Local relics were created to keep the local knights obedient and in control through threats of damnation, often they were forced to pay homage to these relics.

This isn't my opinion. It's all pretty standard history.

There's a good example of it in the Pillars of the Earth miniseries as I recall.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I agree with all of that; I just don't see Westeros as being that different. There were efforts to justify Robert's Rebellion and show that Robert wasn't just some power-hungry schemer. I don't think the (alleged) kidnapping of Lyanna Stark and the beheadings of Brandon Stark et al were kept secret.

I just didn't feel like it had a convincing enough presence in the books. That's not, of course, to say that it wasn't happening "within the world" and Martin just chose not to focus on it. Like I say, it would just have added an extra bit of spice that I personally would have appreciated.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

There was even an attempted justification for why Robert (as opposed to any other candidates) was put on the throne; Renly alludes to some pretext about House Baratheon having claims through daughters and marriages, etc.

The sort of thing I'd expect Robert to be hiring chroniclers and singers to spread widely, not the sort of thing made as a vague reference in a private conversation.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I do think that the specific reasons for Jaime killing Aerys were inexplicably hushed up; I think that's how this conversation got started.

Yeah, I believe it was.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I guess it has to be chalked up to Jaime's pride and refusal to justify himself to anyone. Varys and Littlefinger had their own reasons for not wanting to de-legitimize the Targaryens or legitimize Robert, and I'm not sure how much of that story was known to Robert (or, since Robert couldn't be bothered with petty politicking, Jon Arryn). Which I still find unsatisfying as an explanation.

Yeah, I suppose there still is that consideration; if no one knew of Aerys' intention to destroy the city, no one can know Jaime's immediate motive.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

How so?

The peasants we encounter in the story tend to routinely resent and despise all nobility equally, seeing very little difference between them, and being mostly indifferent to who actually rules.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I think I need to see some examples of this.

Well I'm re-reading the books at the moment and it's throughout. Admittedly it's only snippets, as the story revolves around the lords, and not peasants. One example is the incident prior to the war when Ned hears a complaint from a lord who produces peasants as evidence. The peasants are clearly presented as not wanting to be there, as helpless pawns. This despite the fact that it was their families and homes that were destroyed. The implication is the peasants would prefer just to suck it up and endure the violence without complaint. That's just not believable, IMHO.

The same follows throughout with countless examples of war-ravaged peasants (mostly in the Riverlands) declaring they see no difference between Stark and Lannister. Even just the fact that the peasants don't seem to take part in the conflict at all isn't particularly realistic.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

How would religion have re-balanced things to the benefit of those at the bottom, as opposed to just creating a separate faction at the top?

Enormously. Religion has an enormous controlling influence on the nobility, and the lower levels of society have an enormous controlling influence over religion. Any lord that rocked the boat too much would find themself in very serious eternal trouble.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Well, there's certainly some odd things going on in this world, with the incredible stagnation of technology. The political system seems strangely stable pre-Rebellion; Aegon's conquest was over two centuries ago, and we're told that the Starks have ruled in Winterfell for thousands (?) of years -- I think similar claims are made about some of the other houses.

This actually serves to make the peasantry's apathy even more inexplicable. It's not like they're used to unrest, usurpers, and civil war. If a dynasty has been ruling for nearly 300 years and is suddenly overthrown, that's going to send shockwaves through the very core of society.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I wonder how much of that kind be ascribed to the long and unpredictable winters: would that make the commoners more dependent on their lords, more focused on their own survival, and less likely to rock the boat?

That's the other major realism issue I have. I really don't see how anyone thinks a climate with sporadic seasons that can last years (even if magically generated, which addresses the astronomical issues) is even vaguely plausible.

I agree though, that in such a scenario people would have far more tolerance and far less willingness to rock the boat, but that applies equally to the lords, if not more so. In this sort of situation, where winter can last years and its actual length isn't known in advance, stockpiling adequate supplies during the harvest is literally a matter of survival. And it's the peasants doing the harvesting which means the nobility are literally hinging their survival on their peasants providing them enough food.

Which makes the idea of the nobles plunging the realm into full scale warfare right on the harvest totally unbelievable. They've essentially committed suicide. The reality is, save some sort of atrocious deus ex machina, the only viable future for Westeros at this point is everyone starving to death in the coming winter. It has already been clearly established this is going to be a winter of historic proportions, and it has also clearly been established that food and supplies and the harvest have all been severely impaired by this war. I mean, King's Landing was already facing starvation within a matter of weeks of the harvest, right when the most food is available. Anyone who thinks the city is going to survive a decade long winter is dreaming. Everyone is doomed. White walkers or no.

I am curious as to how Martin is going to write himself out of this particular corner, but I am very concerned.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

It was hardly out of empathy and noble virtue for the smallfolk. The smallfolk were necessary in the generation of wealth through labor and taxes. But really that's incidental. The warriors had to be kept on a leash to keep the nobles and clergy safe from their pillaging as well. This isn't an issue of the church protecting the poor old,....poor from the mean old rich. It was an issue of keeping the strong trained elite forces from being wild roving bands ruled by whoever was able to be the warlord before being killed and replaced.

It was an issue of power and control rather than the way you seem to be portraying this as the church protecting the powerless from those with power.

Local relics were created to keep the local knights obedient and in control through threats of damnation, often they were forced to pay homage to these relics.

This isn't my opinion. It's all pretty standard history.

There's a good example of it in the Pillars of the Earth miniseries as I recall.

You raise a really good point here, and this again goes back to this idea of peasants being ignorant of their place in the system. Peasants weren't just a possession that could be used and abused as you saw fit. This isn't because of some noble cause of protecting the weak, but simply the economic reality of the society.

Medieval Europe was an agricultural society and agriculture is labour intensive. Without a good stock of peasants working the land, you starved to death. It was as simple as that. If you pushed the peasants too far they wouldn't cooperate and you die.

All of the wealth and prosperity of the nobles and the church was built on the sweat of peasants. The peasants knew this, the church knew this, and the nobles knew this. There was obviously a lot of give and take in the system, but there was still a limit, and when any one faction pushed too hard the others would quickly let their dissatisfaction be known.

Remember that in England, at least, the majority of peasants were freemen, not serfs. If they didn't like their lot on one land they had the opportunity to pack up and move somewhere else (and even serfs could leave if their lord didn't protect them). If you had a manpower shortage you could benefit a great deal economically be enticing neighbouring peasants to come work your land instead.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Even if not revered, the Targaryens were seen as being culturally different from their subjects. They didn't follow either of the mainstream religions of the First Men and the Andals.

Actually, the Targaryens follow the Faith of the Seven, the same as the Andals. Aegon's conquest pretty much made the Faith the "official" Westerosi religion.

Originally Posted by gumboot

The sort of thing I'd expect Robert to be hiring chroniclers and singers to spread widely, not the sort of thing made as a vague reference in a private conversation.

Robert hated the Targaryens, so he wouldn't want to hype his claims to the lineage that much.

Quote:

The peasants we encounter in the story tend to routinely resent and despise all nobility equally, seeing very little difference between them, and being mostly indifferent to who actually rules.

I'm not sure why you think this is a bad thing. It makes sense to me. When Daenerys asked Ser Jorah if Illyrio/Viserys's claims that people are sewing dragon banners and praying for the return of the Targs, he says they pray for "rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends". He adds that it doesn't matter to them if the lords play their game of thrones so long as they are left in peace, but of course they never are.

Again, it makes sense to me. This isn't medieval England, Westeros is huuuuge (the size of South America, according to GRRM). You think people from Deepwood Motte or Yronwood really give a crap about who sits on that ugly chair so far from their home? Maybe they care about who rules at Winterfell or Sunspear (respectively), since it affects them far more, and you do see many interactions between vassals and their liege lords.

Quote:

Well I'm re-reading the books at the moment and it's throughout. Admittedly it's only snippets, as the story revolves around the lords, and not peasants. One example is the incident prior to the war when Ned hears a complaint from a lord who produces peasants as evidence. The peasants are clearly presented as not wanting to be there, as helpless pawns. This despite the fact that it was their families and homes that were destroyed. The implication is the peasants would prefer just to suck it up and endure the violence without complaint. That's just not believable, IMHO.

I didn't get that implication at all. I got the implication that because they had just suffered from horrific events at the hand of Gregor Clegane and his men (who by the way is an anointed knight and a powerful vassal of Lord Tywin Lannister whose family, by the way, is the the queen's... yeah, awkward), that they were terrified of talking to Ned, the Hand of the King, about it. It's not like they had any way of knowing that the current Hand of the King was a completely different man than the former hand (Tywin). They probably expected Ned to call them traitors at accusing a vassal of the queen's family like that and hang 'em all.

Quote:

This actually serves to make the peasantry's apathy even more inexplicable. It's not like they're used to unrest, usurpers, and civil war. If a dynasty has been ruling for nearly 300 years and is suddenly overthrown, that's going to send shockwaves through the very core of society.

Are you kidding? Those 300 years were far from peaceful. Did you per chance forget the Faith Militant's revolt, the Dance of the Dragons, the Young Dragon's war on Dorne, the Blackfyre Rebellion, the War of the Ninepenny Kings, the Defiance of Duskendale? If anything, it's no surprise that a king descending into madness who unfairly executes (in particularly cruel ways) his vassals and asks for more blood would find himself with a bona-fide rebellion to deal with. And lose, since he's alienated almost everyone.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Robert hated the Targaryens, so he wouldn't want to hype his claims to the lineage that much.

We're just going around in circles. Either way, it would be more believable if Robert was seen to be making a real effort to justify his rule. Either by portraying the Targaryens as evil despots and him the saviour of the realm, or by exaggerating (and maybe even inventing) a legal claim to the throne.

Originally Posted by Morrigan

I'm not sure why you think this is a bad thing. It makes sense to me. When Daenerys asked Ser Jorah if Illyrio/Viserys's claims that people are sewing dragon banners and praying for the return of the Targs, he says they pray for "rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends". He adds that it doesn't matter to them if the lords play their game of thrones so long as they are left in peace, but of course they never are.

The bolded bit above is precisely why it doesn't make sense. What the lords are doing has a very real impact on the peasantry. To suggest they wouldn't care about it is just outright illogical. Wouldn't you care if people were burning your village, raping your women and murdering your children? If they were burning your crops so you had nothing to eat, with a particularly harsh decade long winter approaching?

I know I'd care.

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Again, it makes sense to me. This isn't medieval England, Westeros is huuuuge (the size of South America, according to GRRM). You think people from Deepwood Motte or Yronwood really give a crap about who sits on that ugly chair so far from their home?

Let's not get into another major flaw in the world-building...

Originally Posted by Morrigan

I didn't get that implication at all. I got the implication that because they had just suffered from horrific events at the hand of Gregor Clegane and his men (who by the way is an anointed knight and a powerful vassal of Lord Tywin Lannister whose family, by the way, is the the queen's... yeah, awkward), that they were terrified of talking to Ned, the Hand of the King, about it. It's not like they had any way of knowing that the current Hand of the King was a completely different man than the former hand (Tywin). They probably expected Ned to call them traitors at accusing a vassal of the queen's family like that and hang 'em all.

You raise a valid point. Well spotted. I had forgotten that crucial detail.

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Are you kidding? Those 300 years were far from peaceful.

For feudal societies, maintaining the same dynastic family is peaceful. Oh sure, you get your rebellions and what have you, but the point is the ruling authority was never toppled.

[TragicMonkey]

The Targs weren't so popular that there weren't a bunch of little rebellions and wars before Robert's. Weren't there a bunch of them during Aerys's reign? He was actually captured and imprisoned at one point during one of them. It's not as if he was beloved by all until suddenly Jon Arryn and his proteges engineered a surprise revolution.

I got the impression that most were tolerating Aerys's craziness because they thought Rhaegar would be a good king, but Rhaegar's whatever-it-was with Lyanna pissed off half the nobility right there, and since Aerys had managed to alienate Tywin the Targs were left with few friends and a lot of enemies.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Either way, it would be more believable if Robert was seen to be making a real effort to justify his rule. Either by portraying the Targaryens as evil despots and him the saviour of the realm, or by exaggerating (and maybe even inventing) a legal claim to the throne.

He seemingly did both at the time of the Rebellion. Why would it still be necessary to continue to justify his rule over a decade later?

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The Targs weren't so popular that there weren't a bunch of little rebellions and wars before Robert's. Weren't there a bunch of them during Aerys's reign? He was actually captured and imprisoned at one point during one of them. It's not as if he was beloved by all until suddenly Jon Arryn and his proteges engineered a surprise revolution.

Yep, that was the Defiance of Duskendale.

Quote:

I got the impression that most were tolerating Aerys's craziness because they thought Rhaegar would be a good king, but Rhaegar's whatever-it-was with Lyanna pissed off half the nobility right there, and since Aerys had managed to alienate Tywin the Targs were left with few friends and a lot of enemies.

Pretty much. Robert's rebellion was pretty much inevitable at this point. Aerys had offended Tywin by refusing to wed Cersei to Rhaegar, and had made enemies out of the Arryns, the Starks, and the Baratheons. House Tully was bound by marriage to both the Starks and the Arryns, leaving only the Martells and the Tyrells as possible allies, and these two houses have long loathed each others.

Originally Posted by gumboot

The bolded bit above is precisely why it doesn't make sense. What the lords are doing has a very real impact on the peasantry. To suggest they wouldn't care about it is just outright illogical. Wouldn't you care if people were burning your village, raping your women and murdering your children? If they were burning your crops so you had nothing to eat, with a particularly harsh decade long winter approaching?

Of course, but that has little to do with whoever's sitting on the Iron Throne. The rampage going on in AGoT isn't caused by King Robert or his Hand Ned Stark, for instance, and the suffering of the smallfolk we see in AFFC isn't caused by King Tommen and his Hand, Harys Swift, or even by Cersei (who's admittedly pulling the strings of both Tommen and that puppet Hand she named).

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

He seemingly did both at the time of the Rebellion. Why would it still be necessary to continue to justify his rule over a decade later?

Yeah, I don't really get it either...

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Of course, but that has little to do with whoever's sitting on the Iron Throne. The rampage going on in AGoT isn't caused by King Robert or his Hand Ned Stark, for instance, and the suffering of the smallfolk we see in AFFC isn't caused by King Tommen and his Hand, Harys Swift, or even by Cersei (who's admittedly pulling the strings of both Tommen and that puppet Hand she named).

You quoted:

Quote:

it doesn't matter to them if the lords play their game of thrones

The lords playing their game of thrones is precisely what's causing the rampage in all the books. And ultimately the person sitting the iron throne is responsible for maintaining security in the realm. So yeah, it does matter to the peasants what the lords are doing in their game of thrones, and it does matter to the peasants who's king.

Of course, by the time we've got all out war between the various factions it's too late, but the desire to void exactly that sort of situation is a pretty good example of why peasants have a vested interest in these matters.

[Morrigan]

Well, Varys asks Ned, why is it that whenever the high lords play their game of thrones, it's the small folk who suffer the most? The thing is, what causes their suffering is not caused by the person who's sitting on the throne: it's caused by the lords fighting over it. Whoever emerges the victor after that is of little consequence. Again to quote Jorah, they want healthy children, full harvests and a long summer.

I'm pretty sure that most of the smallfolk aren't sewing dragon banners because they eagerly await the return of the Targs. If Daenerys invades Westeros, it will mean yet another war, and still more peasant suffering.

[ZirconBlue]

So, apparently, Bantam have decided to split the book into 5 volumes.



April Fools! I hope.

[Morrigan]

[erwinl]

A Song of Dragons: all the other people.
Brilliant!

I'm really anticipating the next installment of the GRRM series. there is something about the setting which appeals to me very much. I will buy it as soon as it is available on Amazon.

But. I also have a feeling that he is needlessly writing three stories at the same time.
On the one hand, and this is the main story till now, we have the struggle between the different nobility factions. This whole story is relatively straight foreward and devoid af all magic.
Then there is the threat from the north. It is till now a bit underdescribed in the books and why I wonder why it is even included in the story. If the reason for this plotline is to force the factions to cooperate later on I think another option would have been better. This plotline, for me, feels like something which could have its own book and be removed from these books.
Than there is the magic. It hardly is ever used or present. Then why include magic in the setting anyway? For me the magic could easily be removed from the setting, making it a medieval (with dragons) setting. Nothing wrong with that.
Then there is Daenerys. As for now she is in a totally different plotline from the rest of the main characters. What is the function of this plotline? It is an intriguing character, but this also almost feels like a seperate book in itself.

It has been a while since I last read the books (and the're not readily available to me right now) so I could misremember a few details. But this is what is how I remember the books.
That said. There is a very rich setting that GRRM has made and he has some very interesting ideas. But, looking at it with a plotwriters eye (albeit a minor one) there are some issues I have with the total story GRRM is trying to tell us.

[ZirconBlue]

The "threat in the North", the return of the Dragons, and the increase in magic throughout Westeros are all tied together.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

So, apparently, Bantam have decided to split the book into 5 volumes.



April Fools! I hope.

What gives it away is the publisher's "criticism" of GRRM:

"Even GRRM should be able to write a chapter a month, and if we get them into print as quickly as he writes them, maybe that will stop him from going back and rewriting them so damned much."

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by erwinl

A Song of Dragons: all the other people.
Brilliant!

I'm really anticipating the next installment of the GRRM series. there is something about the setting which appeals to me very much. I will buy it as soon as it is available on Amazon.

But. I also have a feeling that he is needlessly writing three stories at the same time.
On the one hand, and this is the main story till now, we have the struggle between the different nobility factions. This whole story is relatively straight foreward and devoid af all magic.
Then there is the threat from the north. It is till now a bit underdescribed in the books and why I wonder why it is even included in the story. If the reason for this plotline is to force the factions to cooperate later on I think another option would have been better. This plotline, for me, feels like something which could have its own book and be removed from these books.
Than there is the magic. It hardly is ever used or present. Then why include magic in the setting anyway? For me the magic could easily be removed from the setting, making it a medieval (with dragons) setting. Nothing wrong with that.
Then there is Daenerys. As for now she is in a totally different plotline from the rest of the main characters. What is the function of this plotline? It is an intriguing character, but this also almost feels like a seperate book in itself.

It has been a while since I last read the books (and the're not readily available to me right now) so I could misremember a few details. But this is what is how I remember the books.
That said. There is a very rich setting that GRRM has made and he has some very interesting ideas. But, looking at it with a plotwriters eye (albeit a minor one) there are some issues I have with the total story GRRM is trying to tell us.

These aspects are all part of what I like so much about this series in the first place.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by gumboot

What gives it away is the publisher's "criticism" of GRRM:

"Even GRRM should be able to write a chapter a month, and if we get them into print as quickly as he writes them, maybe that will stop him from going back and rewriting them so damned much."

Really? That was funny too, but what gave it away for me was (minus the title itself + the date) "A DANCE WITH DRAGONS: ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE".

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

The "threat in the North", the return of the Dragons, and the increase in magic throughout Westeros are all tied together.

I know they are tied together. But as I remember it, there is, as of now, no overall mechanism wich, for us as readers, connects them to each other. But maybe I missed a hint for that, a hint which is also possibly known to the people of Westeros themselves as well.
As I see it now. There are the people busy with their squables and there is the looming threat. Only nobody is aware of that and we're already about halfway through the story.
The Looming Threath and the Civil War amongst the nobility. They're both stories in their own right. I'm not totaly convinced they belong in the same book.
But maybe GRRM will lift the veil in the coming book?

Maybe I have to retrieve my books from the storage, so I can read them again. Especially in regards of the insights which I read in this thread.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Really? That was funny too, but what gave it away for me was (minus the title itself + the date) "A DANCE WITH DRAGONS: ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE".

I actually didn't even read that. I was pretty sure it was a joke by the second paragraph:

Quote:

"We warned George that A STORM OF SWORDS was as long a book as we could possibly publish in one volume, and now he's gone ahead and made this one a hundred pages longer," a Bantam spokesman said. "Worse, the thing's still growing! Besides, we have all these different covers we've designed and paid for over the years, we might as well get some use out of them."

What's particularly funny about this paragraph is that, if true, it means he still hasn't finished writing, which means there would be no hope of publication by the previously mentioned date.

Also, if they'd said they were splitting it in two I might have believed it, but five? Ridiculous.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by erwinl

I know they are tied together. But as I remember it, there is, as of now, no overall mechanism wich, for us as readers, connects them to each other. But maybe I missed a hint for that, a hint which is also possibly known to the people of Westeros themselves as well.
As I see it now. There are the people busy with their squables and there is the looming threat. Only nobody is aware of that and we're already about halfway through the story.
The Looming Threath and the Civil War amongst the nobility. They're both stories in their own right. I'm not totaly convinced they belong in the same book.
But maybe GRRM will lift the veil in the coming book?

Maybe I have to retrieve my books from the storage, so I can read them again. Especially in regards of the insights which I read in this thread.

I thought it was obvious really these things are connected. The idea of righteous reckoning and the price that will be paid for being oblivious to these dangers and forgetting them over time is an old theme in story and myth. What is important today will not be important when the true dangers are revealed. I think the sense of events being built up for the reveal is really half the fun of this series.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I actually didn't even read that. I was pretty sure it was a joke by the second paragraph:



What's particularly funny about this paragraph is that, if true, it means he still hasn't finished writing, which means there would be no hope of publication by the previously mentioned date.

Also, if they'd said they were splitting it in two I might have believed it, but five? Ridiculous.

He isn't finished, just a few days ago he mentioned his work on the last few chapters, he refers to it as "Kong". He still insists the previously mentioned date will be met.

[Dunstan]

Bumping a few things that I was reminded of recently while rereading Storm of Swords:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

But [Howland Reed] might have told his kids [about Jon and Lyanna], they're kind of mature for their age.

When they're on the run after Winterfell, Meera tells Bran the story of the tournament at Harrenhal, and she asks him a couple of times "are you sure your father never told you anything about this?" Now maybe that's just Meera being disappointed that Ned Stark didn't think that the story of him meeting Meera's father was important enough to tell his kids, but it seems more likely that she was probing to see what Bran knew about what happened at Harrenhal. So I'd say it's highly likely that Meera and Jojen know at least some of the Lyanna-Jon connection.

Then, on the question I raised of why Aerys attempting to burn all of King's Landing down with wildfire wasn't used for propaganda purposes by Robert and his allies, these explanations were pretty much bang-on:

Originally Posted by Giz

I got the feeling that Jaime was too damn proud to want to excuse himself: "Oh Ned, please understand that I slew the King for the greater good and only ever meant to sit upon the throne for a moment as I gathered my breath"... can't see [the old] Jaime eating humble pie.

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Doesn't Brienne ask him the same thing in AFFC? IIRC, Jaime replies that despite being the Kingslayer, he's still the Kingsguard, and that it's part of his oath to protect the king's secrets, or something like that. I forgot how the conversation went, exactly, and I don't have the ebook on hand for a quick ctrl + f.

It's in Storm of Swords (page 420 of the hardcover), not A Feast for Crows, but otherwise that's exactly how the conversation went.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Then, on the question I raised of why Aerys attempting to burn all of King's Landing down with wildfire wasn't used for propaganda purposes by Robert and his allies, these explanations were pretty much bang-on:

It's in Storm of Swords (page 420 of the hardcover), not A Feast for Crows, but otherwise that's exactly how the conversation went.

I wonder if Tywin knew? I can see him storing the idea for future use, in case he should ever need to obliterate the city.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I wonder if Tywin knew? I can see him storing the idea for future use, in case he should ever need to obliterate the city.

Unless something in AFFC contradicts it (it's been a while since I read it), there's no indication that he did. Jaime even describes in ASoS how he secretly hunted down the other senior pyromancers himself to uncover the hidden caches. He doesn't seem to have any motive to lie to Brienne about that. It's also hard for me to imagine him telling Tywin or anyone else while not telling Cersei -- and Cersei almost certainly would have made use of that information.

Of course, Varys might know (and have every incentive to cover it up), and Selmy or other members of the Kingsguard might have overheard Aerys (though I think Jaime was the only Kingsguard left in King's Landing by the time Aerys put that plan into action), and it wouldn't be surprising if some of the remaining pyromancers know (at a minimum, they'd have to be aware that someone was shoving swords through their senior guild members during and after the Sack of King's Landing), but that's all speculation, and there's no reason to know that it reached Tywin's ears.

Of course, it's not like you'd need to know of Aerys's contingency plan to come up with such an idea on your own -- Tyrion certainly found a use for wildfire.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I don't know how you could have three of the best of the King's Guard at some backwater Dornish Tower in a place of no strategic significance, Rhaegar's not there, and Ned find's Lyanna with a fever in a bed of blood surrounded by blue roses and have it not be Lyanna having given birth to Rhaegar's child.

GRRM elsewhere in the series refers to childbirth and the "bloody bed" and foreshadows R+L=J heavily with Bael the Bard.

My thoughts precisely... along with all the other clues pointing directly at this revelation, I'm AMAZED that I didn't pick up on this until today, just a few hours ago.

After it occurred to me, my wife and I spent a couple of hours looking through the books and finding all manner of evidence, from Ned's promise to Lyanna on her deathbed "of blood and roses", to the blue rose vision of Daenerys, to Ned thinking of Rhaegar in direct reference to bastards when he's talking to Littlefinger, to Rhaegar passing up his own wife to give Lyanna the blue-rose crown at the Harrenhall tourney... it just goes on and on, and in retrospect seems iron-clad and indisputable.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

BTW, I was considering strongly the possibility of Tyrion being a secret Targ from Aerys raping Joanna and that the visit of Oberyn and Elia Martell to Casterly Rock foreshadows it, but going back to ASoS it is specifically explained that the teenaged siblings were on a tour to have one or both of them betrothed. It was said that Lady Joanna Lannister and Oberyn's mother had been companions of Rhaelle Targaryen at court and had planned together to marry Oberyn to Cersei and Jaime to Elia. This plan was dropped after Joanna died when Tywin rebuffed the offer and offered Tyrion to Elia instead as an insult.

Yeah, there's also the instance where Lady Frey, Tywin's sister, tells Jaime that Tyrion is Tywin's true son (meaning that Tyrion is more like Tywin than Jaime). Taken together, there's no way Tyrion is a Targaryen. Plus his name would sound ridiculous with that surname.

[Morrigan]

It's done!

Congratulations, GRRM!

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

It's done!

Congratulations, GRRM!

why is he wasting his time killing giant gorillas when he could be writing ADWD?

[Doctor Evil]

Lovely. Will be out in July as announced then. I should go an pre-order on Amazon then ...

[Vortigern99]

"No, it wasn't the airplanes [pestering, complaining fans] that got 'im... it was Beauty [diligence and authorial skill] killed the Beast [the climax of ADWD]!"

[TragicMonkey]

My new theory, having just finished reading all four books again, is that Brienne is a corpse being necromantically animated by Varys, who is a Faceless Man in charge of a conspiracy of red priests trying to bring about the prophecy of the war for the dawn. Tyrion is Lyanna and Rhaegar's son, and was swapped at birth for Jon Lannister, who was then claimed to be Eddard's son by some common woman. The common woman in question was actually Lady Ashara Dayne in disguise, and she was working with Elia of Dorne on a second, entirely separate baby-swapping conspiracy at the behest of Elia's secret lover (that's what we are) Euron Greyjoy, and that's how baby Prince Aegon ended up growing up thinking himself Samwell Tarly and the real Tarly thinks he's Theon and the real Theon is Ser Loras. Oh, and Littlefinger is actually a secret Targaryen plotting for the throne himself, he's discovered that there are 100,000 dragon eggs hidden somewhere in the Vale and he's looking for them, and he's sent his Dornish minions to kidnap Daenerys because he thinks by burning her alive he can hatch them all for himself. It's really quite obvious when you think about it.

[Vortigern99]

I disagree. All that is only obvious in retrospect, after you realize that all the Starks are wargs shape-shifted into human form. Then it all falls into place.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I disagree. All that is only obvious in retrospect, after you realize that all the Starks are wargs shape-shifted into human form. Then it all falls into place.

There aren't any Starks, they were all killed off 8000 years prior to the first book, in the first war with the Others. The people who think they are Starks are just projections from the minds of the children of the forest. Except for Sansa, who is the "prince who was promised" and is destined to hatch her own wolf-dragon from the egg hidden within Sandor Clegane's body somewhere. Gregor, being attuned to the god of darkness, sensed this in childhood and attempted to hatch the egg by burning Sandor's face off. But only Sansa, playing Rhaegar's magical harp, can hatch the hidden dragon. Or "Sam" could do it, if he ever realizes that horn he's carried all the way from beyond the wall is the actual Horn of Winter, but it'll be a damn long time before that penny drops. Even Varys, who is currently pretending to be Marwyn the Mage, didn't recognize it, and I bet his mother Illyrio Mopatis won't, either.

[Vortigern99]

Yes, but this only makes sense when viewed against the backdrop of Dothraki transsexualism, IE Khal Drogo was actually a khalisi with a really tightly-secured strap-on.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Yeah, there's also the instance where Lady Frey, Tywin's sister, tells Jaime that Tyrion is Tywin's true son (meaning that Tyrion is more like Tywin than Jaime). Taken together, there's no way Tyrion is a Targaryen. Plus his name would sound ridiculous with that surname.

I just said it out loud.

Only piece of evidence necessary!

---

And I toldja, didn't I toldja?? GRRM was TOTALLY gonna make the deadline..

of course I said that all the other times... but hey, what's that about stopped clocks??

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Yes, but this only makes sense when viewed against the backdrop of Dothraki transsexualism, IE Khal Drogo was actually a khalisi with a really tightly-secured strap-on.

I figured out the Dothraki a long time ago. They are reverse horse-wargs. That's right: the Dothraki are all horses inhabiting and controlling the bodies of humans.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I figured out the Dothraki a long time ago. They are reverse horse-wargs. That's right: the Dothraki are all horses inhabiting and controlling the bodies of humans.

I admit... reading your silliness earlier, I thought it was too long and too over-the-top to be your usual funny self, and I started to have doubts... is TragicMonkey slipping?

But then you came back with this brilliant, concise post, and I LOLed again. Awesome. <3

[Vortigern99]

DallasDad has made this rather disconcerting accusation of plagiarism against George RR Martin, which I invite him to support/defend here, in the proper thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...77#post7190477

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

DallasDad has made this rather disconcerting accusation of plagiarism against George RR Martin, which I invite him to support/defend here, in the proper thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...77#post7190477

It's basically War of the Roses with Dragons and zombies. Dynastic civil wars aren't really that new of an idea..

That's not to say his characters are unoriginal (Tyrion and Lysa being some of the best he has created), or at the worst plagiarized, but I think it's a relative concept anyway. Spend enough time pouring through old works and you can find similarities between nearly everyone ever created or thought up.

Besides that, the world is simply not believable. Decades long winters, and people still quibble over something as petty as a thrown. They should be building warehouses and salting meat, not jousting. Not to mention the whole 'THOUSANDS of years' trope and the stagnation of the culture.

Good story telling, sure, but easily shrugged off.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by IDB87

It's basically War of the Roses with Dragons and zombies. Dynastic civil wars aren't really that new of an idea.

That's a reducto ad absurdium which collapses under scrutiny. This claim is akin to asserting that LOTR is WWII with elves and orcs. It's inaccurate, unhelpful and unsupportable. I challenge you to back it up on any kind of one-to-one basis between factual history and the four books of the ASoIaF series.

Originally Posted by IDB87

That's not to say his characters are unoriginal (Tyrion and Lysa being some of the best he has created), or at the worst plagiarized, but I think it's a relative concept anyway. Spend enough time pouring through old works and you can find similarities between nearly everyone ever created or thought up.

Now you're making sense.

Originally Posted by IDB87

Besides that, the world is simply not believable. Decades long winters, and people still quibble over something as petty as a throne. They should be building warehouses and salting meat, not jousting. Not to mention the whole 'THOUSANDS of years' trope and the stagnation of the culture.

Good story telling, sure, but easily shrugged off.

I disagree. I find the world of Westeros and Essos to be highly believable. This is a matter of opinion which you're welcome to try to substantiate.

As to the bolded sentence, it's a false dilemma. They can build warehouses and salt meat and joust, since typically it isn't the knights and lords doing the former. This is another reducto ad absurdium.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see DallasDad defend his accusations of plagiarism [linked upthread], so I'll paste them here and respond in brief:

Originally Posted by DallasDad

Yes, except that I would argue that Martin's Song books are a pastiche. He didn't invent much; he simply used every trope in existence, cadged from every epic, used every cliche, and stole characters whole from other authors.

With Martin, there are very interesting and well-written bits here and there, but the corpus is neither cohesive nor original.

I dislike the premium placed on "originality". I challenge you to produce some evidence for Martin's alleged plagiarism. Also, please explain what you mean by "[in]cohesive".

The masterful quality of ASoIaF exists mainly in its inversion and subversion of fantasy and historical tropes. Those so-called cliches have to be established first, before they can be turned on their heads. Martin is playing with our familiarity with these tropes before he zags in an unexpected direction and/or links that trope to something identifiable, real and human.

The ingenuity and complexity of the plotting, the identifiable humanity of the characters, the surprises and twists, the vivid cultural (artistic, heraldic, religious, architectural, etc.) descriptions, and the emotive aspect of the tragic events are what make the series stand apart.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

SoIaF tries to be what LOTR was. However, it fails. LOTR has a much richer history and much deeper culture. Martin is certainly better in this regard than many fantasy writers, but he's got nothing that can compare to The Silimarilion. In fact, this is a plot point for one specific plot. Don't get me wrong, Martin's works are good, it's just that I don't think that you can can say they're equal to Tolkien's achievements in world building.

ASoIaF is so conceptually, materially and literarily distinct from LOTR, I simply cannot imagine what you mean by the bare assertion "SoIaF tries to be what LOTR was". In what sense do you mean?

That "it fails" and that "LOTR has a much richer history and much deeper culture" are matters of opinion with which I disagree. Certainly The Silmarillion is an exemplary bit of myth-making, faux-history-writing and world-building (again, Tolkien called all this the act of "sub-creation"); yet Martin's 8000-year backstory is not encapsulated in a single tome, but rather spread out over the course of the 4000-pages-and-counting of the series itself. If we were to collate all of that historical material into a single volume, I argue that it would indeed rival the masterful "Epic History of the Elves".

There are three books yet to come in the series; I will refrain from making blanket statements about "equal achievements" with another, deceased author at least until the current author is finished with his series. Who knows but that a feat of Silmarillion-like history is yet to be published in the SoIaF world?