Climbing the Spitball Wall - An Unsullied's Take on A Song of Ice and Fire - Reading Complete! Now onto Rewatching the Show and Anticipating Season 6!

[ambi76]

Well, the westermark effect seems to pretty much have the opposite effect if the close relatives are not raised together and makes them extremely attractive then when met later in live. Strangely enough. So I'm always a bit puzzled about people flipping out about Theon feeling up Asha because they might as well be strangers at that point.

Edited August 5, 2015 by ambi76

[Protar]

There is in fact a gene for that?  Cool.

 

I don't know if it's a gene precisely, but some internal mechanism, called the Westermarck Effect stops you from being sexually attracted to the people you're raised around. Not specifically you're relatives, just anyone who you're bought up with/by.

 

Off topic, but interesting incest trivia, the opposite is also true. If you're not raised around your siblings and then meet them later in life you're very likely to be sexually attracted to them because of the familiarity. This got me thinking momentarily that maybe Jaime and Cersei where quite separate in the very early years if Jaime was molded into being a knight and Cersei a noble lady. But I don't think that fits. 

[ambi76]

I think it's probably a hormonal thing Protar.

 

As for Jaime and Cersei, I really think it was just

very early age (IIRC they were like six)

sexperimenting that ... never stopped.

Edited August 5, 2015 by ambi76

[Delta1212]

Well, the westermark effect seems to pretty much have the opposite effect if the close relatives are not raised together and makes them extremely attractive then when met later in live. Strangely enough. So I'm always a bit puzzled about people flipping out about Theon feeling up Asha because they might as well be strangers at that point.

I don't know if it's so much that it has the opposite effect in that situation as much as it just doesn't turn on for those people. And since people have a slight attraction bias to similar looking people to themselves, without that check...

[Shanna Marie]

I always figured that Jaime and Cersei's relationship had a strong whiff of narcissism, especially for Cersei -- the only person she could really love was herself, so the closest she could get to having a sexual relationship with the one person she really loves and still have sex with another person was her twin. There also seems to have been an element of control in there, where she wanted him totally bound to her and sex was a good way to make that happen. Why he went along with it is more of a mystery, but it seems to have started when they were so young he didn't have a good frame of reference.

[magdalene]

I always figured that Jaime and Cersei's relationship had a strong whiff of narcissism, especially for Cersei -- the only person she could really love was herself, so the closest she could get to having a sexual relationship with the one person she really loves and still have sex with another person was her twin. There also seems to have been an element of control in there, where she wanted him totally bound to her and sex was a good way to make that happen. Why he went along with it is more of a mystery, but it seems to have started when they were so young he didn't have a good frame of reference.

Nor did Jaime ever seek out any other sexual partner as a teenager or an adult.  Hey, Jaime, there are other vaginas out there. 

[Holmbo]

I actually really like the alcoholic metaphor (it just occurred to me) for Jaime's behavior and personality, and can think of a few ways to extend the metaphor, but as always, I'll wait until we get a little further in the story.

I've not really seen this comparison from book readers before but I've seen show only watchers compare Jaime to an addict. Because he seems to be a totally ok guy (though it's hard to tell if it's just the low standards for that world) except when it comes to Cersei where he seems to have no boundaries to what he's willing to do. Like a person who has an addiction to, say, heroin who might be a totally regular person but is willing to commit any crime to get the next fix.

I agree with Shimpy that it is common that stories treat romance like it's an addiction and it's not really how it works in real life.

I'll to refrain from any thoughts specific to book Jaime since it's too early.

[Hecate7]

Nor did Jaime ever seek out any other sexual partner as a teenager or an adult.  Hey, Jaime, there are other vaginas out there. 

 

We're supposed to think of it as narcissism, I think. And both of them have the romantic idea of being one another's "split apart," that they are one soul in two bodies, twin flames, soulmates, etc.... Cersei's love for Jaime is narcissism, which is why his being maimed ruins everything. Jaime's love of Cersei is inverse narcissism. Colors are brighter and food tastes better when she's around, but he has no sense of self.

[nksarmi]

We're supposed to think of it as narcissism, I think. And both of them have the romantic idea of being one another's "split apart," that they are one soul in two bodies, twin flames, soulmates, etc.... Cersei's love for Jaime is narcissism, which is why his being maimed ruins everything. Jaime's love of Cersei is inverse narcissism. Colors are brighter and food tastes better when she's around, but he has no sense of self.

Excellent summary of the two of them.

[Avaleigh]

Nor did Jaime ever seek out any other sexual partner as a teenager or an adult.  Hey, Jaime, there are other vaginas out there.

I know.

At the same time, Jaime's sexual faithfulness is one of the most fascinating things about his character to me. The moment where he's been without sex for over a year and he has an eager and willing Pia in front of him but then thinks to himself that he wants to wait because he already has a woman waiting for him at home--is there any character in ASOIAF other than Ned who is capable of such fidelity?

The one guy/POV in this series who we know for sure is sexually loyal is the guy who is in a relationship with his sister.

[Delta1212]

I know.

At the same time, Jaime's sexual faithfulness is one of the most fascinating things about his character to me. The moment where he's been without sex for over a year and he has an eager and willing Pia in front of him but then thinks to himself that he wants to wait because he already has a woman waiting for him at home--is there any character in ASOIAF other than Ned who is capable of such fidelity?

The one guy/POV in this series who we know for sure is sexually loyal is the guy who is in a relationship with his sister.

When we get to that scene, bring this up again, because I have a counterpoint, but I think it would be nice to be able to include shimpy in the conversation and I don't want to keep taking up space with a bunch of spoilered back and forths.

[stillshimpy]

but I think it would be nice to be able to include shimpy in the conversation and I don't want to keep taking up space with a bunch of spoilered back and forths.

 

Just wanted to say: from my perspective?  Please, feel free to do both.  Bring it back up at the appropriate time, but feel free to go-back-and-forth amongst yourselves with appropriate tagging (and that I would REALLY appreciate if you would stick with the tagging)....because, you guys? 

 

If there is one thing I am willing to claim being an absolute expert at, at this stage in the Game of Thrones game?  It is the art of NOT CLICKING ON STUFF I SHOULDN'T.   Man, do I ever have that one down.  

 

So play through, my brethren.  Play through.   My house sigil is the blindfolded mule and my House Words are "La! La! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"  

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[magdalene]

I know.

At the same time, Jaime's sexual faithfulness is one of the most fascinating things about his character to me. The moment where he's been without sex for over a year and he has an eager and willing Pia in front of him but then thinks to himself that he wants to wait because he already has a woman waiting for him at home--is there any character in ASOIAF other than Ned who is capable of such fidelity?

The one guy/POV in this series who we know for sure is sexually loyal is the guy who is in a relationship with his sister.

Oh, Avaleigh, lets sit in our lonesome Jaime loving corner together and try to wait patiently for the discussion to reach certain points in the books narrative. Lets hope Shimpy doesn't give up on the reading before we get there.

 

Watching the show one of the most frustrating things has been that they cut the character of Pia while inventing a Lannister cousin just for Jaime to murder. I am still shaking my head over that one.

[Protar]

By the way Shimpy, where you at in the books? I wasn't quite sure at what point you're at. :)

[Avaleigh]

Just wanted to say: from my perspective?  Please, feel free to do both.  Bring it back up at the appropriate time, but feel free to go-back-and-forth amongst yourselves with appropriate tagging (and that I would REALLY appreciate if you would stick with the tagging)....because, you guys? 

 

If there is one thing I am willing to claim being an absolute expert at, at this stage in the Game of Thrones game?  It is the art of NOT CLICKING ON STUFF I SHOULDN'T.   Man, do I ever have that one down.  

 

So play through, my brethren.  Play through.   My house sigil is the blindfolded mule and my House Words are "La! La! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Thanks Shimpy for clarifying what works for you. For me it's just about wanting to get a thought down while it's still fresh, pertinent, whatever. Clearly I can talk about asoiaf all day long so I have no problem bringing any of this up again and certainly am not trying to exclude anyone. ;) I know I'll get all of your impressions in good time.

[stillshimpy]

It's been slow progress for me this week, Protar Although, in absolutely wonderful news, I have a functioning kitchen again, so I've been doing things like wanting to hug my kitchen sink.  My husband is Texas (West Texas, no less, so the super Texas-y part of Texas) for the week, so I have barely been able to get anything fun done.

 

I'm on page 382 of 760 and I admit, part of what has kept me from making a ton of progress is that it's a Jon chapter, as they trudge through the North and have just glimpsed the Fist of the First Men.   Sometimes The Wall stuff works better for me than others.    

 

Avaleigh, I completely understand the "wanting to get a thought down" thing and that's why I said, "Just play on through, I'm really good at not clicking on spoiler tags" ....besides, I am really aware that you guys have been sort of stuck in the "can't say anything" aisle of the internet on these sort of issues with the Unsullied before.  It's pretty much bound to happen that I'll bring up something that will spark a discussion between people more in the know and really should be part of the fun of this for you guys.   

 

So absolutely, go for it :-)  I occasionally get up and jot down things on the nearest envelope as I'm reading, so I don't forget to bring them up.  If someone raids my trash, they will think I am COMPLETELY insane.   Here's what the back of one says:  "What the....?  Ramsay married Lady Hornwood??  Manderly took her castle.  Trouble with Botlons before.  Arya Bloody Mummers/Goat with Horns/Sellswords called Brave Companions...same as sons?"  

 

So I absolutely get it.  Plus, if anyone steals my trash to try for a spot of identity theft, they'd likely move on to the next victim, because this stuff is making me look thisclose to "That chick is clearly taking orders from the neighbor's dog or something equally 'don't let her dismember you' ....on to the next!"  

[Haleth]

The thing is there are plenty of threads where spoilery things can be discussed so there is no reason to get sidetracked here by events that have not yet occured in Shimpyworld. 

 

I finished another book I was reading and picked Clash back up last night, so I'm right at the same point as you.  Yeah, reading about Jon and company trudging through the north is not exactly compelling.  At least we have Dolorous Edd to break the monotony.

 

Congrats on the new kitchen!

[Protar]

Congratulations on the new kitchen Shimpy! :)

 

So you're just after Renly's death? Cool. What did you think of that scene?

[stillshimpy]

So you're just after Renly's death? Cool. What did you think of that scene?

 

Particularly compared to the show, I loved what the book had instead.  I understand why it would have been such a difficult thing to convey on the screen without looking cheesy, but the Smokey Baratheon, Black of 'air was almost comical.  Like a dementor that had crawled out of a naked woman.   In the book, the shadow was so much more interesting and unsettling.   I also liked how it appeared to be something Catelyn was glimpsing beforehand as she prayed in the sept and watched the shadows change the way the gods statues looked. 

 

That is one instance where I truly wish that I'd read the passage first, because I knew what was coming from the series, and what happened in the series was not one of the better moments.  "Oh...good?  A smokey twist on the Vagina Dentata? Huh?!?"   In the book the atmosphere is set much better and I particularly loved that for once, poor Catelyn's, "You know me" served to help someone, rather than ...you know...help start a war and all the other madness that has followed. 

 

That to everyone it really would seem as if poor freaking Brienne had killed Renly.   First of all, that really helps some of the stuff that will presumably still follow with Brienne.  In the series when Brienne pledges her sword to Catelyn, etc. etc.   it comes off much more like "Well, I have nothing else to do and this is sort of my only job in life.  Serving someone.  So, you'll do well enough."  Whereas in the book, Catelyn saves Brienne's life BIG TIME.  Keeps a cool head and displays something we rarely got to see from Series Catelyn:  A strategic mind.    

 

I think it was one of the scenes that best served female characters in the entire book, thus far.  It's the first scene where I could honestly say, "Yeah, I see a glimpse of why anyone would interpret Martin as having strong feminist themes."  Both women keep their heads far better than anyone else around them.  Poor Renly didn't even get to know who had killed him.   Catelyn being shown to be superstitious in the first book also paid off interestingly, because she doesn't question what she has seen.  

Series Catelyn seemed too....I don't want to say down-to-earth....but certainly not likely to instantly believe in murderous shadows.  Series Catelyn was impulsive and prone to saying too much, too clearly.   There was no real hint that she'd pretty easily believe, "What the hell?  Renly was just Murder by Magicks Most Foul!"  For Book Catelyn, it makes a lot more sense. 

 

It will also end up making sense that Brienne feels like she truly owes her loyalty and a pledge of it that will last after Catelyn's death, because Cat is the only reason Brienne got out of there alive.   That everyone saw her request the honor of dressing him before the battle and snickered, etc.  just made it that much more heartbreaking.  

 

So, it's weird, because in the series, so often when something happens to a female character, the series shoots it in the "Yes, sure....but what about the dudes? Let's watch their reactions, because they are the point of the story after all" ....in the book, Renly's death scene is about everyone other than Renly.  

 

It does remain as one of the reasons I truly don't get the concept that Stannis would have fans.  Even the damned Lannisters don't summon demonic forces to murder their enemies.  They're gross, send assassins, are willing to trick people (and don't get me started on Joffrey and the cats and the gutless wonders who just stand around and watch what he does) , but Stannis murdered his own brother in such a cowardly way.  

 

Now that's all assuming that he actually knew that Melisandre was going to have Renly murdered in that manner, but he knew.   I mean, the dialogue in the book makes it clear already that he knew.  

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Eegah]

One thing I'm a bit surprised you didn't comment on, and I'm wondering if it just didn't register like Howland Reed's appearance in Ned's dream: Randyll Tarly making an on-page appearance as part of Renly's army. Yeah, the asshole's pretty much what you'd expect from the way Sam talks about him.

[Protar]

Well I'd glad you liked it much more than in the show. I've always thought that the way the show handled it was much worse than in the books, but I can't say everything yet. But what I will say is that yes, the atmosphere is loads better. One thing that really bugged me on the show is that Brienne immediately jumps to the shadow looking like Stannis. There's not really anyway to interpret that shadow as looking like Stannis so you've basically got to ignore what your eyes are telling you for Brienne's reaction to make sense. And I get that that would have been very hard for the show to do right, but the fact remains that in the books you can easily imagine it looking like Stannis' shadow, especially as it is literally a shadow on the tent wall.

 

IIRC the show was originally going to go down that route, with purely practical effects showing the shadow cast on the tent canvas. But for whatever reason (perhaps because it would have been hard to show Melisandre giving birth to a literal shadow) this was cut. And that's why the directing in that scene is so choppy, because they didn't have time for a complete reshoot so they had to salvage what they could of the original scene.

[John Potts]

stillshimpy It does remain as one of the reasons I truly don't get the concept that Stannis would have fans.

 

 

Challenge accepted! Because Stannis is the rightful King. Unless you're a Targaryen loyalist (and therefore take Robert and his successors as all illegitimate) then he is the person who should be on the throne. Now you may not like the concept of an inherited monarchy (fair enough, despite living in one I'm not exactly a Royalist) but it's the only game in town and none of the Players is looking to end the aristocracy (though I have seen - IMO frankly deluded - people who claim that Littlefinger is going to overturn the monarchy and bring in democracy, because he's a "Man of the People"). Making the monarchy some sort of elective position is not going to work because the only people getting the vote are the ones with the armies. As Jorah Mormont put it, "the people pray for peace, good harvests and a Summer that never ends and care little for who sits on the throne - they just want to be left alone. They never are." Stannis may be an inflexible "With me or against me" type, but he regards himself as the rightful King and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor - it's not as if Renly didn't know that Stannis would never accept him as King. As for whether it was somehow "cheating," to paraphrase Tywin, "Tell me why it is more noble to kill 1000 in battle than one man in a tent?"

 

tl;dr? I'll see if I can put it more concisely later.

[Mya Stone]

I'm not a member of the Stannis is the Mannis camp HOWEVER I can say that he makes me laugh in his absolute rigidity. There's so much unintentional comedy in what a big dick and stickler for everything he is. It's just so...absurd. He's completely and utterly inflexible and unlikable...and yet, he has Davos backing him. And I actually trust in Davos' opinion of people and situations. So it's baffling.

[Avaleigh]

Challenge accepted! Because Stannis is the rightful King. Unless you're a Targaryen loyalist (and therefore take Robert and his successors as all illegitimate) then he is the person who should be on the throne. Now you may not like the concept of an inherited monarchy (fair enough, despite living in one I'm not exactly a Royalist) but it's the only game in town and none of the Players is looking to end the aristocracy (though I have seen - IMO frankly deluded - people who claim that Littlefinger is going to overturn the monarchy and bring in democracy, because he's a "Man of the People"). Making the monarchy some sort of elective position is not going to work because the only people getting the vote are the ones with the armies. As Jorah Mormont put it, "the people pray for peace, good harvests and a Summer that never ends and care little for who sits on the throne - they just want to be left alone. They never are." Stannis may be an inflexible "With me or against me" type, but he regards himself as the rightful King and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor - it's not as if Renly didn't know that Stannis would never accept him as King. As for whether it was somehow "cheating," to paraphrase Tywin, "Tell me why it is more noble to kill 1000 in battle than one man in a tent?"

 

tl;dr? I'll see if I can put it more concisely later.

I'm not a fan of Stannis but I think this is well put.

I do appreciate his sense of humor but I don't think he would be the best king for the people of Westeros. Lots of issues would come if he were to successfully take the Iron Throne.

I also don't believe that Stannis took Renly out with a shadow assassin because he was concerned about the morality of a bunch of people losing their lives. I just think he wanted to absorb as many of Renly's forces as possible and the best way to do that was to have Renly killed first.

[Triskan]

I'm on page 382 of 760 and I admit, part of what has kept me from making a ton of progress is that it's a Jon chapter, as they trudge through the North and have just glimpsed the Fist of the First Men.   Sometimes The Wall stuff works better for me than others.

 

 

Funny. For many people the heart of book 2 is the Tyrion chapters, but for me, it's both Jon and Theon... I'm a massive fan of the expedition north of the Wall, and the icy, desolated atmosphere of these chapters (and Dolorous Edd !!!).

 

But, yeah, I can understand not everyone enjoys these chapters. 

[Delta1212]

I'm not a Stannis the Mannis follower, but I do agree with the sentiment that "the cowards way" is generally just whatever the people with power label the avenues left available to those without it. I don't see sending an assassin, magical or otherwise, as being any more or less cowardly than killing your foe with an army that outnumbers his ten to one. Yet the former is the act of a coward and the latter is just considered smart planning.

And the reason for this, I think, is that only the powerful are ever likely to be able to summon up a large enough fighting force to pull that off, whereas anybody could hire an assassin. I know that if I had a powerful army that no one could hope to beat head on that I'd do my damnedest to make sure that everyone believed that the only acceptable way to win was to challenge an opposing army head on.

[stillshimpy]

Thanks for the cheers for the kitchen, by the way :-) 

 

 

 

Challenge accepted! Because Stannis is the rightful King. Unless you're a Targaryen loyalist (and therefore take Robert and his successors as all illegitimate) then he is the person who should be on the throne.

 

Unfortunately the way in which Stannis kills Renly does matter, if you are going to rely upon "the rightful heir!" business as why he should be king or have the better claim than Renly.  

 

Throughout history Thrones were held, not just by bloodlines, but by the ability to fight for and keep those thrones.  As ruling anything is actually about ruling over the resources that provide for people, which allows you to govern them.   

 

Robert Baratheon challenged the Targaryens not based on a bloodline claim, but apparently because Aerys was no longer fit to rule.  Renly deems Stannis not fit to rule, because he can't inspire men to follow him and he's too cold to actually care about the well-being of his subjects.  Renly's argument of "whoever can win the Throne deserves it" has some merit.  

 

Stannis cannot hide behind "BECAUSE IT IS MY RIGHT!" and then employ magical forces to fight for the Throne, rather than follow the rules by which Thrones are won.  

 

Stannis just has a bad case of middle-child syndrome more than anything and if he truly is the rightful heir, than fighting for that Throne is one of the ways that determines that fitness and that right in this world.  Jaime Lannister slit the Mad King's Throat and Ned Stark would have killed him had he not removed his rule-and-oath-breaking butt from the Throne.  

 

The rules matter if we're talking about fitness to rule and even Renly knew that, it's why he wouldn't attack Stannis in anything other than a forthright manner.  He was willing to fight for the Throne and Stannis didn't do that to spare any lives out of Kingly compassion, he did it so he could have those same men to throw at the Blackwater.   He wasn't trying to spare a living soul, he was just trying to make sure they died for his ends, rather than Renly's claim.  The man they were willing to pledge their loyalty to as a King.   

 

Challenge not met.   Don't even get me started on the "leaving someone else to take the blame" of it all, because boy, does that ever not speak well of his character.   He can send a letter far and wide crying, "Me! Me! Me! It's MINE" but I rather doubt he's going to send out a "Killed him with Shadow....just as shady as that sounds....follow me!" letter.  

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[chandraReborn]

It's an interesting moral dilemma. You're facing a battle in which thousands of men could die, and you think you can prevent that by having your brother assassinated. Of course, both Stannis and Renly made the choice to pursue the crown and thus to come to battle. They're not being forced into it, and the stubbornness of both men doesn't go far to give either the moral high ground.  

 

If Stannis had hired an assassin to kill his brother, rather than using magic, would you feel differently?

[Delta1212]

Counterpoint: The Targaryen's originally took the throne with Dragonite, and we obviously have wildfire coming into play. Both of those are magical in nature.

Was their use also against the rules and, if not, why not?

[John Potts]

OK, I'll try to put it more concisely (so expect 10 000 words!): most people don't care who's on the throne, they just want no more armies torching their crops, killing their menfolk and raping their women. The best at establishing law & order is probably Stannis (obviously that's an opinion, but I don't think an unsupportable one). After all, in comparison with the War of the Five Kings, most "common people" probably regard Aerys' reign as a Golden Age - The Mad King lost power not because he was terrorising the people but because he treated the nobility like the Boltons treat their peasants (or Joffrey treated everyone!) and Robert didn't rebel because Aerys was some vicious tyrant but because his son kidnapped his fiancée (which may not even be true).

 

As for whether it matters that Stannis used Shadow Assassins - so what? He'd warned Renly that if he didn't bend the knee he'd destroy him, Renly didn't and as a result Stannis (via Mel) had him killed. It's not as if Renly thought Stannis was joking.

[stillshimpy]

As for whether it matters that Stannis used Shadow Assassins - so what? He'd warned Renly that if he didn't bend the knee he'd destroy him, Renly didn't and as a result Stannis (via Mel) had him killed. It's not as if Renly thought Stannis was joking.

 

Does he, in fact, put forth that he killed Renly?  Or does he allow the men who come to his side to believe that Brienne of Tarth murdered him?  Because if Stannis doesn't lay claim to it, that in and of itself says he knew bloody well it was wrong and that Men would not follow him if they knew it.  

 

Was their use also against the rules and, if not, why not?

 

Now, it isn't as if assassins weren't used throughout history.  Look up a Roman Emperor of almost any name and it's about a fifty-fifty chance that the way his rule will end will read as follows:  Killed by his own legion.  

 

But there is reason this is so against all rules of winning the right to rule:  If it isn't off the table as a means of securing power, than anarchy and chaos will result, because everyone will end up doing it ....and by the way....those periods of instability cost the Roman Empire a lot of their strength.  

 

The Targaryens tamed and controlled dragons.  Flesh and blood creatures that men could (and apparently did) kill.  As for whether or not wildfire is magic, I didn't get the sense it was magic...it is chemical warfare and that's really freaking frowned upon in our world today for a good reasons.  If power is to mean anything, then there is a structure to that power, that's why "No, sorry, the rules matter." 

 

And once again, if Stannis didn't crow proudly from the rooftops that he did the deed, then there's a reason for that:  He knew it would cost him the loyalty of those he wanted to fight for him. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[nksarmi]

I'm not a member of the Stannis is the Mannis camp HOWEVER I can say that he makes me laugh in his absolute rigidity. There's so much unintentional comedy in what a big dick and stickler for everything he is. It's just so...absurd. He's completely and utterly inflexible and unlikable...and yet, he has Davos backing him. And I actually trust in Davos' opinion of people and situations. So it's baffling.

It was the actor on the show that made me like Stannis - I didn't feel it in the books (same by the way with the Hound).

[nksarmi]

Counterpoint: The Targaryen's originally took the throne with Dragonite, and we obviously have wildfire coming into play. Both of those are magical in nature.

Was their use also against the rules and, if not, why not?

Took the throne - they made the throne!  That is actually why I argued that in many ways, I think Robb (King of the North) and Balon (King of the Iron Born) were right - if a Targaryen wasn't going to rule, why have any of the noble houses rule over the others?  The seven kingdoms were once just that - the North bent the knee because of dragons - why should they bend to the stag or lion?  Are they not just as great as those houses? 

 

I believe the only reason Robert B's kingdom held was because Jon A and Ned supported him.  I think once he, Jon A, and Ned died (before and during the first book) the obvious conclusion would be the seven kingdoms would fall apart unless another Targ with dragons happens to show up to claim the Iron Throne. 

 

Bottom line: I'm perfectly content saying that neither Robert B nor his brothers ever had a right to rule the seven kingdoms and I think Robb and Balon would more right in their claim to reinstate the ancestral kingships than another of the others.  Of course being right doesn't mean you win, but I certainly think when you talk about who has the right to rule, you really do have to consider that before the Targs - all the kingdoms were separate and none of the seven ruled over the others (at least as far I know - I haven't read a lot of the companion books so maybe I am wrong).

[stillshimpy]

Took the throne - they made the throne!  That is actually why I argued that in many ways, I think Robb (King of the North) and Balon (King of the Iron Born) were right - if a Targaryen wasn't going to rule, why have any of the noble houses rule over the others?  The seven kingdoms were once just that - the North bent the knee because of dragons - why should they bend to the stag or lion?  Are they not just as great as those houses?

 

Emphasis mine.  Now that's a really good point and one I had not considered.  You see, for all that say, "I don't know why anyone would back Stannis" it's because I think he's a drip, not because I think there was a good, kingly figure on the horizon and I still don't really know that Dany would make a good ruler. 

 

I take a sort of agnostic viewpoint on who should sit on the Throne, in part because the entire story opens with "Look North....you got big problems than this game of Musical Thrones....by a LOT."   

 

Also, full disclosure:  My mother is from Scotland.  I very much grew up viewing English history with an eye towards:  Yeah, you're welcome for James VI of Scotland/James I of England without whom you'd all either be fluent in Spanish or French.  (and somewhere on TWoP existed the lengthy rant of me losing my entire mind, going out, procuring more to lose and then continuing to lose it when that shit show The Tudors made a composite character out of Henry's sister and thereby wiped out all of English history....an error so glaring they actually bothered to correct it several seasons later).  

 

But that's another rant for another time and a completely different place.  That and somewhere in the mists of time exists the cussing residue that permeated the house I lived in when I first read Mary Queen of Scots biography and learned why being actually fit to rule mattered so much, since that woman was a complete ninny....but at least her son learned from her mistakes. 

 

ETA:  Also, it occurs to me that I haven't actually been hanging out with you guys, arguing back and forth for five years, so there's a chance you don't know this John Potts (although we've exchanged posts before in the realm of scifi)...but I am at least teasing a little bit and you do make some good points, those just are my counter points.  

 

I'm so used to teasing Stumbler about Stannis it took a moment for me to remember that "Oh wait, not everyone will know that I think this is all in good fun."  

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Delta1212]

Well, remember, you haven't been exchanging posts with us for five years, but at least some of us have been reading your posts for that long.

[ambi76]

Yeah, Renly's big mistake was not to come up with a plan to assassinate Stannis before he could assassinate him (would definitely have spared us the Mannis faction of fandom). He especially could have gone along with the King Stannis thing with him as his heir for a while and then let Stannis have "an accident" at an opportune moment.

Edited August 6, 2015 by ambi76

[Delta1212]

Also, if you're going to play by the "You have to play by the rules or the realm falls into chaos", well, rules, then we should point out that that doesn't just apply to assassins: It also applies to the rules of inheritance.

Renly was breaking the rules that are there expressly for the purpose of ensuring a smooth transition in order to prevent the realm from falling into a messy war of succession every time the king dies, and what happens as a result? The realm falls into a bloody war of succession, and precisely at the worst time, too.

If Renly had been playing by the rules, he'd have backed Stannis, their combined forces, easily walked over the Lannisters, and maintained the Baratheon monarchy. I don't think girls can normally inherit, so Renly would have been the heir to the throne, and with Stannis's track record being what it is, he'd be like to stay that way.

The Tyrell's could have still married Margaery to Renly, and maybe betrothed Garlan or someone to Shireen. Robb's rebellion would have been considerably weakened from a motivational standpoint. It's one thing to ask Robb to ally with you to take the throne and then bend the knee to you. It's another thing to ask him to bend the knee once you already have the throne and his rebellion had gone from fighting against the people who beheaded his father and held his sister(s) captive, and another thing when it's rebelling against the family of his father's best friend who happen to have deposed the people who beheaded his and who rescued the sister they were holding, who incidentally makes a great bargaining piece when it comes to negotiating peace.

Renly's decision to break the rules doomed the realm to the disaster that was the War of the Five Kings. Compared to using a magical assassin, that's more honorable?

[Haleth]

And both of their mistakes was not listening to Catelyn and joining forces with Robb to rid the kingdom of the Lannisters, then after that was done to broker an agreement as to who would rule.  Of course Stannis felt he had the legal right and Renly thought he had the military right, and look how that ended up for both (well, actually all four, including Cat and Robb) of them.

 

(I was typing this as Delta posted.)

Edited August 6, 2015 by Haleth

[ambi76]

Compared to using a magical assassin, that's more honorable?

 

Well, in the end that didn't help much with the war effort either. Especially as it was employed

because of a false interpreted future vision

.

 

And I think the difference is Renly never ever claimed to play by the rules. Stannis did (and didn't really). That's what I call a hypocrite.

Edited August 6, 2015 by ambi76

[Delta1212]

I think the difference is Renly never ever claimed to play by the rules, Stannis did.

That's a fair point, but mostly just makes Renly less of a hypocrite than Stannis. Of course, hypocrisy or lack thereof isn't the best predictor of whether someone will be an effective ruler or not.

As Tywin demonstrates

Edited August 6, 2015 by Delta1212

[ambi76]

Oh Gods

Tywin

.

 

How the hell does he have fans?

 

Oh, right

Charles Dance

.

[stillshimpy]

Also, if you're going to play by the "You have to play by the rules or the realm falls into chaos", well, rules, then we should point out that that doesn't just apply to assassins: It also applies to the rules of inheritance.

 

Renly was breaking the rules that are there expressly for the purpose of ensuring a smooth transition in order to prevent the realm from falling into a messy war of succession every time the king dies, and what happens as a result? The realm falls into a bloody war of succession, and precisely at the worst time, too.

 

Renly was breaking the rules because the Heir to the Throne wasn't fit to rule and I don't mean Stannis.  I mean Joffrey.  He was going to try and get Cersei set aside in favor of Margaery regardless of what happened with Robert, but he at least was acting on the "Not fit to rule" part of the "fight for the Throne when _____" thing.  

 

Also, the book revealed one more thing that Stannis did that made me say "Wha....? Ew.  You're no 'I love a rule book, best of all' type of stickler" because apparently Stannis went to Jon Arryn with his suspicions about Robert's children, rather than go to Robert....because Robert didn't like him as much as he liked Jon or Ned (which gee, that's just mystifying ...I'm telling you he's King Middle Child Syndrome).  

 

So the "you have to play by the rules or things fall into chaos"  ....Kings are deposed sometimes.  I won't bore the snot out of everyone with Edward II's reign and blah blah blah...leading to Edward III's ....etc at much length at least, but when the "rightful heir" is unfit, there are actually...if not strict rules....protocols and acceptable actions for that too.  Renly marshaling forces and preparing to fight for the Throne actually is among them, although it is at least a little bit of a crackup to me that his reason for not trying to install Stannis on the Throne ran more towards "Neener, neener, he sucks anyway."  

 

Joffrey.  Incestuous bastard or not and it's not like any of these people had a smoking DNA test to wave around,  was not a fit King and Cersei was a wackadoodle regardless.  

 

It can be argued that Renly at least thought he was acting for the good of the realm (and personal gain) whereas Stannis really appears to be acting from the Playbook of Scrooge McDuck. 

 

ETA:  Back to the "generally speaking, things are done thusly___" ways of "How to get rid of a bad monarch"....that's the big reason that cuckolding the King is punishable by death.  Illegitimate Issue in line for Inheritances causes all sorts of "WHEE! War it is!" type of problems. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[John Potts]

Don't worry stillshimpy, I don't take it personally, and I do recall exchanging posts on TWoP ( think on DS9?). Boards would be dull if they were all "ITA"!

 

As or why Tywin has fans... although I'm not one of them, while it's hard to like him, you can't help but admire the Ruthless Bastard. And there's plenty of historical evidence that folks prefer stability, even at sword/gun point to outright anarchy.

 

ETA: As to why Stannis went to John Arryn rather than Robert - well, John Arryn was The Hand and he probably knew Robert would value John's opinion more than Stan's own (particularly if Robert was likely to react like Jamie and be all "So you're saying my kids are illegitimate and you are my rightful heir? How convenient for you!").

 

ETA2 (because I just cannot restrain my sesquipedalian loquaciousness... I mean I love to go on!): I suspect if he was asked Stannis would say "I told Renly if he opposed me he'd die: now he's dead" and allow people to draw their own conclusions. It would be true, too... just not the whole truth.

Edited August 6, 2015 by John Potts

[stillshimpy]

Pretty sure it was also BSG :-)  

 

but at least some of us have been reading your posts for that long.

 

You know, you're right, that hadn't occurred to me. Fair point and it should have occurred to me, seeing as ...well, the title of the thread and all.  So most of you would already know that one of my hobbies is making fun of Stannis :-D 

[Haleth]

I hope you aren't creeped out by the fact that many of us have been following you for years. I've "known" you since the twop BSG days too. I was very late to that show and read your posts long after the episodes aired.

[Mya Stone]

Just for "Holy shit" reference, the season 5 finale unsullied thread has about 5,400 views. This thread has practically 32,000.

You've definitely piqued the interest of quite a few folks, shimpy. ;)

[stillshimpy]

Not at all creeped out, Haleth, usually whenever anyone recognizes my screenname it's from the BSG days and I know tons of people from boards in that same kind of "Oh yeah, I know your screenname and you're a _____ fan , who likes ______ and is a big _____ 'shipper, right?  Yeah, hi!  How are you?"   Pallas (from the unsullied group) and I knew each other in that way before the whole Completely Unspoiled thing happened too. 

 

Well it's super fun for me, Mya, so that's good to know.  I know it's been enriching my reading experience to have people ask "Hey so what was your take on _____"  because it makes me give it more thought.  Take a second look and really think through the implications.  Like Protar asking about Renly's death scene.  I knew I liked it, but it wasn't until she asked that I stopped to ask myself why that was and figure it out.   nksarmi just brought up something I'd literally given no thought to in all this time and it was one of those "Hey...yeah!  type of things that had sort of been staring me in the face for all those seasons -- the Targaryens conquering and creating one kingdom from seven and forging that throne in the first place.  

 

The book really delved into it at some length too, yet that really was an entirely new insight to me.  I've studied kind of a fair amount of history too, so it really startled me that something that has definite echoes from real history -- that I know of and about -- had honestly never crossed my mind.   

 

Just saying, it's a lot of fun for me and it's also turning out to be super cool to have access to the thought process of people who have been considering this, in some depth, for quite some time.   Thank you for all that.  

 

Okay, off to read more, before bidding a final farewell to Jon Stewart as TDS host this evening.  

Edited August 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[magdalene]

I never liked Stannis. I didn't like him before he killed his own brother and I certainly loathed him after he killed Renly with witchcraft. What a cowardly way to kill somebody.  I also don't like him on a fundamental level because of the rigidity of his character. Everything is about the rule and the law and the ambition to be king for him. I don't care that he is the "rightful" king. He lacks the thing I value in a person, he lacks empathy, he lacks humanity, and he lacks the kind of common sense that is important to me. And unlike some characters who I grew to like or love or find fascinating over time because of the way Martin showed me what's inside those characters through perspective and the power of the POV, Martin never showed me anything that made me change my mind about Stannis. Actually, like Cersei, I grew to like Stannis less the more I got into his head.

 

And certainly show Stannis has done everything to vindicate my loathing of the books version.

[SeanC]

Stannis' rigidity is what I find interesting about him as a character -- GRRM does a good job of elucidating the positives and negatives of it as a trait; its sort of a cousin to the way GRRM uses the various Starks (Ned, especially) to examine the good and bad aspects of "honour".  I think one of the reasons the character does have a following is because, in a series where most of the politically powerful characters don't really have any guiding principles beyond doing whatever benefits them the most, Stannis is one of the few that is at least trying to adhere to some conception of law.  And I do mean "trying", because he is still human, and ultimately he has a lot of grudges and resentments that have accumulated throughout his life that influence his choices more than he can see or admit.

[ambi76]

Just for "Holy shit" reference, the season 5 finale unsullied thread has about 5,400 views. This thread has practically 32,000.

 

Well, it's always great (nerdy) fun to follow someone reading ASOIAF for the first time. And shimpy is doing it relatively fast too. Leigh Butler's first time read on TOR takes almost as long as GRRM's writing in contrast (four and a half years now, prequels included though).