Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

Happy Harpy · February 20, 2018

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

Ok so I know what I’m about to say might make me sound ridiculous but I’m gonna go for it.

If GOT is inspired from LOTR, isn’t it obvious that Jon Snow is Aragorn? So doesn’t that give hope that Jon will be king in the end?

Im genuinely Interested in you guys thoughts.

Honestly? It depends on GRRM playing the trope straight, subverting, or inverting it. So it doesn't mean anything, really.

WindyNights · February 20, 2018

3 hours ago, GraceK said:

I have to say this is a fascinating concept that I never considered before. So do you think Jon has nothing to do with the endgame then? Or he just has to be deceitful to win?

Depends on what you mean by endgame. Like during the War of the Dawn? Or after the War of the Dawn?

I can tell you that the guy whose post that I referenced thinks Bran is the one that is going to beat the Army of the Dead because TEC was trying to teach the lesson to him(not Jon) and because Jojen implies that Bran is the one that is going to stop the army of the dead.

I think Jon and Daenerys are going to kill the NK but Bran opens that possibility up by destroying the Army of the Dead at King's Landing.

So I'm a believer in some variation of the Bran Them All theory where Bran sacrifices King's Landing and the entire population to win. That's consistent with GRRM's other story where the protagonist sterilizes most of the population to save it.

Not sure on Jon's fate but I think he survives albeit abdicating the role of KITN to Sansa/Arya/Bran and he goes to travel but not aging because of his resurrection.

Like Strider but in reverse.

There is some foreshadowing though that Jon is going to grow old and bitter.

The Red Keep was full of cats: lazy old cats dozing in the sun, cold-eyed mousers twitching their tails, quick little kittens with claws like needles, ladies' cats all combed and trusting, ragged shadows prowling the midden heaps. One by one Arya had chased them down and snatched them up and brought them proudly to Syrio Forel … all but this one, this one-eared black devil of a tomcat. "That's the real king of this castle right there," one of the gold cloaks had told her. "Older than sin and twice as mean. One time, the king was feasting the queen's father, and that black bastard hopped up on the table and snatched a roast quail right out of Lord Tywin's fingers. Robert laughed so hard he like to burst. You stay away from that one, child."

Notice that each of those kitten groups represents a Stark child. Jon is the black bastard. And the real Arya stands in as Death. Arya got them all except Jon who is referred to as really old and twice as mean.

2 hours ago, GraceK said:

Ok so I know what I’m about to say might make me sound ridiculous but I’m gonna go for it.

If GOT is inspired from LOTR, isn’t it obvious that Jon Snow is Aragorn? So doesn’t that give hope that Jon will be king in the end?

Im genuinely Interested in you guys thoughts.

Jon is a variation of Aragorn but that doesn't mean that he will have Aragorn's fate.

GRRM has never really been wow'd by Aragorn's ending. He believes the thing that sets LOTR apart from other fantasy is the Scouring of the Shire and Frodo's ending.

So expect some variation of beautiful sorrow that makes you think of how Frodo went down for the main character's endings.

anamika · February 20, 2018

On 2/18/2018 at 10:18 PM, GraceK said:

Why is it so important for Bran to be given this information? Season 6 all of his flashbacks with the original Three eyed raven are all clues leading up to the Jon is a Targaryen reveal. If Bran has a specific mission when it comes to the NK, then it seems to be that Jon’s parentage is apparently pretty important part of that...especially with his insistence in season 7 that he has to tell Jon.

I doubt there's a lot of significance in this. This is the just the show cutting corners. There's no Howland Reed on the show and David and Dan don't know what to do with Bran since they suck at writing the magical elements of the story if they are not dragons or zombies. In the books, Bran's story is the most involved with the Others and the lands of always winter. I don't think Jon finds out through Bran in the books.

10 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/7a2p88/spoilers_extended_if_you_have_to_fight_win_the/

Say what you will about D&D, or the Tower of Joy fight being a let down, or the dialogue not matching the excellence of the book dialogue, but this principle hits the nail on the head of a common element that runs through both the books and the show, and generally encapsulates GRRM's greater thesis on war and battle. Simply put, honor does not win wars. Heroism and bravery, though necessary on some personal level to risk one's life, also does not win wars and battles. What wins (other than the basic ingredients of men, weapons, and dragons) is ruthless pragmatism, trickery, and sacrifice.

In my opinion this is not totally true. Of course there is no point in being rigidly honorable - no one is in the books. Even Ned was not fully honorable was he? He sacrificed his honor to save his family and his downfall was because he wanted to save children, not his honor.

That being honorable is idiotic is David and Dan's thesis on the show, not GRRM's. That's why in the books, there are consequences to the Red Wedding - The North Remembers. The mountain clans are marching through the harshest winter for Ned's little girl. Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. The loyalty towards the Starks is because of who Ned was as a person and how he ruled.

People like Tywin, Roose and Walder are reviled in Westeros for the the breaking of guest rights - the ends don't justify the means. Their trickery may have won them the battle. But did it win them the war? What is going to be Tywin's legacy? Or Roose's? Tywin is dead, killed by his own son. Walder and Roose are not going to be lasting much longer. Cersei is losing terribly in the last book and Jaime has abandoned her.

It's David and Dan whose interpretation of the books is that the ends justify the means and that honor is bad. Hence why Sansa tells Jon to not be like Ned and why the treacherous villains like Ramsay and Cersei keep on winning because the show stacks the odds in their favor. It's why the Northerners are disloyal weather vanes on the show.

In the books, one can try to be both honorable and pragmatic - Jon in ADwD. Wanting to do the right thing does not make one an idiot.

4 hours ago, GreyBunny said:

2. Jon's resurrection in the book will tranform him in some substantial way, particularly in giving him some abilities to fight the Others. The TV show is inconsistent in showing the cost of magic.

I think we will see a darker, more greyer Jon in the next book, if we get a POV. A more wolfish Jon because of spending more time in Ghost. Maybe he will be like the old kings of winter- like Ice Eyes who hung the entrails of slavers from trees! I though Rickon would come back savage, but maybe it's Jon

Edited February 20, 2018 by anamika

WindyNights · February 20, 2018

1 minute ago, anamika said:

I doubt there's a lot of significance in this. This is the just the show cutting corners. There's no Howland Reed on the show and David and Dan don't know what to do with Bran since they suck at writing the magical elements of the story if they are not dragons or zombies. In the books, Bran's story is the most involved with the Others and the lands of always winter. If the next book ever comes out we are probably going to see more of this unexplored region and more of the Others through Bran.

In my opinion this is not totally true. Of course there is no point in being rigidly honorable - no one is in the books. Even Ned was not fully honorable was he? He sacrificed his honor to save his family and his downfall was because he wanted to save children, not his honor.

That being honorable is idiotic is David and Dan's thesis on the show, not GRRM's. That's why in the books, there are consequences to the Red Wedding - The North Remembers. The mountain clans are marching through the harshest winter for Ned's little girl. Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. The loyalty towards the Starks is because of who Ned was as a person and how he ruled.

People like Tywin, Roose and Walder are reviled in Westeros for the the breaking of guest rights - the ends don't justify the means. Their trickery may have won them the battle. But did it win them the war? What is going to be Tywin's legacy? Or Roose's? Tywin is dead, killed by his own son. Walder and Roose are not going to be lasting much longer. Cersei is losing terribly in the last book and Jaime has abandoned her.

It's David and Dan whose interpretation of the books is that the ends justify the means and that honor is bad. Hence why Sansa tells Jon to not be like Ned and Robb and why the treacherous villains like Ramsay and Cersei keep on winning because the show stacks the odds in their favor. It's why the Northerners are disloyal weather vanes on the show.

In the books, one can try to be both honorable and pragmatic - Jon in ADwD. Wanting to do the right thing does not make one an idiot.

Eh, ADWD Jon isn't honorable though. In fact, the reason he gets assassinated is because he was breaking the rules the entire time.

And he's sometimes pragmatic but the truth is that Jon is lead by his hero-complex too much (the disastrous Hardhome mission in the books).

Anyways, it's not about honor being stupid. It's that honor isn't enough to win by itself and neither is personal sacrifice. You need more than that.

Besides Ned doesn't take Renly nor LF's deal because it's not honorable.

People like Tywin, Walder and Roose have petty ends. When it comes to saving the world, can the means justify those ends? I think it can, yes.

Also all those show examples that you're citing is set up for what is going to happen in the end imo. It boosts my evidence.

anamika · February 20, 2018

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Eh, ADWD Jon isn't honorable though. In fact, the reason he gets assassinated is because he was breaking the rules the entire time.

But that then is the opposite of what you said is GRRM's thesis - that if one is not honorable, one can win. It looks like Jon being dishonorable and getting killed because of it disproves your point.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

And he's sometimes pragmatic but the truth is that Jon is lead by his hero-complex too much (the disastrous Hardhome mission in the books).

It's less of a hero-complex and more that Jon lets his emotions rule his decisions sometimes - Hardhome and the mission to save Arya are examples of him letting his personal feelings decide matters.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Anyways, it's not about honor being stupid. It's that honor isn't enough to win by itself and neither is personal sacrifice. You need more than that.

What do you mean by 'more than that'?

I mean Ned took Theon as a child hostage and Jon has taken child hostages and threatened to cut off their heads. Honor in the books means living by the laws and rules of Westeros - the people who win by deceit break the rules and as I pointed out the Lannisters, Freys and Boltons are on the loosing end right now because of their treachery.

What did they gain by the red wedding? Less loss of life on their side? Sure. But in the long term? Who is ever going to trust the likes of the Lannisters and Freys again? Personally, I think Jon Arryn was the stupidest character in the series to not only trust Tywin Lannister, but then proceed to marry Cersei to Robert and make the Kingslayer a member of the KG! He deserved to get poisoned to death by his wife. He's the guy responsible for hiring LF and for the Lannisters getting their stranglehold on KL. And unlike Ned, Jon Arryn ignored the rape and murder of Elia and her children and rewarded the Lannisters for their crimes. Where's the honor in that?

And it's not that the good guys don't realize that you have to fight fire with fire. As Manderly points out:

Quote

When treating with liars, even an honest man must lie. I did not dare defy King's Landing so long as my last living son remained a captive.

...................

They watch me, ser. Day and night their eyes are on me, noses sniffing for some whiff of treachery. You saw them, the arrogant Ser Jared and his nephew Rhaegar, that smirking worm who wears a dragon's name. Behind them both stands Symond, clinking coins. That one has bought and paid for several of my servants and two of my knights. One of his wife's handmaids has found her way into the bed of my own fool. If Stannis wonders that my letters say so little, it is because I dare not even trust my maester. Theomore is all head and no heart. You heard him in my hall. Maesters are supposed to put aside old loyalties when they don their chains, but I cannot forget that Theomore was born a Lannister of Lannisport and claims some distant kinship to the Lannisters of Casterly Rock. Foes and false friends are all around me, Lord Davos. They infest my city like roaches, and at night I feel them crawling over me.

My son Wendel came to the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder's bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him. Murdered, I say, and may the Freys choke upon their fables. I drink with Jared, jape with Symond, promise Rhaegar the hand of my own beloved granddaughter ... but never think that means I have forgotten. The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done. My son is home.

This speech pretty much encapsulates what GRRM thinks about trickery and deceit and whether the ends justify the means.

The North is playing it's own games with the Boltons to get rid of them. Liars and traitors get no respect from them. Don't treat dishonorable people with honor. And I think all the Northerners know that and follow that.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Besides Ned doesn't take Renly nor LF's deal because it's not honorable.

Ned went down because he warned Cersei to save her children, his daughter betrayed him and he trusted in LF. He was an honorable man surrounded by dishonorable enemies on enemy territory. He should have certainly been smarter and gone about things differently, but hindsight is 20/20. Everything went against him including Robert getting gored by the boar. But Jon is a smarter, more pragmatic Ned - able to bend the rules more easily if necessary.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Also all those show examples that you're citing is set up for what is going to happen in the end imo. It boosts my evidence.

No those examples are because David and Dan just love characters like Ramsay and Cersei and want them hanging around as much as possible. That's why the writing is so terrible around them - they suffer no consequences from their mistakes, they always win - Ramsay can massacre his own men and Cersei can blow up a sept full of people and nothing ever happens to them as a result of these actions. It's just bad writing and you should not use these examples as evidence for anything.

PS: I just noticed in Manderly's speech how he refers to Rhaegar Frey:

Quote

his nephew Rhaegar, that smirking worm who wears a dragon's name.

Coupled together with Umber's words:

Quote

MY LORDS! Here is what I say to these two kings! Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong. The Others take the Lannisters too, I've had a bellyful of them. Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead! There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m'lords. The King in the North![2]

I think the Northerners in the books will not be too averse to Jon Targaryen or even Dany.

Edited February 20, 2018 by anamika

YaddaYadda · February 20, 2018

The show has played fast and loose with too many things. I think Jon's legitimacy in the books will be a lot more meaningful than it is on the show. I think his resurrection/rebirth will be more significant and not at all what we've seen on the show. All the way back to AGOT, Dany VII or maybe Dany VIII, in any case, the chapter where she goes into labor, when Jorah is taking her to the tent and Mirri Maz Duur, Dany sees those dancing shapes, but she also sees a great wolf and a man wreathed in flames. Melisandre is there with her fire magic that has been powered up by the Wall's old magic that came from the children. GRRM wants an ice and fire rebirth for Jon.

In any case . . .

Does Jon letting go of that man bun mean that he will be acting less stupid than he has? I don't think he's bending the knee to Cersei in those pictures anyway, so . . . yeah.

WindyNights · February 20, 2018

6 hours ago, anamika said:

But that then is the opposite of what you said is GRRM's thesis - that if one is not honorable, one can win. It looks like Jon being dishonorable and getting killed because of it disproves your point.

It's less of a hero-complex and more that Jon lets his emotions rule his decisions sometimes - Hardhome and the mission to save Arya are examples of him letting his personal feelings decide matters.

What do you mean by 'more than that'?

I mean Ned took Theon as a child hostage and Jon has taken child hostages and threatened to cut off their heads. Honor in the books means living by the laws and rules of Westeros - the people who win by deceit break the rules and as I pointed out the Lannisters, Freys and Boltons are on the loosing end right now because of their treachery.

What did they gain by the red wedding? Less loss of life on their side? Sure. But in the long term? Who is ever going to trust the likes of the Lannisters and Freys again? Personally, I think Jon Arryn was the stupidest character in the series to not only trust Tywin Lannister, but then proceed to marry Cersei to Robert and make the Kingslayer a member of the KG! He deserved to get poisoned to death by his wife. He's the guy responsible for hiring LF and for the Lannisters getting their stranglehold on KL. And unlike Ned, Jon Arryn ignored the rape and murder of Elia and her children and rewarded the Lannisters for their crimes. Where's the honor in that?

And it's not that the good guys don't realize that you have to fight fire with fire. As Manderly points out:

This speech pretty much encapsulates what GRRM thinks about trickery and deceit and whether the ends justify the means.

The North is playing it's own games with the Boltons to get rid of them. Liars and traitors get no respect from them. Don't treat dishonorable people with honor. And I think all the Northerners know that and follow that.

Ned went down because he warned Cersei to save her children, his daughter betrayed him and he trusted in LF. He was an honorable man surrounded by dishonorable enemies on enemy territory. He should have certainly been smarter and gone about things differently, but hindsight is 20/20. Everything went against him including Robert getting gored by the boar. But Jon is a smarter, more pragmatic Ned - able to bend the rules more easily if necessary.

No those examples are because David and Dan just love characters like Ramsay and Cersei and want them hanging around as much as possible. That's why the writing is so terrible around them - they suffer no consequences from their mistakes, they always win - Ramsay can massacre his own men and Cersei can blow up a sept full of people and nothing ever happens to them as a result of these actions. It's just bad writing and you should not use these examples as evidence for anything.

PS: I just noticed in Manderly's speech how he refers to Rhaegar Frey:

Coupled together with Umber's words:

I think the Northerners in the books will not be too averse to Jon Targaryen or even Dany.

1) Not really because Jon wouldn't have won even if he was honorable. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But the assassination itself happens because Jon failed to convince his men why what he was doing was necessary. He constructs his freaking plan with Tormund first not any of the NW.

Also Jon wasn't making sacrifices for the greater good. He was making sacrifices for his sister.

2) Ned and Robb got even worse off. The Starks will survive but Ned goes down in history as a traitor and was executed while Robb was assassinated feeling like a complete failure. And Ned and Robb died because they were too chivalrous.

3) Manderly isn't really a good source since he feeds people to the others and eats them himself too.

4) As GRRM describes it, Ned's convo with Renly and LF are two of the turning points. If Ned had been a bit more pragmatic and followed through, he would be alive today.

5) They would be averse because Jon isn't a Stark. Even Jon's own Stark ancestors repudiate him and want to cut him down:

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell, limping past the stone kings on their thrones. Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed, and their grey granite fingers tightened on the hilts of the rusted swords upon their laps. You are no Stark, he could hear them mutter, in heavy granite voices. There is no place for you here. Go away. He walked deeper into the darkness.

If Jon's own ancestors can't accept Jon as the Lord of Winterfell then how could the North?

WearyTraveler · February 21, 2018

22 hours ago, WindyNights said:

3) Manderly isn't really a good source since he feeds people to the others and eats them himself too.

In the quote by @anamika Manderly is expressing the feelings of the entire North, though. This is confirmed by other characters later on. Roose tells Ramsey they can't rule by fear alone, for example, he already knows that the North isn't happy with them and how they got to power and he's weary of a future betrayal. Then we have the mountain clans following Stannis, of all people, a Southron! Why? because of their loyalty to Ned, which he earned by being honorable.

Regarding Manderly making and eating Frey pie, that doesn't make him dishonorable according to Westerosi and Northern rule because he didn't do so by breaking guest rule. He killed them after they had left his castle, on the way to WF, and he fed them to the traitors and ate them himself under another man's roof, and because he was exacting justice for his own murdered son.

If you recall the story of the Rat Cook, Old Nan explained to Bran that the actual sin of the Cook was to break guest rule, not to exact justice for the crimes committed against him. Quote below from A Storm of Swords, Chapter 56, Bran IV (emphasis is mine, off course):

Quote

It was not for murder that the gods cursed him, nor for serving the Andal king his son in a pie. A man has a right to vengeance. But he slew a guest beneath his roof, and that the gods cannot forgive.

So, for the Northerners, Manderly cooking and serving Frey pie is perfectly honorable. He had a right to avenge his son's death, after all, and he did it without breaking guest right.

22 hours ago, WindyNights said:

5) They would be averse because Jon isn't a Stark. Even Jon's own Stark ancestors repudiate him and want to cut him down:

This dream is more about Jon's own complex with his bastard status than with what the ancestors would say/do. Thanks to dear, old Cat, Jon thinks he is unworthy of the name Stark and that he would be rejected because of his bastard status.

22 hours ago, WindyNights said:

If Jon's own ancestors can't accept Jon as the Lord of Winterfell then how could the North?

The North is less concerned with bastardy than with other characteristics they consider more important. Bastards can be legitimized, and they have the same rights as any legitimate son, if they are (incidentally, this will most likely be why GRRM had Robb write that letter). What the North cares about is the man's ability to lead and assert his authority over his vassals, as demonstrated by the first meeting of Lord Robb with Greatjon Umber.

It was a very tense scene we see through Cat's eyes, IIRC. And we are told that the meeting is crucial, that if Robb, the legitimate, rightful heir to Winterfell, did the wrong thing here, he would lose the support of the entire North. Robb asserts his authority, Greywind even takes a couple of fingers from Umber's hand, and it's this extreme and gruesome act what actually makes the North believe that Robb is the right man to lead them.

Jon is no stranger to asserting his authority either. Both Robb and Jon were taught well in this regard by Ned. When Jon is named Commander of the NW he follows through and calmly executes Janos, a penalty that was expected for the transgression he committed (stating publicly he wasn't planning to obey an order from his Lord Commander). Jon also proved to be a great strategist and knowledgeable of the North. He's the reason the North supported Stannis in the first place. So he knows how to make the Northern Lords follow him, if he wants to.

The one bad decision Jon made was going after Arya. I'm going to disagree with @anamika that Hardhome was an entirely an emotional decision, it was also about not giving the WW more wights to fight. All his decisions regarding the Wildlings are about not increasing the numbers of the army of the dead. On the show they are more like zombies who can be defeated relatively easily, in the books, they keep coming at you, even after you have cut them down into tiny pieces and they are somehow stronger than when they were alive; so, book!Jon is absolutely right in not wanting any more of those creatures to fight against them.

Also in the books, Jon keeps telling all the people who question his decisions regarding the Wildlings why he's doing it, over and over again, but unfortunately, the majority of those in Castle Black at the time were not with the old Bear beyond the Wall. Those who were understand Jon more, and accept his decision even if they have doubts. Stubbornly, they all think the Wall will stop the dead, but still they respect Jon's decision because they can see his intentions are the safety of the realm.

It is only when Jon decides to act for his family, and, against the rules of the NW, challenge a ruling family within the realm, that his "brothers" murder him. So, it's only when Jon breaks his vow and acts dishonorably, that he loses.

For all Martin fans claim that he's all about subverting tropes, the books are clearly showing a familiar pattern. The Starks are the good guys, who get fucked by the treacherous guys. Then, slowly, but surely the bad guys start losing, and the good guys start wining. Even in a bittersweet ending, the Starks will come out on top by the time this story is told. That's the arc. I mean, the last book was supposed to be titled A time for Wolves, right? Nothing wrong with that, either. His characters have more layers than many and his world is richly complex, so, he is subverting tropes in those areas. It will be satisfying to read that (if Martin ever finishes writing the books, that is).

Edited February 21, 2018 by WearyTraveler

bubble sparkly · February 21, 2018

Yeah, I must admit that I don’t understand this idea that GRRM is a big trope subverter. Jon is essentially Harry Potter, and every other (usually male) fantasy hero who grew up poor/unloved/ an orphan, but is actually a secret prince / savior of the world.

Ned is the hero’s father figure who dies at some point because it pushes the hero to grow from boy to man.

Dany is the beautiful heroine who wins the love of the hero with her beauty and good heart. I will say that Dany has a lot more depth as a character and actually has her own thing going on, which is unusual for the standard female love interest.

There will be heavy losses along the way, but ultimately the good guys will conquer all.

Eyes High · February 21, 2018

9 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

Yeah, I must admit that I don’t understand this idea that GRRM is a big trope subverter. Jon is essentially Harry Potter, and every other (usually male) fantasy hero who grew up poor/unloved/ an orphan, but is actually a secret prince / savior of the world.

Ned is the hero’s father figure who dies at some point because it pushes the hero to grow from boy to man.

Dany is the beautiful heroine who wins the love of the hero with her beauty and good heart. I will say that Dany has a lot more depth as a character and actually has her own thing going on, which is unusual for the standard female love interest.

There will be heavy losses along the way, but ultimately the good guys will conquer all.

Yes, yes, and yes. If Jon and Dany are going to get the Aragorn/Arwen endgame treatment, it may be that Dany is GRRM's answer to Arwen being something of a nonentity in terms of character development in LOTR.

Via /Freefolk:

1. Frikidoctor suggests at the end of a new video that Cersei is not on the Iron Throne by the time KL is burned down. (This is according to a /Freefolk user who speaks Spanish, I haven't watched the video yet.)

2. Blurry pictures from Moneyglass filming (taken last night).

Edited February 21, 2018 by Eyes High

Happy Harpy · February 21, 2018

11 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

1. Frikidoctor suggests at the end of a new video that Cersei is not on the Iron Throne by the time KL is burned down. (This is according to a /Freefolk user who speaks Spanish, I haven't watched the video yet.)

If only! And as long as it doesn't mean more ~~Negan~~ Euron.

Edith · February 21, 2018

1 hour ago, Eyes High said:

Via /Freefolk:

1. Frikidoctor suggests at the end of a new video that Cersei is not on the Iron Throne by the time KL is burned down. (This is according to a /Freefolk user who speaks Spanish, I haven't watched the video yet.)

2. Blurry pictures from Moneyglass filming (taken last night).

1. It's not friki who is saying that but Javi from L7R. Friki ask if he knows something that L7R hasn't shared yet and he says yes. He said that maybe people should ask themselves who is sitting in the IT when the attack by dragonfire happens. He also says in the beginning of the video that he doesn't think is the NK who is attacking KL, he has his "doubts" that the NK would go that far south. He and friki believes that the GC is going to attack Winterfell and that the NK might arrive too. He also says that this battle is taking 3 months to film and is the biggest one.

Interesting enough this spoiler pretty much is the confirmation that all the leaks from the freefolk are fake.

Another question does this means Cersei is dead by episode 5? Or did she escape?

Oh I forgot! Friki doesn't think Winterfell is getting burned down and that the video we saw is simply battle fire.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Edith

WindyNights · February 21, 2018

57 minutes ago, Happy Harpy said:

If only! And as long as it doesn't mean more ~~Negan~~ Euron.

Well...they're saying saying that Euron is King of Westeros for a certain amount of time so....

WindyNights · February 21, 2018

1 hour ago, bubble sparkly said:

Yeah, I must admit that I don’t understand this idea that GRRM is a big trope subverter. Jon is essentially Harry Potter, and every other (usually male) fantasy hero who grew up poor/unloved/ an orphan, but is actually a secret prince / savior of the world.

Ned is the hero’s father figure who dies at some point because it pushes the hero to grow from boy to man.

Dany is the beautiful heroine who wins the love of the hero with her beauty and good heart. I will say that Dany has a lot more depth as a character and actually has her own thing going on, which is unusual for the standard female love interest.

There will be heavy losses along the way, but ultimately the good guys will conquer all.

He'a not a trope subverted and even the Bad Guys Win is a trope.

He's into deconstruction.

Here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DeconstructedTrope/ASongOfIceAndFire

Unfortunately, the TV show plays a lot of tropes straight.

GraceK · February 21, 2018

8 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Well...they're saying saying that Euron is King of Westeros for a certain amount of time so....

The only pleasure I get out of that idea is the thought of Cersei being betrayed :)

WindyNights · February 21, 2018

4 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

In the quote by @anamika Manderly is expressing the feelings of the entire North, though. This is confirmed by other characters later on. Roose tells Ramsey they can't rule by fear alone, for example, he already knows that the North isn't happy with them and how they got to power and he's weary of a future betrayal. Then we have the mountain clans following Stannis, of all people, a Southron! Why? because of their loyalty to Ned, which he earned by being honorable.

Regarding Manderly making and eating Frey pie, that doesn't make him dishonorable according to Westerosi and Northern rule because he didn't do so by breaking guest rule. He killed them after they had left his castle, on the way to WF, and he fed them to the traitors and ate them himself under another man's roof, and because he was exacting justice for his own murdered son.

If you recall the story of the Rat Cook, Old Nan explained to Bran that the actual sin of the Cook was to break guest rule, not to exact justice for the crimes committed against him. Quote below from A Storm of Swords, Chapter 56, Bran IV (emphasis is mine, off course):

So, for the Northerners, Manderly cooking and serving Frey pie is perfectly honorable. He had a right to avenge his son's death, after all, and he did it without breaking guest right.

This dream is more about Jon's own complex with his bastard status than with what the ancestors would say/do. Thanks to dear, old Cat, Jon thinks he is unworthy of the name Stark and that he would be rejected because of his bastard status.

The North is less concerned with bastardy than with other characteristics they consider more important. Bastards can be legitimized, and they have the same rights as any legitimate son, if they are (incidentally, this will most likely be why GRRM had Robb write that letter). What the North cares about is the man's ability to lead and assert his authority over his vassals, as demonstrated by the first meeting of Lord Robb with Greatjon Umber.

It was a very tense scene we see through Cat's eyes, IIRC. And we are told that the meeting is crucial, that if Robb, the legitimate, rightful heir to Winterfell, did the wrong thing here, he would lose the support of the entire North. Robb asserts his authority, Greywind even takes a couple of fingers from Umber's hand, and it's this extreme and gruesome act what actually makes the North believe that Robb is the right man to lead them.

Jon is no stranger to asserting his authority either. Both Robb and Jon were taught well in this regard by Ned. When Jon is named Commander of the NW he follows through and calmly executes Janos, a penalty that was expected for the transgression he committed (stating publicly he wasn't planning to obey an order from his Lord Commander). Jon also proved to be a great strategist and knowledgeable of the North. He's the reason the North supported Stannis in the first place. So he knows how to make the Northern Lords follow him, if he wants to.

The one bad decision Jon made was going after Arya. I'm going to disagree with @anamika that Hardhome was an entirely an emotional decision, it was also about not giving the WW more wights to fight. All his decisions regarding the Wildlings are about not increasing the numbers of the army of the dead. On the show they are more like zombies who can be defeated relatively easily, in the books, they keep coming at you, even after you have cut them down into tiny pieces and they are somehow stronger than when they were alive; so, book!Jon is absolutely right in not wanting any more of those creatures to fight against them.

Also in the books, Jon keeps telling all the people who question his decisions regarding the Wildlings why he's doing it, over and over again, but unfortunately, the majority of those in Castle Black at the time were not with the old Bear beyond the Wall. Those who were understand Jon more, and accept his decision even if they have doubts. Stubbornly, they all think the Wall will stop the dead, but still they respect Jon's decision because they can see his intentions are the safety of the realm.

It is only when Jon decides to act for his family, and, against the rules of the NW, challenge a ruling family within the realm, that his "brothers" murder him. So, it's only when Jon breaks his vow and acts dishonorably, that he loses.

For all Martin fans claim that he's all about subverting tropes, the books are clearly showing a familiar pattern. The Starks are the good guys, who get fucked by the treacherous guys. Then, slowly, but surely the bad guys start losing, and the good guys start wining. Even in a bittersweet ending, the Starks will come out on top by the time this story is told. That's the arc. I mean, the last book was supposed to be titled A time for Wolves, right? Nothing wrong with that, either. His characters have more layers than many and his world is richly complex, so, he is subverting tropes in those areas. It will be satisfying to read that (if Martin ever finishes writing the books, that is).

1)Sometimes honor and pragmatism can be the same thing. Stannis is honorable and dishonorable depending on which is the smarter choice for his goals.....usually. Stannis is playing a role as a Liberator of the North to garner support.

2)Er....you realize that Manderly ate those Freys himself too, right? And he did it without their being any need to. Under the laws of Westeros, he would've been executed for such a crime.

3) The mountain clans along with Stannis' other northmen went to go rescue Farya because she was Ned's little girl. They're very loyal to Ned. So even if Jon is a capable leader, he would still be a Targaryen not a Stark and not even a child of Ned's. Bloodlines mean something, they're not Wildlings. It's why Ramsay is married to Farya to legitimize Bolton rule in the North.

Again, Jon's own Stark ancestors repudiate him, tell him to go away, say that he's no Stark and act like there going to cut him down. That means something.

4) Jon made way more bad decisions than the Arya decision. He failed to convince his own council of his ideas. He mostly yelled them down and dismissed them. His own internal monologue even mentions that he doesn't care about them.

Sending away his friends was also a terrible idea. He isolated himself.

And Melisandre mentions that Jon eschewing the trappings of power is almost counter-productive.

The Hardhome mission was a bad idea at that point too. Jon is going south with the Wildlings to fight the Boltons and Tormund is going North as a leading member of the NW Force to rescue people that has a low chance of success. Who is going to be guarding the Wall then? He's just going to be losing more men and cutting down his own meager force while they're in a vulnerable position.

And no, actually. Marsh and co. were planning an assassination eventually. That's why Ghost starts freaking out before the pink letter arrives. Of course, Marsh and co. could've probably still been talked down but they felt their hands forced at that moment when Jon did his speech.

If you're going to be dishonorable, you have to be smart about it. Same as being honorable. You're not going to win just because you're good or bad. The consequence of your actions don't care about your morality.

5) Will mention that being treacherous and being good are not mutually exclusive

Eyes High · February 21, 2018

1 hour ago, Edith said:

1. It's not friki who is saying that but Javi from L7R. Friki ask if he knows something that L7R hasn't shared yet and he says yes. He said that maybe people should ask themselves who is sitting in the IT when the attack by dragonfire happens. He also says in the beginning of the video that he doesn't think is the NK who is attacking KL, he has his "doubts" that the NK would go that far south.

Ooooh, interesting. So if Cersei has fled KL (or been chased out by Euron), and if the NK isn't attacking KL, then it's...Jon/Dany attacking a Euron-governed KL with dragons, I guess? That seems to be what's implied.

Could be a scouring of the Shire-type situation, where after the big battle (with the NK), Jon and company face the additional task of rousting still another villain.

Quote

He and friki believes that the GC is going to attack Winterfell and that the NK might arrive too. He also says that this battle is taking 3 months to film and is the biggest one.

Hee. The standard format for GOT battles--Blackwater, BOTB, wight hunt, etc.--is "all hope seems lost until a third party shows up to rout the other side and save the day." If the GC is attacking Winterfell only for the NK to show up, "All hope seems lost, and then a third party arrives to fuck shit up even more" would be a welcome change of pace.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Eyes High

Edith · February 22, 2018

35 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Ooooh, interesting. So if Cersei has fled KL (or been chased out by Euron), and if the NK isn't attacking KL, then it's...Jon/Dany attacking a Euron-governed KL with dragons, I guess? That seems to be what's implied.

Could be a scouring of the Shire-type situation, where after the big battle (with the NK), Jon and company face the additional task of rousting still another villain.

Well not to be nitpicking but Javi is not mentioning dragons but a dragon. He also talked a lot in the middle of the video about Dany "slayer of lies" from the book.

Also Jon is in KL by episode 4 with Cersei. If Cersei is out of the IT by episode 5, does Euron takes the IT in episode 4? And Jon?

Edited February 22, 2018 by Edith

GraceK · February 22, 2018

15 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Ooooh, interesting. So if Cersei has fled KL (or been chased out by Euron), and if the NK isn't attacking KL, then it's...Jon/Dany attacking a Euron-governed KL with dragons, I guess? That seems to be what's implied.

Dear God I hope so!! Having both Jon and Dany on dragons attacking KL is the fulfillment of my dreams! :)

WearyTraveler · February 22, 2018

9 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

1)Sometimes honor and pragmatism can be the same thing. Stannis is honorable and dishonorable depending on which is the smarter choice for his goals.....usually. Stannis is playing a role as a Liberator of the North to garner support.

My point had nothing to do with Stannis' honor. You stated earlier that GRRM is writing a book where honor doesn't matter if you want to win, I pointed out that for the North, honor matters so much they are willing to accept a Southron as a leader to rescue Ned's daughter because Ned being honorable is what made them loyal to Ned. He was a guy that always did the right thing, in their mind.

13 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

2)Er....you realize that Manderly ate those Freys himself too, right? And he did it without their being any need to. Under the laws of Westeros, he would've been executed for such a crime.

As my post states, yes, I am aware. I don't remember anywhere in the books where it's stated that cannibalism is punishable by death. I specifically highlighted for you that they believe a man is entitled to vengeance. It's a bit of an eye for an eye over there. And as my example shows, according to Northern lore, the northern Gods are not against cannibalism, they are against breaking guest rule. Even in the South, they don't seem to have a big problem with it. Biter goes around eating the flesh of people he bites while he's fighting and the other soldiers just laugh at that.

18 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Again, Jon's own Stark ancestors repudiate him, tell him to go away, say that he's no Stark and act like there going to cut him down. That means something.

Jon's ancestors don't tell him this. Jon dreams they are telling him this, it's a very different situation. You are taking the dream as a truth, when it's only a dream, and as such, is colored by the dreamer's own psyche. Even Melisandre, who is better than most at reading the flames gets the message wrong sometimes. She's guessing that the girl in the horse is Arya, when it's in fact Alys Karstark. The dream is not fact. It's a dream.

One of the things about prophecies and dreams in the entire series is that their record of being true is inconsistent, and this is so by design. Martin doesn't want the reader to completely trust the magical, but sometimes the magical is right. IMO, when it comes to prophecies that have different sources (Prince That Was Promised vs. Azor Ahai, for example) and that are repeated throughout the series, are more likely to have some truth in them (otherwise, Martin wouldn't insist on repeating them). But other prophecies and dreams don't mean much.

Also, different people have different abilities. Maggie the Frog could see the future by using blood magic, Mel sees the future in the fires, some substances induce visions but don't cause the seer to have the ability permanently (Dany in the House of the Undying). Some have the ability to warg animals, but they don't see the future (Jon, Arya, Robb, Bran), others, like Bran are much more powerful.

Jon is a warg but he has never had a vision of the future or a dream that came true. You are using ONE dream to prove a point from a character whose dreams have never been prophetic. There's not enough logical evidence to make that leap.

29 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Jon made way more bad decisions than the Arya decision. He failed to convince his own council of his ideas. He mostly yelled them down and dismissed them. His own internal monologue even mentions that he doesn't care about them.

Sending away his friends was also a terrible idea. He isolated himself.

I suggest you do a re-read. Jon never yells at them. He only yells when he's issuing commands in battle. He also explained to them his reasons, in great detail. He tells them that the Wildlings that stay beyond the Wall would eventually become Wights and come at them again. He reminds them what it was like to be fighting 20,000 Wildlings, and how they only won that battle because Stannis showed up. He tells them Stannis is gone now and it would be them against an army of 20,000 dead people walking. He makes his case very well, this is why they don't stab him when he lets the Wildings through the doors. They don't like it, they may have doubts that the solution is correct, but they still understand his reasoning enough not to demote him or stab him right away.

I don't know what else Jon could have told them or shown them to convince them. The fact many of the guys in the NW didn't understand the dangers is not on Jon. It's on their own stupidity. He sent his friends away because he couldn't trust anyone else to have command in the other castles and he sent Sam away because he was the only one good enough for the job. If he kept them close and gave them high command jobs in Castle Black, then he would have been accused of playing favorites.

He doesn't say in his internal monologue that he doesn't care about the men in his council, if this were so, he wouldn't have bothered asking Bowen and the others for their opinions. He says he doesn't have the time to hear once again all the idiotic objections they always have. And he is right, he doesn't have the time, because there are many other issues that need to be resolved. If Jon didn't care about the NW, his black brothers or his duty, he would have accepted Stannis' offer and he would have been Lord of Winterfell, as he had always wanted. But he didn't take Stannis' offer to legitimize him, make him Lord of Winterfell and marry the beautiful Val because he did care about all those other things.

45 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

The Hardhome mission was a bad idea at that point too. Jon is going south with the Wildlings to fight the Boltons and Tormund is going North as a leading member of the NW Force to rescue people that has a low chance of success. Who is going to be guarding the Wall then? He's just going to be losing more men and cutting down his own meager force while they're in a vulnerable position.

There are two good arguments for trying to rescue the Wildlings at Hardhome:

1) They are thousands, who will then become thousands of wights to fight. They can't defend themselves against wights because they ran away from the battle with Stannis, their supplies are low. Sending a ranging party, well armed (with dragon glass and extra arms for the Wildlings at Hardhome), could very well mean that they can save a few hundred.

2) Jon is looking for the Wildlings he just let in through the gates (around 5,000 total if I remember correctly) to trust him. How can he ensure their loyalty if he will only fight for the people south of the Wall? He has to at least try. If he loses the people in the ranging party, so be it. He would be risking a few men to rescue thousands. Let's say there are 2,000 souls at Hardhome, if Jon does nothing he will eventually have to fight 2,000 Wights, if he sends out 100 men and loses all of them, he'll have to fight 2,100 Wights which is not that much of a difference, if he sends out 100 men and rescues 500, he'll fight 25% less Wights with 400% more men than what he risked. It makes absolutely perfect sense.

The Wall will be manned by the NW and all the new additions they have just got, thousands of Wildings that Jon let through the door. The fact that he's sent a ranging party after some of their people will at least provide some motivation for them to help defend the Wall. Also, they know better than the brothers of the NW what the wights and Others can do, it's the only reason they accepted the terms of surrender, they have a vested interest in defending the realm because it is now their home too.

54 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

It's why Ramsay is married to Farya to legitimize Bolton rule in the North. So even if Jon is a capable leader, he would still be a Targaryen not a Stark and not even a child of Ned's.

Again, Robb was a child of Ned, and that didn't get him any loyalty. He still had to prove that he could lead. And again, bastards have been leaders and Lords in the North in the past without any sort of trouble. And again, even though Ramsey is supposedly married to Arya, Roose warns him that the Northern Lords are still not completely loyal to them.

In the books, Robb's letter will legitimize Jon, he may be Targaryen but he is also the child of Lyanna Stark, so he will also be a Stark. And that alone will not be enough, he will need to prove to them, as Robb did, that he can lead them. I know the show and the book divert in many ways, but certain things like Jon being named King in the North are big enough for me to believe that they will also happen in the book. So, in a way, the point is moot. I'm absolutely sure the North will follow Jon once he is resurrected and decides to lead them.

1 hour ago, WindyNights said:

And no, actually. Marsh and co. were planning an assassination eventually. That's why Ghost starts freaking out before the pink letter arrives. Of course, Marsh and co. could've probably still been talked down but they felt their hands forced at that moment when Jon did his speech.

So, you are proving my point. If they could have been talked down and the only thing that convinced them was Jon's speech, that means the straw that broke the camel's back was the decision to go after Arya.

1 hour ago, WindyNights said:

5) Will mention that being treacherous and being good are not mutually exclusive

I don't want to be the person who quotes the dictionary, so I won't. But I will say to you that no, they are not the same thing. You can be good and clever, good and smart, good and cunning, but good and treacherous are antonyms.

Eyes High · February 22, 2018

1 hour ago, Edith said:

Well not to be nitpicking but Javi is not mentioning dragons but a dragon.

Yes, I realize it could be either. It also seems unlikely to have a WW dragon flying around if Dany isn't going to lose at least one dragon to it.

Quote

Also Jon is in KL by episode 4 with Cersei.

It seems as if logically Jon is unlikely to be in KL with Cersei any earlier than 8x04, but S7 featured a lot of continent hopping, so who knows?

Quote

If Cersei is out of the IT by episode 5, does Euron takes the IT in episode 4? And Jon?

Maybe Jon is held captive in KL by Euron and Dany burns everything down to save her man.

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

Dear God I hope so!! Having both Jon and Dany on dragons attacking KL is the fulfillment of my dreams! :)

That sounds awesome, although I expect Dany to lose at least one of her dragons to Viserion.

GraceK · February 22, 2018

2 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Maybe Jon is held captive in KL by Euron and Dany burns everything down to save her man.

This made my heart glow a little :)

Eyes High · February 22, 2018

3 minutes ago, GraceK said:

This made my heart glow a little :)

I would love it, even if I have every expectation that Jon will spend S8 in Big ~~Dumb~~ Damn Hero mode instead of being held prisoner.

WOTW pointed out that the KL set build has very elaborate rooftops, which (in their estimation) means a lot of aerial shots. So someone will be flying on dragonback over KL and roasting it. I wonder if the Field of Fire filming (where they set explosives on the ground and took aerial shots for the dragon POV) was a dry run for filming the burning of KL.

WindyNights · February 22, 2018

30 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

My point had nothing to do with Stannis' honor. You stated earlier that GRRM is writing a book where honor doesn't matter if you want to win, I pointed out that for the North, honor matters so much they are willing to accept a Southron as a leader to rescue Ned's daughter because Ned being honorable is what made them loyal to Ned. He was a guy that always did the right thing, in their mind.

As my post states, yes, I am aware. I don't remember anywhere in the books where it's stated that cannibalism is punishable by death. I specifically highlighted for you that they believe a man is entitled to vengeance. It's a bit of an eye for an eye over there. And as my example shows, according to Northern lore, the northern Gods are not against cannibalism, they are against breaking guest rule. Even in the South, they don't seem to have a big problem with it. Biter goes around eating the flesh of people he bites while he's fighting and the other soldiers just laugh at that.

Jon's ancestors don't tell him this. Jon dreams they are telling him this, it's a very different situation. You are taking the dream as a truth, when it's only a dream, and as such, is colored by the dreamer's own psyche. Even Melisandre, who is better than most at reading the flames gets the message wrong sometimes. She's guessing that the girl in the horse is Arya, when it's in fact Alys Karstark. The dream is not fact. It's a dream.

One of the things about prophecies and dreams in the entire series is that their record of being true is inconsistent, and this is so by design. Martin doesn't want the reader to completely trust the magical, but sometimes the magical is right. IMO, when it comes to prophecies that have different sources (Prince That Was Promised vs. Azor Ahai, for example) and that are repeated throughout the series, are more likely to have some truth in them (otherwise, Martin wouldn't insist on repeating them). But other prophecies and dreams don't mean much.

Also, different people have different abilities. Maggie the Frog could see the future by using blood magic, Mel sees the future in the fires, some substances induce visions but don't cause the seer to have the ability permanently (Dany in the House of the Undying). Some have the ability to warg animals, but they don't see the future (Jon, Arya, Robb, Bran), others, like Bran are much more powerful.

Jon is a warg but he has never had a vision of the future or a dream that came true. You are using ONE dream to prove a point from a character whose dreams have never been prophetic. There's not enough logical evidence to make that leap.

I suggest you do a re-read. Jon never yells at them. He only yells when he's issuing commands in battle. He also explained to them his reasons, in great detail. He tells them that the Wildlings that stay beyond the Wall would eventually become Wights and come at them again. He reminds them what it was like to be fighting 20,000 Wildlings, and how they only won that battle because Stannis showed up. He tells them Stannis is gone now and it would be them against an army of 20,000 dead people walking. He makes his case very well, this is why they don't stab him when he lets the Wildings through the doors. They don't like it, they may have doubts that the solution is correct, but they still understand his reasoning enough not to demote him or stab him right away.

I don't know what else Jon could have told them or shown them to convince them. The fact many of the guys in the NW didn't understand the dangers is not on Jon. It's on their own stupidity. He sent his friends away because he couldn't trust anyone else to have command in the other castles and he sent Sam away because he was the only one good enough for the job. If he kept them close and gave them high command jobs in Castle Black, then he would have been accused of playing favorites.

He doesn't say in his internal monologue that he doesn't care about the men in his council, if this were so, he wouldn't have bothered asking Bowen and the others for their opinions. He says he doesn't have the time to hear once again all the idiotic objections they always have. And he is right, he doesn't have the time, because there are many other issues that need to be resolved. If Jon didn't care about the NW, his black brothers or his duty, he would have accepted Stannis' offer and he would have been Lord of Winterfell, as he had always wanted. But he didn't take Stannis' offer to legitimize him, make him Lord of Winterfell and marry the beautiful Val because he did care about all those other things.

There are two good arguments for trying to rescue the Wildlings at Hardhome:

1) They are thousands, who will then become thousands of wights to fight. They can't defend themselves against wights because they ran away from the battle with Stannis, their supplies are low. Sending a ranging party, well armed (with dragon glass and extra arms for the Wildlings at Hardhome), could very well mean that they can save a few hundred.

2) Jon is looking for the Wildlings he just let in through the gates (around 5,000 total if I remember correctly) to trust him. How can he ensure their loyalty if he will only fight for the people south of the Wall? He has to at least try. If he loses the people in the ranging party, so be it. He would be risking a few men to rescue thousands. Let's say there are 2,000 souls at Hardhome, if Jon does nothing he will eventually have to fight 2,000 Wights, if he sends out 100 men and loses all of them, he'll have to fight 2,100 Wights which is not that much of a difference, if he sends out 100 men and rescues 500, he'll fight 25% less Wights with 400% more men than what he risked. It makes absolutely perfect sense.

The Wall will be manned by the NW and all the new additions they have just got, thousands of Wildings that Jon let through the door. The fact that he's sent a ranging party after some of their people will at least provide some motivation for them to help defend the Wall. Also, they know better than the brothers of the NW what the wights and Others can do, it's the only reason they accepted the terms of surrender, they have a vested interest in defending the realm because it is now their home too.

Again, Robb was a child of Ned, and that didn't get him any loyalty. He still had to prove that he could lead. And again, bastards have been leaders and Lords in the North in the past without any sort of trouble. And again, even though Ramsey is supposedly married to Arya, Roose warns him that the Northern Lords are still not completely loyal to them.

In the books, Robb's letter will legitimize Jon, he may be Targaryen but he is also the child of Lyanna Stark, so he will also be a Stark. And that alone will not be enough, he will need to prove to them, as Robb did, that he can lead them. I know the show and the book divert in many ways, but certain things like Jon being named King in the North are big enough for me to believe that they will also happen in the book. So, in a way, the point is moot. I'm absolutely sure the North will follow Jon once he is resurrected and decides to lead them.

So, you are proving my point. If they could have been talked down and the only thing that convinced them was Jon's speech, that means the straw that broke the camel's back was the decision to go after Arya.

I don't want to be the person who quotes the dictionary, so I won't. But I will say to you that no, they are not the same thing. You can be good and clever, good and smart, good and cunning, but good and treacherous are antonyms.

1) I'm not saying honor doesn't matter. I'm saying that if it inhibits you from winning, you're handicapping yourself to lose. If Ned had gone with Renly's plan, Ned and his family would be in a better off position than Ned ended up at by not taking Joffrey and his siblings into custody. True or false?

2) Stannis executes men in the north for eating corpses. Westerosi law applies to all North and South.

3) First and foremost this is a book so dreams mean something here especially in GRRM's world where many a time, they have magical properties. Second of all, Jon's dream of being in the crypts is connected to Theon's dream of being in Winterfell in a feast for the dead. They're in the same dreamscape. Jon can even hear Theon's dream feast from his own dream. Daenerys also has dreams of her own Targaryen ancestors talking to her and telling her to wake the dragon. So yes, Jon's own ancestors are telling him that he's no Stark and Winterfell isn't his. (Also I'm not saying Jon is seeing his future)

Also Jon has more magical dreams than that like that one where Jon in Ghost's form sees Bran's face in the weirwood which then reaches down and opens Jon's third eye or the one where Jon is holding a fire sword and armored in black ice.

4) You know Jon could've actually gone over the Pink Letter with his own men before springing it on them all together with the wildlings.

5)Here, I'm just going to lay out the Meerenese Blot Jon essays for you which GRRM has read and confirmed that the author got it:

https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/other-wars-part-i-jons-noble-heart-and-greater-duty/

Here's the problem with those arguments:

Jon has a very low number of men and he's already sent a force and failed. Now he's choosing to send an even more ill-prepared force taking the land route. It's too damn risky especially when you can't afford the casualties. It's a suicide mission even Melisandre says so. It's doomed to failure. Jon didn't even care to consider Melisandre's words because she mistook Alys for Arya. If he sends it then he'll have lost another force.

6) Actually, Robb did get loyalty from the northern lords. Do you think they would even come if Robb wasn't a Stark? They tested him, sure, but only to see if they could bully him into doing what they want. Robb shows a little resolve and does a bit of diplomacy and he bends them to him but this wouldn't have happened if he wasn't a Stark. They're loyal to the Stark name.

7) I think Jon will be KITN too as as Ned Stark's legitimized bastard but if the northerners were to discover the truth, they'd kick him off for Ned's actual kids. I mean even a legitimized Jon will face conflict with the northern lords based on what he's doing with the wildlings, his bastardry and NW vows, the actual children of Ned Stark and coalitions preferring one to the other. I don't think Robb's will even solves an issue but introduces a conflict.

8) Considering that they were already planning it, that wouldn't have been the straw but Jon's own speech is where he reveals all the things he did in opposition to the NW's rules and his own plans that shouted to them we have to kill him right at this instant before he self-destructs the Night's Watch.

9) Nah, you can be good and treacherous. Jaime betrayed Aerys and we the audience would call that good because he saved so many people's lives.

WearyTraveler · February 22, 2018

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

1) I'm not saying honor doesn't matter. I'm saying that if it inhibits you from winning, you're handicapping yourself to lose. If Ned had gone with Renly's plan, Ned and his family would be in a better off position than Ned ended up at by not taking Joffrey and his siblings into custody. True or false?

The end result of the book will be a win for the good guys and they won't stop being honorable to do so. I very much doubt Jon or Dany will do something dishonorable to win, but one, or both of them will win, in the end. That's how the story is being set up. I think even GRRM knows that if after 7 books, in the span of 20+ years, the good guys don't win, he'll have the biggest disappointment in fantasy writing ever. If Ned had gone with Renly's plan and won, we wouldn't have a story, now, would we? If Ned had gone with Renly's plan, GRRM would have come up with some other circumstance to make the Starks lose at the beginning of the series. His purpose was to have the Starks lose, so that he could then create the arc for the entire series which would culminate in (again) A Time for Wolves.

Also, Ned's plan didn't fail because it wasn't a good plan, it failed because Sansa inadvertently betrayed him and because LF is a little shit who was so intent in destroying Ned and the Starks, he would have done anything to achieve his goal. Had Ned gone with Renly's plan, LF would have set up some other situation to eliminate Ned from the game. And given that this is a story and the story needs conflict in order for an arc to develop, LF would have been successful. Had GRRM written a book about wonderful Ned always being smarter than all the enemies of House Stark and winning at every single turn, he wouldn't have had a mega hit in his hands. People would get bored of reading that very quickly.

So, while it's impossible to say what exactly would have happened if Ned had decided to go with Renly's plan, I have no doubt his family would not have been in a better position than where they were when LF betrayed him in the throne room.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

2) Stannis executes men in the north for eating corpses. Westerosi law applies to all North and South.

Stannis is a Southern Lord, and those men were not exercising their right to vengeance. The Northern lore says that a man is entitled to vengeance. And Stannis is not a very typical Southern Lord either. Gregor is never punished for making cannibals of other people, for example, and he was not avenging anything when he did it, he was doing it just for kicks:

Quote

Once in Harrenhal Shitmouth and Raff the Sweetling inform Jaime that Ser Gregor Clegane, in a mockery of Vargo Hoat's preferred way of torturing his prisoners, cut off Vargo's limbs piece by piece over an extended period of time while he had the wounds bandaged so that Vargo stayed alive. Vargo first lost his hands and feet, then his arms and legs. The extremities as well as other parts of Vargo's body were then fed as "roast goat" to northern prisoners that Gregor brought to Harrenhal, including Ser Wylis Manderly, as well as to Vargo himself.

In Skaagos (under Northern rule), there are still cannibals who are not being executed. Jaimie also hears that Danelle Lothston's (from Harrenhal) is rumored to be a cannibal.

I will say that cannibalism is considered an abomination by most Westerosi, but in the North, as per their rules, what Manderly did would not be considered a crime for which he would have to pay with his life, as clearly stated in the story of the Rat Cook.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

3) First and foremost this is a book so dreams mean something here especially in GRRM's world where many a time, they have magical properties. Second of all, Jon's dream of being in the crypts is connected to Theon's dream of being in Winterfell in a feast for the dead. They're in the same dreamscape. Jon can even hear Theon's dream feast from his own dream. Daenerys also has dreams of her own Targaryen ancestors talking to her and telling her to wake the dragon. So yes, Jon's own ancestors are telling him that he's no Stark and Winterfell isn't his. (Also I'm not saying Jon is seeing his future)

Also Jon has more magical dreams than that like that one where Jon in Ghost's form sees Bran's face in the weirwood which then reaches down and opens Jon's third eye or the one where Jon is holding a fire sword and armored in black ice.

Not all dreams mean something in these books, and most of the times dreams and prophecies don't mean what the characters (or the readers) think they mean. George painfully makes the point, over and over again, that characters misread, misunderstand and assign meaning to their dreams colored by their own experiences. You can't take what Jon hears his ancestors say in a dream as the truth of how his ancestors feel. See: Melisandre getting things wrong, Rhaegar getting things wrong, Cersei getting things wrong, the Dosh Khaleen getting things wrong, and so on.

I'm sure Lyanna Stark would consider Jon a Stark, we know that Ned considered Jon a Stark, those are two ancestors that consider the guy a true Stark, why wouldn't the other ancestors do too?

More to the point, Jon is a true Stark, he is no bastard. Had he been a bastard, Rhaegar would not have left 3 Kingsguard protecting him and Lyanna. The show used a sappy, easy and expedient way to make Jon a legitimate child, product of a legitimate marriage. But that doesn't mean it will not be true in the books too. Probably through different means, but true all the same. Most likely, Rhaeghar got permission to marry Lyanna, as many of his ancestors were allowed to be polygamous. If Jon is the legitimate child of a Targaryen and Stark marriage, he is a real Stark by Westerosi standards. His ancestors would not say he wasn't a real Stark.

You state that because Jon's ancestors tell him in a dream that he is no Stark, the North will use that as a reason not to follow him. The truth is he IS a real Stark because he is the product of a legitimate marriage, and the fact that the North declares Jon King in the North in the show, makes it very likely this will happen in the books too (just as his resurrection, which hasn't happened in the books yet, but we all know will happen because it happened on the show). Saying the North will not follow Jon is not supported by the facts.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

5)Here, I'm just going to lay out the Meerenese Blot Jon essays for you which GRRM has read and confirmed that the author got it:

https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/other-wars-part-i-jons-noble-heart-and-greater-duty/

Martin says the blog gets him, it's a very ample comment. I doubt the blog gets EVERYTHING, and I doubt Martin would tells us what exactly they didn't get right, why would he?

In any case, I read the essays and they are saying what I'm saying: The Watch turns against Jon not because of the Wildlings, but because by trying to save Arya, he proves to them that he is breaking his vow to take no part in the conflicts south of the Wall. For example, one essay says:

Quote

Bowen Marsh is bigoted against wildlings, is rather cowardly, had grave misgivings about Jon’s leadership, and complained and criticized until his throat was dry. Yet despite everything, in Jon’s penultimate chapter Bowen stood aside and let 3,119 wildlings through the Wall. He followed orders. This indicates that Bowen had no intention of killing or deposing Jon before the Pink Letter and the Shieldhall speech.

Regarding Hardhome, I'll agree to disagree. I will mention that Cotter Pyke, a man of the NW and the Commander of Eastwatch, asked Jon to send help by land in the last raven he sent. So, this is a man of the NW asking his LC for help, not only the Wildlings. The essays' writer forgets this fact and doesn't include it in his analyses. I think that is important. The writer insists that Jon never considers the possibility that Stannis could lose, if that were so, Jon wouldn't have acted in secret and always trying to guarantee plausible deniability as the same author states.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

6) Actually, Robb did get loyalty from the northern lords. Do you think they would even come if Robb wasn't a Stark? They tested him, sure, but only to see if they could bully him into doing what they want. Robb shows a little resolve and does a bit of diplomacy and he bends them to him but this wouldn't have happened if he wasn't a Stark. They're loyal to the Stark name.

Once again, you are proving my point, which was precisely that the North would not be loyal if Robb hadn't proven himself to be a leader in their eyes. Bullying your liege into doing what you want is not being loyal. Coming because your liege Lord called you is not being loyal (ask Roose Bolton about Manderly's loyalty, Manderly went to WF when called by his current liege, the Boltons, but he wasn`t loyal to them).

The North is not loyal to the Stark name only, it has to be a combination. See the Karstarks for an example of Northeners who refused to follow a Stark only because he was a Stark. For Northern Lords, the name will only carry you so far. The moment they think you are making the wrong decisions as a leader, they will turn, as the Karstarks did.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

7) I think Jon will be KITN too as as Ned Stark's legitimized bastard but if the northerners were to discover the truth, they'd kick him off for Ned's actual kids. I mean even a legitimized Jon will face conflict with the northern lords based on what he's doing with the wildlings, his bastardry and NW vows, the actual children of Ned Stark and coalitions preferring one to the other. I don't think Robb's will even solves an issue but introduces a conflict.

8) Considering that they were already planning it, that wouldn't have been the straw but Jon's own speech is where he reveals all the things he did in opposition to the NW's rules and his own plans that shouted to them we have to kill him right at this instant before he self-destructs the Night's Watch.

These have been addressed by other comments above.

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

9) Nah, you can be good and treacherous. Jaime betrayed Aerys and we the audience would call that good because he saved so many people's lives.

Sigh! As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so, here we go:

Treacherous:

Quote

adjective
1. characterized by faithlessness or readiness to betray trust; traitorous.
2. deceptive, untrustworthy, or unreliable.
3. unstable or insecure, as footing.
4. dangerous; hazardous: a treacherous climb.

Jaime's action were a one time thing, he's not always ready to betray others, or forget his vows, he's not sitting somewhere making up plans to betray someone for his own personal game. And while he didn't uphold his vow to protect the King, he upheld his vow, as a Knight, to protect the realm and the innocents in it. So, no, Jaime is not a treacherous person. Jaime wasn't planning on betraying Aerys; it was a snap decision that he made when he realized that Aerys was about to burn the whole city down.

Many readers still don't consider him good, though (even though he saved thousands of people) because there's the sticky point of him throwing Bran out of a window, but I think many more would agree that we are seeing him become a good guy as his story unfolds.

Edited February 22, 2018 by WearyTraveler

WindyNights · February 22, 2018

2 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

The end result of the book will be a win for the good guys and they won't stop being honorable to do so. I very much doubt Jon or Dany will do something dishonorable to win, but one, or both of them will win, in the end. That's how the story is being set up. I think even GRRM knows that if after 7 books, in the span of 20+ years, the good guys don't win, he'll have the biggest disappointment in fantasy writing ever. If Ned had gone with Renly's plan and won, we wouldn't have a story, now, would we? If Ned had gone with Renly's plan, GRRM would have come up with some other circumstance to make the Starks lose at the beginning of the series. His purpose was to have the Starks lose, so that he could then create the arc for the entire series which would culminate in (again) A Time for Wolves.

Also, Ned's plan didn't fail because it wasn't a good plan, it failed because Sansa inadvertently betrayed him and because LF is a little shit who was so intent in destroying Ned and the Starks, he would have done anything to achieve his goal. Had Ned gone with Renly's plan, LF would have set up some other situation to eliminate Ned from the game. And given that this is a story and the story needs conflict in order for an arc to develop, LF would have been successful. Had GRRM written a book about wonderful Ned always being smarter than all the enemies of House Stark and winning at every single turn, he wouldn't have had a mega hit in his hands. People would get bored of reading that very quickly.

So, while it's impossible to say what exactly would have happened if Ned had decided to go with Renly's plan, I have no doubt his family would not have been in a better position than where they were when LF betrayed him in the throne room.

Stannis is a Southern Lord, and those men were not exercising their right to vengeance. The Northern lore says that a man is entitled to vengeance. And Stannis is not a very typical Southern Lord either. Gregor is never punished for making cannibals of other people, for example, and he was not avenging anything when he did it, he was doing it just for kicks:

In Skaagos (under Northern rule), there are still cannibals who are not being executed. Jaimie also hears that Danelle Lothston's (from Harrenhal) is rumored to be a cannibal.

I will say that cannibalism is considered an abomination by most Westerosi, but in the North, as per their rules, what Manderly did would not be considered a crime for which he would have to pay with his life, as clearly stated in the story of the Rat Cook.

Not all dreams mean something in these books, and most of the times dreams and prophecies don't mean what the characters (or the readers) think they mean. George painfully makes the point, over and over again, that characters misread, misunderstand and assign meaning to their dreams colored by their own experiences. You can't take what Jon hears his ancestors say in a dream as the truth of how his ancestors feel. See: Melisandre getting things wrong, Rhaegar getting things wrong, Cersei getting things wrong, the Dosh Khaleen getting things wrong, and so on.

I'm sure Lyanna Stark would consider Jon a Stark, we know that Ned considered Jon a Stark, those are two ancestors that consider the guy a true Stark, why wouldn't the other ancestors do too?

More to the point, Jon is a true Stark, he is no bastard. Had he been a bastard, Rhaegar would not have left 3 Kingsguard protecting him and Lyanna. The show used a sappy, easy and expedient way to make Jon a legitimate child, product of a legitimate marriage. But that doesn't mean it will not be true in the books too. Probably through different means, but true all the same. Most likely, Rhaeghar got permission to marry Lyanna, as many of his ancestors were allowed to be polygamous. If Jon is the legitimate child of a Targaryen and Stark marriage, he is a real Stark by Westerosi standards. His ancestors would not say he wasn't a real Stark.

You state that because Jon's ancestors tell him in a dream that he is no Stark, the North will use that as a reason not to follow him. The truth is he IS a real Stark because he is the product of a legitimate marriage, and the fact that the North declares Jon King in the North in the show, makes it very likely this will happen in the books too (just as his resurrection, which hasn't happened in the books yet, but we all know will happen because it happened on the show). Saying the North will not follow Jon is not supported by the facts.

Martin says the blog gets him, it's a very ample comment. I doubt the blog gets EVERYTHING, and I doubt Martin would tells us what exactly they didn't get right, why would he?

In any case, I read the essays and they are saying what I'm saying: The Watch turns against Jon not because of the Wildlings, but because by trying to save Arya, he proves to them that he is breaking his vow to take no part in the conflicts south of the Wall. For example, one essay says:

Regarding Hardhome, I'll agree to disagree. I will mention that Cotter Pyke, a man of the NW and the Commander of Eastwatch, asked Jon to send help by land in the last raven he sent. So, this is a man of the NW asking his LC for help, not only the Wildlings. The essays' writer forgets this fact and doesn't include it in his analyses. I think that is important. The writer insists that Jon never considers the possibility that Stannis could lose, if that were so, Jon wouldn't have acted in secret and always trying to guarantee plausible deniability as the same author states.

Once again, you are proving my point, which was precisely that the North would not be loyal if Robb hadn't proven himself to be a leader in their eyes. Bullying your liege into doing what you want is not being loyal. Coming because your liege Lord called you is not being loyal (ask Roose Bolton about Manderly's loyalty, Manderly went to WF when called by his current liege, the Boltons, but he wasn`t loyal to them).

The North is not loyal to the Stark name only, it has to be a combination. See the Karstarks for an example of Northeners who refused to follow a Stark only because he was a Stark. For Northern Lords, the name will only carry you so far. The moment they think you are making the wrong decisions as a leader, they will turn, as the Karstarks did.

These have been addressed by other comments above.

Sigh! As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so, here we go:

Treacherous:

Jaime's action were a one time thing, he's not always ready to betray others, or forget his vows, he's not sitting somewhere making up plans to betray someone for his own personal game. And while he didn't uphold his vow to protect the King, he upheld his vow, as a Knight, to protect the realm and the innocents in it. So, no, Jaime is not a treacherous person. Jaime wasn't planning on betraying Aerys; it was a snap decision that he made when he realized that Aerys was about to burn the whole city down.

Many readers still don't consider him good, though (even though he saved thousands of people) because there's the sticky point of him throwing Bran out of a window, but I think many more would agree that we are seeing him become a good guy as his story unfolds.

1) I actually think Jon and Daenerys are done with being honorable in the books at least temporarily if not indefinitely. Now the show can whitewash that as much as possible like they did with Tyrion but at least in the books, Jon's future points toward him becoming a much more ruthless and ambitious type of person(same with Daenerys).

I mean let's take what GRRM says about resurrection, the clues on dying and warging into an animal. Resurrection focuses your last thoughts and actions. For Beric, it was to defend the smallfolk and bring Gregor to justice. So he became almost a type of Robin Hood figure. For Catelyn Stark, she wanted revenge and to protect her family. Now she's turned the BwB into a method of Stark vengeance against the Lannisters and Freys while looking for her children.

And then there's warging into an animal after dying making you more like that animal every day.

What's were Jon's last thoughts and actions? They were to rescue Arya and take Winterfell. And presumably, he warged into Ghost after he died so he's going to be more wolf-like when he comes back as well. What does that translate to though?

IMO, it translates to this:

The world dissolved into a red mist. Jon stabbed and slashed and cut. He hacked down Donal Noye and gutted Deaf Dick Follard. Qhorin Halfhand stumbled to his knees, trying in vain to staunch the flow of blood from his neck. "I am the Lord of Winterfell," Jon screamed. It was Robb before him now, his hair wet with melting snow. Longclaw took his head off. Then a gnarled hand seized Jon roughly by the shoulder. He whirled …

I would need to steal her if I wanted her love, but she might give me children. I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms. A son was something Jon Snow had never dared dream of, since he decided to live his life on the Wall. I could name him Robb. Val would want to keep her sister's son, but we could foster him at Winterfell, and Gilly's boy as well. Sam would never need to tell his lie. We'd find a place for Gilly too, and Sam could come visit her once a year or so. Mance's son and Craster's would grow up brothers, as I once did with Robb.

He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. It was a hunger inside him, sharp as a dragonglass blade. A hunger . . . he could feel it. It was food he needed, prey, a red deer that stank of fear or a great elk proud and defiant. He needed to kill and fill his belly with fresh meat and hot dark blood. His mouth began to water with the thought.

Which means forgetting about the Others and focusing on Arya and taking Winterfell no matter who gets in the way whether it be friends, lovers, mentors or even his family. He's killing them all while he's in the role of AA too. And even that second quote, GRRM even connects his ambition for Winterfell to a wolf's hunger (specifically Ghost's hunger).

2) Stannis is the King of Westeros. Also northern tradition is not northern law. I mean Roose practices the right of the First Night and so do the U mbers according to him. That's not lawful though nor is it very honorable. The story of the Rat Cook is just a story not a means of legal justification for cannibalism.

And Skagos is also only nominally under the control of Westeros.

3) Ned isn't Jon's ancestor. In the show, he certainly does consider him a Stark. I'm not sure about the books. I wouldn't know how Lyanna would feel about it. She does give him a Targaryen name after all rather than a Stark name but that could be different between show and books.

Anyways, the stone kings growling at Jon is a repeated image in ASOS Jon's chapters. And because Jon's dream is connected to Theon's dream where even Lyanna shows up as does Robb Stark(as foreshadowing for the Red Wedding), I'm going to say the dream is magical.

4) Jon would actually be a Targaryen if he were the product of a legitimate marriage. Not a Stark. It also makes part of Robb's will void because Robb can't legitimize a Stark bastard as a Stark if he was never a bastard to begin with but a trueborn Targaryen.

5) You're arguing a point that I'm not making since I think Jon will be King in the North as Jon Stark. I think he's possibly going to hide his Targaryen parentage once he discovers the truth. And if the truth does get discovered, I imagine that he'll get ousted for one of Ned's line because they're the true heirs to Winterfell.

6) I actually disagree with that part of Feldman's comments because Ghost acts up before Jon gets the Pink Letter. Ghost can sense intentions not the future in this case or else he'd have been growling at Bowen from AGOT.

7) Yes, deceptive people can be good people. This isn't such a great leap that you're making it out to be.

8) You do realize that Jaime repeatedly betrays King Robert too, right? And he betrays the vows he makes to Catelyn Stark when he takes up arms against the Tullys. Also he lies to Tyrion as well about Tysha.

Happy Harpy · February 22, 2018

14 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Well...they're saying saying that Euron is King of Westeros for a certain amount of time so....

I didn't read the linked article, just what was said here. Considering HBO's much clever anti-leaks strategy this season, I don't bother going into much details anymore, especially when there's a mention of the GC attacking Winterfell.

Edith · February 22, 2018

There's a theory going on that Cersei might marry Euron in season 8. The outfit we saw her using in the Dubronik pictures could give a clue about this marriage.

Do you guys see the Greyjoy squidish theme in it?

screamin · February 22, 2018

On 2/19/2018 at 2:28 PM, YaddaYadda said:

Casting for a character named Willa

So is this Wylla Manderly? Wylla the wet nurse? Or just some person named Willa?

I hope it is Wylla - I've always wondered just what went on with Ned and her in the past (is there a scrap of truth in the 'fisherman's daughter' story?)

23 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

Regarding Manderly making and eating Frey pie, that doesn't make him dishonorable according to Westerosi and Northern rule because he didn't do so by breaking guest rule. He killed them after they had left his castle, on the way to WF, and he fed them to the traitors and ate them himself under another man's roof, and because he was exacting justice for his own murdered son.

I don't know...isn't 'guest right' supposed to be reciprocal, in that if you are a guest and have accepted your host's salt and bread, you also have an obligation not to treacherously backstab your host in some way as well as vice versa? IMO, Manderley violated that rule, knew he was violating it, and didn't give a flying fuck, as indicated by his request for the Rat King song.

GreyBunny · February 22, 2018

37 minutes ago, screamin said:

don't know...isn't 'guest right' supposed to be reciprocal, in that if you are a guest and have accepted your host's salt and bread, you also have an obligation not to treacherously backstab your host in some way as well as vice versa? IMO, Manderley violated that rule, knew he was violating it, and didn't give a flying fuck, as indicated by his request for the Rat King song.

Manderly and his party brought their own food and provisions. They never ate the bread and salt of their hosts and never invoked guest right. Manderly was in the clear.

YaddaYadda · February 22, 2018

2 hours ago, screamin said:

I don't know...isn't 'guest right' supposed to be reciprocal, in that if you are a guest and have accepted your host's salt and bread, you also have an obligation not to treacherously backstab your host in some way as well as vice versa? IMO, Manderley violated that rule, knew he was violating it, and didn't give a flying fuck, as indicated by his request for the Rat King song.

He brought his own food and drink. GRRM went through a whole list of everything he brought. I'm assuming food research is why the books have been delayed.

And he gave the Freys guest gifts before they parted. Dude thought of everything.

GraceK · February 22, 2018

4 hours ago, Edith said:

There's a theory going on that Cersei might marry Euron in season 8. The outfit we saw her using in the Dubronik pictures could give a clue about this marriage.

Do you guys see the Greyjoy squidish theme in it?

It wouldn’t surprise me. Euron is the only ally she has at the moment, and he currently is ferrying over the GC. She can’t keep him appeased with promises forever, eventually If she wants him to continue to stick around she may have to come through with the marriage. Which would be delicious to me if he marries her only to betray her . Who knows?

anamika · February 23, 2018

On 2/22/2018 at 3:56 AM, Edith said:

Interesting enough this spoiler pretty much is the confirmation that all the leaks from the freefolk are fake.

How so?

On 2/21/2018 at 2:21 AM, WindyNights said:

5) They would be averse because Jon isn't a Stark. Even Jon's own Stark ancestors repudiate him and want to cut him down:

If Jon's own ancestors can't accept Jon as the Lord of Winterfell then how could the North?

I would say that Jon's dream is more indicative of his Targaryen heritage. Not about acceptance.

As for the North, they have already more or less accepted him as Lord of Winterfell. The Northern Lords who were with Robb and even Edmure Tully are witnesses to Robb's signing of his will. If they had a problem with him being Lord of Winterfell, they would have protested then.

Now, if you are talking about after his Targaryen heritage is uncovered, then I don't think Jon will be Lord of Winterfell. That will be either Bran or Arya in the books. Jon will probably be dead or King on the IT. I was talking about the North accepting Jon or Dany as rulers on the IT since they don't seem to hate the Dragons as much as some of the readers/viewers think they do.

On 2/22/2018 at 7:03 AM, Eyes High said:

Maybe Jon is held captive in KL by Euron and Dany burns everything down to save her man.

I hope not. I have had enough of Jon getting rescued by various persons. Had to get bailed out by Stannis at the Battle at Castle Black, bailed out by Sansa at the Battle of the Bastards, bailed out by Dany and her dragons beyond the wall and ran away from Hardhome amidst a massacre. Maybe next season, we will have the NK bailing him out when the GC/Lannisters attack.

Tyrion won the Battle of the Blackwater, Robb won several battles, Stannis won the battle at the wall, Jaime won at Highgarden, Euron keeps winning, Dany won field of fire 2.0 and the battles in Meereen and Astapor, Arya took out the Freys and Sansa won the battle of the bastards. Like, give Jon a little self won victory before the show ends.

On 2/22/2018 at 7:30 AM, WindyNights said:

5)Here, I'm just going to lay out the Meerenese Blot Jon essays for you which GRRM has read and confirmed that the author got it:

https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/other-wars-part-i-jons-noble-heart-and-greater-duty/

Actually, I think GRRM's response was more about the essays on Dany than Jon there. Dany's ADwD arc in particular got a lot of criticism as being filler and that Dany was a bad ruler. As the author of the blog mentions:

Quote

but as for what GRRM specifically is referring to, the general idea expressed here would be my best guess (rather than plot theories about locust-poisoning):

So, what was the point of Dany’s sojourn in Meereen? Many just dismiss it as wholly filler, without any real purpose at all except to pad out the books. Others think that Dany as a character “regressed,” returning to a state of incompetence, naivete, and passivity. Others think the point was about giving Dany “practice” ruling, so she could make mistakes, and eventually become a better ruler when she reaches Westeros.

Here’s why all these interpretations miss the point: “The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about.” –George R. R. Martin

Martin has paraphrased this quote from William Faulkner time and time again in interviews, yet many readers haven’t fully internalized it. It means Martin is not interested in merely showing characters “leveling up,” like a video game, progressing from incompetent naif to awesome badass. His main interest is in exploring his characters’ values. And throughout the series, he creates drama by forcing characters to choose between their core values — love vs. duty, honor vs. pragmatism, vows vs. innocent life.

The main drama of the Meereen plotline lies in Dany’s mind and in her choices. On the surface she is struggling with the Meereenese — but her most crucial struggle is with herself. And the outcome of this struggle will have momentous consequences for Westeros.

Overall when I wrote this, it was intended as an alternative to one very common fan interpretation, which was that ADWD Meereen was mainly about Dany screwing up, being naive, and being weak.

Edited February 23, 2018 by anamika

Edith · February 23, 2018

8 hours ago, anamika said:

How so?

First, none of the leaks mentioned any interaction between Jon/Cersei or any scene that would include the one filmed by Kit and Emilia in Iceland. Second, all of this leaks mention how this character is going to die, how Jon/Dany rule or leave at the end, how Jaime kills Cersei, etc but none of the thought it was important to mention the fact that Cersei might not longer be sitting in the IT when Jon and/or Dany attack KL? That's one huge spoiler that a leaker should mention, don't you think?

When Lads leak last season, his information started to be confirmed by pictures or news from WOTW/L7R. Right now is the opposite, not only the leaks happens after some information is shared by those sites, but when new information comes around they simply start falling apart.

That someone different as Cersei might be in the throne when Jon and/or Dany attacks KL is a surprise that was not part of any discussion by fans. It reminds me of the difference when Lads leaks came, no one was discussing the possibility of the wall falling by a dragon, or wight hunt or j/d meting and having sex so soon. The discussion were about Euron taking one of Dany's dragons, Sansa dying after betraying Jon, the hound telling Sansa about Littlefinger, Arya realizing about what Sansa was trying to do and killing her, Jon/Dany might or not meet towards the end of the season, Jaime leaving after finding out about the explosion of the HS, Cersei dying as the mad queen killed by Jaime and many more that didn't became true.

anamika · February 23, 2018

5 minutes ago, Edith said:

First, none of the leaks mentioned any interaction between Jon/Cersei or any scene that would include the one filmed by Kit and Emilia in Iceland. Second, all of this leaks mention how this character is going to die, how Jon/Dany rule or leave at the end, how Jaime kills Cersei, etc but none of the thought it was important to mention the fact that Cersei might not longer be sitting in the IT when Jon and/or Dany attack KL? That's one huge spoiler that a leaker should mention, don't you think?

Just because someone did not mention these things does not confirm that the things they did mention is false. Quite a few of the leaks are purported to be from extras and they just talk about WF spoilers. Extras filming on the Winterfell set are not going to be knowing about Jon/Cersei meeting or how long Cersei is going to be sitting on the IT or whether Jon/Dany are going to rule.

Leaks where people have seen the script etc. are of course fake. Because as you said, they would have mentioned about Cersei. But if the source is an extra filming a small scene, he/she is not going to know much except for some limited info. There may be some truth mixed in with all the nonsense.

whateverdgaf · February 23, 2018

Just random musings, but does anyone else think/hope that we shall see an interaction between Tyrion and Brienne some point next season. Jaime is going to be incredibly isolated up North, surrounded by people who hate him. Brienne and Tyrion are going to be his only supporters and both have unfinished business with Jaime. In particular I would love for Tyrion to recognise the impact Brienne has had on Jaime. I just think it might be interesting.

GraceK · February 23, 2018

1 hour ago, whateverdgaf said:

Just random musings, but does anyone else think/hope that we shall see an interaction between Tyrion and Brienne some point next season. Jaime is going to be incredibly isolated up North, surrounded by people who hate him. Brienne and Tyrion are going to be his only supporters and both have unfinished business with Jaime. In particular I would love for Tyrion to recognise the impact Brienne has had on Jaime. I just think it might be interesting.

I agree . There are so many things I hope to see next year. Jamie Lannister at WF just by itself is gonna be fantastic. To see Bran again... there are so many reunions to look forward too.

Eyes High · February 23, 2018

17 minutes ago, GraceK said:

I agree . There are so many things I hope to see next year. Jamie Lannister at WF just by itself is gonna be fantastic. To see Bran again... there are so many reunions to look forward too.

I suspect that with only six episodes that there are going to be a lot of missed opportunities for great and meaningful interactions. Just look at the writing in S7 for the Hound: Arya and Sansa never discussing their dealings with the Hound, Sansa learning about the Hound's involvement with Arya and tangling with Brienne offscreen, Jon having no knowledge of the Hound beyond having seen him at Winterfell, the Hound having nothing to say to Tyrion about Sansa, etc.

Speaking of the Hound, I just remembered this exchange from 7x07:

The Hound: I left this shit city because I didn't want to die in it. Am I going to die in this shit city?

Tyrion: You might.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Eyes High

MarySNJ · February 23, 2018

On 2/22/2018 at 2:02 PM, screamin said:

I hope it is Wylla - I've always wondered just what went on with Ned and her in the past (is there a scrap of truth in the 'fisherman's daughter' story?)

I don't know...isn't 'guest right' supposed to be reciprocal, in that if you are a guest and have accepted your host's salt and bread, you also have an obligation not to treacherously backstab your host in some way as well as vice versa? IMO, Manderley violated that rule, knew he was violating it, and didn't give a flying fuck, as indicated by his request for the Rat King song.

Manderly gives the Freys guest gifts (horses) when they depart from his castle. That is the end of the “contract” between him as host and them as guests. If they are set upon a murdered after that, while they are on the road, it’s technically not a violation. Manderly wanted to hear the “rat cook” song to take a swipe at the Freys who slayed guests beneath their roof, his son being one of the slain. He wanted to hear “Brave Danny Flint” to let them know that he was aware “Arya” was an imposture. He’s sending a very clever message to his hosts and other Stark loyalists in attendance.

OhOkayWhat · February 23, 2018

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I suspect that with only six episodes that there are going to be a lot of missed opportunities for great and meaningful interactions. Just look at the writing in S7 for the Hound: Arya and Sansa never discussing their dealings with the Hound, Sansa learning about the Hound's involvement with Arya and tangling with Brienne offscreen, Jon having no knowledge of the Hound beyond having seen him at Winterfell, the Hound having nothing to say to Tyrion about Sansa, etc.

Speaking of the Hound, I just remembered this exchange from 7x07:

The Hound: I left this shit city because I didn't want to die in it. Am I going to die in this shit city?

Tyrion: You might.

I always find interesting the complaints about "why a conversation between character A and B about C was not included in the season? it makes sense A and B talking about C!"

It's interesting because they are right: those hypothetical conversations make a lot of sense. And it's not enough to say "well, maybe they had that chat offscreen" because we want to see it, and not only to imagine it.

The problem is: almost all the fans suggestions make sense, and therefore if the showrunners suddenly decide to include all the conversations that make sense to avoid the complaints, they'll need to create seasons with 20 episodes! So, I guess they just write the conversations that help the flow of the narrative of their storylines.

whateverdgaf · February 23, 2018

When it comes to Sansa and the Hound, I do find it significant that their relationship hasn't really ben referred to since they parted ways. Apart from the Hound trying to goad Arya into killing him by saying he should have raped Sansa and Baelish telling Sansa Brienne beat the Hound (to which Sansa had little reaction), I can't recall a time where they bring the other one up. Compare this to Arya and the Hound who recalled each other on several occaisons, and it does seem that if Sansa and the Hound were going to have a significant relationship in the future, they could have found time to include it, as they had for Arya and the Hound.

One of the reasons I am convinced Brienne and Jaime are going somewhere significant next season is because the writers have gone out of their way to remind the audience of the bond between the two. That the same cannot be said for Sansa and Sandor, despite having an even longer seperation. This makes me believe that their relationship is not going to be of much significance in the last season. I certainly don't think Sansan is going to take place.

screamin · February 23, 2018

1 hour ago, MarySNJ said:

Manderly gives the Freys guest gifts (horses) when they depart from his castle. That is the end of the “contract” between him as host and them as guests. If they are set upon a murdered after that, while they are on the road, it’s technically not a violation. Manderly wanted to hear the “rat cook” song to take a swipe at the Freys who slayed guests beneath their roof, his son being one of the slain. He wanted to hear “Brave Danny Flint” to let them know that he was aware “Arya” was an imposture. He’s sending a very clever message to his hosts and other Stark loyalists in attendance.

Good point. But I also think there was a more specific reason he requested the 'Rat Cook' song - because he was feeding the Freys pies made of their own relatives' meat.

He was also feeding the Boltons the same pies (and ate of them himself). Whether he counts himself not a guest of the Boltons because he did not eat their bread and salt (you'd think Roose would insist all his guests do so, both to properly play the exalted part of host of Winterfell and as insurance for the good behavior of his more honorable guests) or whether Manderly doesn't give a damn anymore about violating guest right when he's the guest of treacherous Bolton who killed his son by violating guest right (hence his requesting the song as dinner music for his enthusiastic devouring of those pies) I admit I don't know.

As I think that in the books Sandor's attachment to Sansa runs a distant second to the attachment to the idea of killing his brother, and in the books he didn't let the fact that Sansa was alive and out there somewhere, perhaps in need of his help, to move him from his humble position of gravedigger-monk, I can't imagine it's going to be that different in the show. SanSan's not going to happen.

Edited February 23, 2018 by screamin

OhOkayWhat · February 23, 2018

52 minutes ago, whateverdgaf said:

they could have found time to include it, as they had for Arya and the Hound.

This. Some Sansan fans say it is possible they develop quickly in the final season a Sandor and Sansa romantic relationship. And they are right. It is possible. But that doesn't answer your clever point: if that is true why it seems like the showrunners forgot about that relationship in the last previous seasons?

Edited February 23, 2018 by OhOkayWhat

Happy Harpy · February 24, 2018

2 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

When it comes to Sansa and the Hound, I do find it significant that their relationship hasn't really ben referred to since they parted ways. Apart from the Hound trying to goad Arya into killing him by saying he should have raped Sansa and Baelish telling Sansa Brienne beat the Hound (to which Sansa had little reaction), I can't recall a time where they bring the other one up. Compare this to Arya and the Hound who recalled each other on several occaisons, and it does seem that if Sansa and the Hound were going to have a significant relationship in the future, they could have found time to include it, as they had for Arya and the Hound.

One of the reasons I am convinced Brienne and Jaime are going somewhere significant next season is because the writers have gone out of their way to remind the audience of the bond between the two. That the same cannot be said for Sansa and Sandor, despite having an even longer seperation. This makes me believe that their relationship is not going to be of much significance in the last season. I certainly don't think Sansan is going to take place.

I don't think that new romantic relationships will be developed in S7. They have so much potential with characters meeting again, and won't have enough time for everything already. In-laws, friends of friends, or ex-foes bonding, as well as Instant Battle Friendships, maybe. But love starting from squat? I just don't see it.

That's why imo the Hound/Sansa isn't entirely impossible: They do have a relationship, albeit one indeed deprived of any of the romantic undertones found in the books. So for the reasons you mentioned, and the casting of the (fab) Rory McCann who's much older than Book!Hound, I do think it's unlikely. Although for me, the last thing that Sansa needs is a man, if she gets married (again), the most probable option* is Tyrion, precisely because their marriage was mentioned every season and moreover, they spoke rather nicely of one another.

I'm a sucker for Jaime/Brienne and I would love it if they were significant. They should be significant, Brienne is such an important part of Jaime's evolution, the little prickly angel on his shoulder. The thing that annoys me is how the season 7 outline would have had Brienne take Thoros' place beyond the Wall -if what I read is legit, it's hard to keep track lately will all the false leaks and reworked quotes.

*An option that makes sense, not "Oh, and she married Random House Lord Number 9/Random secondary character" for the sake of it.

3 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

So, I guess they just write the conversations that help the flow of the narrative of their storylines.

IIRC, that's what they did with Jon and Gendry discussing Arya. They thought about it and dropped it.

SeanC · February 24, 2018

2 hours ago, screamin said:

As I think that in the books Sandor's attachment to Sansa runs a distant second to the attachment to the idea of killing his brother, and in the books he didn't let the fact that Sansa was alive and out there somewhere, perhaps in need of his help, to move him from his humble position of gravedigger-monk, I can't imagine it's going to be that different in the show. SanSan's not going to happen.

I'm uncertain what will happen, but I don't find that a very convincing argument regarding Sandor in the books. He's still injured and has literally no idea where Sansa might be.

anamika · February 24, 2018

3 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

This. Some Sansan fans say it is possible they develop quickly in the final season a Sandor and Sansa romantic relationship. And they are right. It is possible. But that doesn't answer your clever point: if that is true why it seems like the showrunners forgot about that relationship in the last previous seasons?

Because who knows why these guys do anything anymore? As a long time book reader with some preconceived and strong ideas about the various characters, David and Dan's writing does not make much sense to me most of the time. There's a lot of favoritism, bias and fanservice going on in their writing. Is the Arya-Hound relationship really more significant than Sansa-Hound in the books? Arya left the Hound to die painfully and that's it for her and him in the books. It's her sister who is wishing for the Hound's presence and imagining kisses with him.

Jon has not mentioned Arya in 7 seasons on the show except for one line. How does that relate to the book version who ends up dying for her? Is Jon going to ignore Arya when he sees her next season or is he going to suddenly recall that he has a favorite sibling and interact with her accordingly?

And what about that line from the Hound about hating gingers last season? Why was that line in there? Was that just an offhand comment? A dig at SanSan fans? The Hound's standard shtick of saying the opposite of what he means? We will see next season. I don't think we can predict with any certainty their relationship based on previous seasons. I think both characters are doomed anyway and D and D may include some SanSan in there for the book fans.

Edited February 24, 2018 by anamika

OhOkayWhat · February 24, 2018

1 hour ago, anamika said:

There's a lot of favoritism, bias and fanservice going on in their writing.

There's not bias in their writing. They are simply their choices, that's all. It's their adaptation. Their call. Their Hound is not GRRM's Hound. The most important person in the life of their Hound is Arya. And they write a narrative consistent with that writing choice.

About him talking about gingers, we should not forget he is talking with a ginger, the same way he was talking about bald people with Thoros.

In my opinion, no one writes romance with only very cryptic hints that very few people can get.

screamin · February 24, 2018

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

I'm uncertain what will happen, but I don't find that a very convincing argument regarding Sandor in the books. He's still injured and has literally no idea where Sansa might be.

IIRC, in the books the injury didn't seem acute. A man with an acute injury doesn't help in gravedigging - it's heavy work, something an acutely injured man wouldn't be fit for. The man who's probably the Hound limps, but is fit enough to do heavy work (the Elder Brother mentions that the man's been busy with nonstop gravedigging because of all the war's corpses washing up on the shores). A fit man who limps, in that medieval-ish setting, has done all the healing from an old injury he's going to do and is going to keep that limp for good.

And a man wearing the garb of a novice monk and doing such humble work nonstop is IMO a man who thinks he's found some peace in his position, and it would take a crisis to force him out of it. Sansa's disappearance didn't force him out of it - and no, he hasn't the least idea where Sansa is, but neither did Brienne, and she didn't let that stop her. Seems to me that one thing that WOULD force him out of it would be something that's obsessed him for far longer than he's ever been taken with Sansa - like finding out his loathed brother isn't dead after all. And I think that will be one point where the show and the books will come together - that the Hound's end will come in defeating his brother. The show's already hinted broadly at that with the Hound recognizing the Mountain.

anamika · February 24, 2018

20 minutes ago, OhOkayWhat said:

There's not bias in their writing. They are simply their choices, that's all. It's their adaptation. Their call. Their Hound is not GRRM's Hound. The most important person in the life of their Hound is Arya. And they write a narrative consistent with that writing choice.

Fair enough. Then they should continue with their adaptation and do their ending. Not GRRM's. So, next season I expect to see the Hound-Arya relationship take center stage and not Jon-Arya seeing that the Hound spoke more about Arya than Jon did.

Edited February 24, 2018 by anamika

OhOkayWhat · February 24, 2018

6 minutes ago, anamika said:

Fair enough. Then they should continue with their adaptation and do their ending. Not GRRM's.

And they will. But maybe their ending will be 80 % similar to GRRM's ending. That's also their call. Their choice.

Sign In

Season 8: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Meredith Quill

spaceghostess

dragonsbite

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment