Also, let us not forget that in both the books and the show there is a great chasm between perception and reality. The perception that Ned is Jon's father, for instance, which is even explicitly stated in the appendix, and yet is untrue. There is also the perception that Rheagar kidnapped, raped and had a child with Lyanna Stark. A perception believed everywhere from King's Landing to Dorne to Reddit to Buzzfeed and everywhere inbetween. Yet The Winds of Winter remains to be published, the show dipped the audio, and all this leads me to say: we know the perception. Yet, are the perception and the reality one and the same?
Very true. But, given Ned's take on Cersei's children, seems like he, at least, was convinced that Robert would take his wrath out even on the uber-powerful Lannisters and those little kids.
It might be really stupid for Robert to kill a Dayne heir, but if he was angry enough, seems like Ned thinks Robert would kill children even from powerful, influential houses.
That said--I fully agree that Ned may have also hedged his bets re: Jon's appearance. That's way too big a risk, given how muck kids can change, not to worry that the kid might look Targaryen-ish, as Daynes apparently can.
Precisely. Ned knew all too well that Robert's fury could threaten undo all they had done. And so he had to protect the child's identity. For Ned this was both DEEPLY personal (safeguarding his beloved nephew) and DEEPLY political (safeguarding all the Starks, his friends, allies and bannermen).
YUP!
As you, markg171, voice and others have been saying for a while, Ned's lying about Jon does NOT require Jon to be Rhaegar's kid.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Also, let us not forget that in both the books and the show there is a great chasm between perception and reality. The perception that Ned is Jon's father, for instance, which is even explicitly stated in the appendix, and yet is untrue. There is also the perception that Rheagar kidnapped, raped and had a child with Lyanna Stark. A perception believed everywhere from King's Landing to Dorne to Reddit to Buzzfeed and everywhere inbetween. Yet The Winds of Winter remains to be published, the show dipped the audio, and all this leads me to say: we know the perception. Yet, are the perception and the reality one and the same?
YUP again!
They trolled us with Jon's death. They apparently spent a ton of money trying to make him look dead at the end of season 5. To make sure he appeared gone. And did interviews and had Kit do interviews.
They've proven they will mess with the reality viewers assume. No reason to think they would not do so again.
But, one way or another, they focused on Arthur and his sword. Most viewers aren't talking about them. But no question--the show focused on that sword and that man.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
As you, markg171, voice and others have been saying for a while, Ned's lying about Jon does NOT require Jon to be Rhaegar's kid.
I was debating this with Voice Jr last night actually. I pointed out that Ned's lying probably has more to do with Ned than whomever sat upon the Iron Throne.
I believe much of Ned's regret is due to the fact that he was simply too weak to ever tell Jon the truth. Many readers have assumed over the years that Ned lied to protect Jon. But what if he lied to protect himself?
Rather than protect himself or Jon from any royal danger, I think he lied because it was easier to lie than to tell the truth. How could he tell Jon that he murdered his father and watched his mother die? Surely that would be difficult to tell any child, and the last time Ned saw Jon, Jon was but fourteen.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
Also, let us not forget that in both the books and the show there is a great chasm between perception and reality. The perception that Ned is Jon's father, for instance, which is even explicitly stated in the appendix, and yet is untrue. There is also the perception that Rheagar kidnapped, raped and had a child with Lyanna Stark. A perception believed everywhere from King's Landing to Dorne to Reddit to Buzzfeed and everywhere inbetween. Yet The Winds of Winter remains to be published, the show dipped the audio, and all this leads me to say: we know the perception. Yet, are the perception and the reality one and the same?
YUP again!
They trolled us with Jon's death. They apparently spent a ton of money trying to make him look dead at the end of season 5. To make sure he appeared gone. And did interviews and had Kit do interviews.
They've proven they will mess with the reality viewers assume. No reason to think they would not do so again.
But, one way or another, they focused on Arthur and his sword. Most viewers aren't talking about them. But no question--the show focused on that sword and that man.
I honestly feel like a crazy person. Like does no one see all the holes in RLJ? On reddit everyone is super confused about why Rhaegar was never cast, was not explicitly confirmed, or why they dipped the audio. And most infuriatingly of all none of them are talking about Arthur Dayne and his conspicuous sword. They are just rationalizing it all away. It's like it can't even occur to them that someone else is the father. I mean Rheagar's dad tortured and murdered Lyanna's father and brother. I find it hard to believe they had TWUE WUV! I swear to god this is me right now:
As you, markg171, voice and others have been saying for a while, Ned's lying about Jon does NOT require Jon to be Rhaegar's kid.
I was debating this with Voice Jr last night actually. I pointed out that Ned's lying probably has more to do with Ned than whomever sat upon the Iron Throne.
I believe much of Ned's regret is due to the fact that he was simply too weak to ever tell Jon the truth. Many readers have assumed over the years that Ned lied to protect Jon. But what if he lied to protect himself?
Rather than protect himself or Jon from any royal danger, I think he lied because it was easier to lie than to tell the truth. How could he tell Jon that he murdered his father and watched his mother die? Surely that would be difficult to tell any child, and the last time Ned saw Jon, Jon was but fourteen.
Oh, yes. This has to be on the table.
In Game, Cat's heard whispers in Winterfell that Ned defeated Arthur in single combat. She clearly is hearing no rumors of how exactly Ned and Howland killed Arthur.
Then Cersei, trying to hurt Ned, says he killed Arthur and then stole Jon from Ashara, driving Ashara to suicide. I can't be sure, but if Cersei had heard that Ned and Howland killed Arthur together, why wouldn't she use that to throw in his face at the same time?
No--the books have been more subtle, but with Bran's memory in Clash about what Ned said about Arthur and looking sad--with that, the books are telling us there is something miserable about Arthur's death.
The show was VERY clear on this subject. I could absolutely see Ned's wanting to protect a child he loved from such a horrifying truth. It's who Ned is.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
I honestly feel like a crazy person. Like does no one see all the holes in RLJ? On reddit everyone is super confused about why Rhaegar was never cast, was not explicitly confirmed, or why they dipped the audio. And most infuriatingly of all none of them are talking about Arthur Dayne and his conspicuous sword. They are just rationalizing it all away. It's like it can't even occur to them that someone else is the father. I mean Rheagar's dad tortured and murdered Lyanna's father and brother. I find it hard to believe they had TWUE WUV! I swear to god this is me right now:
HA! We've been meaning to tell you about your insanity for a while, friend. But couldn't find the right time.
Seriously, though--I feel your pain. I got myself caught up in convos on this subject over on W. I'm doing my best to be respectful and avoid snakiness because I'd much rather discuss and converse than fight. And because others are being nice to me.
But on the sword: some of the arguments on the sword and the Arthur-centric fight beggar the imagination. "The camera focus means nothing, the placement at the end of her bed means nothing" etc. I get that the show can do all sorts of random stuff. And I agree that the show has not "proven" that Arthur is the father.
But it REALLY said Arthur was very, very important. That his sword was very, very important. It clearly matters.
So, if you are mad, friend, I'm in the padded cell next to you!
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
I honestly feel like a crazy person. Like does no one see all the holes in RLJ? On reddit everyone is super confused about why Rhaegar was never cast, was not explicitly confirmed, or why they dipped the audio. And most infuriatingly of all none of them are talking about Arthur Dayne and his conspicuous sword. They are just rationalizing it all away. It's like it can't even occur to them that someone else is the father. I mean Rheagar's dad tortured and murdered Lyanna's father and brother. I find it hard to believe they had TWUE WUV! I swear to god this is me right now:
HA! We've been meaning to tell you about your insanity for a while, friend. But couldn't find the right time.
Seriously, though--I feel your pain. I got myself caught up in convos on this subject over on W. I'm doing my best to be respectful and avoid snakiness because I'd much rather discuss and converse than fight. And because others are being nice to me.
But on the sword: some of the arguments on the sword and the Arthur-centric fight beggar the imagination. "The camera focus means nothing, the placement at the end of her bed means nothing" etc. I get that the show can do all sorts of random stuff. And I agree that the show has not "proven" that Arthur is the father.
But it REALLY said Arthur was very, very important. That his sword was very, very important. It clearly matters.
So, if you are mad, friend, I'm in the padded cell next to you!
Also, I made myself a more fitting avatar Mojo my MS paint skillz remain intact
lol!
“Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armour yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
Speaking of Shakespeare, I think #freypies was borrowed from Shakespeare but I can't remember the play at the moment.
Titus Andronicus. One of his earliest plays that he may have written with someone else.
And, quite frankly, not his best. Even Shakespeare has some plays that suck.
Or, in the case of Titus Andronicus, bleed massive amounts of unnecessary horror.
Titus Andronicus is one of those plays that is best explained when you look at what theatres had to compete with to gather crowds:
The Gallows & Public Executions.
For the Renaissance, it was an extremely popular past time for people to go down and watch a person be disemboweled, hung, drawn and quartered, or whatever gory punishment there was--including the torture that was inflicted upon the condemned before death. It was completely normal and people to some extent got excited about going to see the latest execution and riled up about it. A good comparison would be think how people get right before a sporting event like a Football game at their home stadium, only instead of it being about a game of football, it's about watching someone get their head cut off.
So hooking a crowd to come into the theatre by promising to be even more bloody and gory than a public execution? Why of course--that's only natural competition in a competitive market. Hook them on the cheap blood and gore, and maybe they'll come back for the plays of better quality later on, being the market strategy.
And you want to know something, it worked. Titus Andronicus and Shakespeare's bloody plays of Henry VI Part 2, Part 1, and Part 3 (that was the order they were written in) and Richard III are all extremely violent and bloody, partly to draw the audience in and keep them coming back.
Post by whitewolfstark on Jun 30, 2016 23:22:01 GMT
Oh, and speaking of Shakespeare's bloodiest plays, the BBC finally is completing the Octology by adapting the history plays about The Wars of the Roses (Henry VI Parts 1 - 3 & Richard III). It complements their earlier 2012 "Hollow Crown" series where they adapted the prequel tetraology to this one (Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, & Henry V)
Here's Henry VI Part 1. It is about the end of the Hundred Years War and features Jeanne D'Arc as a prominent side character (or Joan Pucelle as she's called here). Watch it if you need something to replace your Game of Thrones fix, definitely worth the watch.
ETA: Oh, and if you need extra inspiration to watch, Henry VI is one of the inspirations for Aerys II. Henry VI Part 1 is about him as a young man, so watch with that in mind.
No--the books have been more subtle, but with Bran's memory in Clash about what Ned said about Arthur and looking sad--with that, the books are telling us there is something miserable about Arthur's death.
The show was VERY clear on this subject. I could absolutely see Ned's wanting to protect a child he loved from such a horrifying truth. It's who Ned is.
Completely agree. GRRM hides where he is going all the time, but that Ned is a "heart in conflict" isn't hidden at all. Ned is a fairly black and white thinker on moral issues, yet he is sad and troubled by Lyanna, Brandon, Ashara, and his own actions surrounding Arthur Dayne's death, and Jon's birth.
That should be a membership question for joining this forum, lol! Are you a gentle type of crazy? Do you enjoy reading? How are your manners? Do you tolerate inebriated people? Do you like children and pets? This may be the ASOIAF forum for you!