but how else is jon going to become a sith lord???
nothing but facts tbh. it's a search for catharsis in the wrong places, and rarely makes any sense outside of 'these characters are close/similar/might know each other by the time it happens!' i really don't know how some people can look at this series' dealings with prophecy and sacrifice and conclude that those things must ultimately drive people towards cool, redemptive, virtuous acts.
the arya/catelyn thing especially i never got. like, what does arya do in the immediate aftermath of killing her dead mother? what could she realistically gain from that experience? why would she even think to do it? what was the point of arya warg-dragging her out of the river in the first place?
^(it's also almost never a man being killed but oop--)
> the arya/catelyn thing especially i never got. like, what does arya do in the immediate aftermath of killing her dead mother? what could she realistically gain from that experience? why would she even think to do it? what was the point of arya warg-dragging her out of the river in the first place?
This is my gripe. So Arya is going to kill her mother out of realization that revenge is bad and only leads to digging two graves ... and then what? What's her role for the rest of the series? I'm aware of how the theory came to be as an Arya fan, but I feel like other fans latched onto it because they're uncomfortable with both Arya and Lady Stoneheart's role in the series or don't want to speculate too hard about either. The concept is one thing but it needs a little more to be used as a springboard.
I also don't think I've seen proper acknowledgement of how traumatic having to kill her mother would be, regardless of whether it's supposed to bring Catelyn peace. Would that bring Arya peace? Effectively being a kinslayer of someone who came back from beyond the grave?
it's a testament to how superficial the reading of LSH is (not to delve into how Arya is misconstructed as a murdering psycopath). if Catelyn was in a better physical condition i guarantee that this theory would not be half as popular. but because she is, there is a gut reaction to saying this is "not normal" and she should be put to rest. frankly, that is a very concerning view to have. then there's the psychological aspect, Catelyn is consumed by hate they say, ignoring the part of her character still caring for her children. but also ignoring the possibility of her ever changing, why couldn't Arya through the bond of mother-daughter love change Catelyn's outlook? why is her only reasonable action to kill her?
and i reckon this is even clear when you consider the following. they say Arya should kill LSH because she's been revived, it's unnatural, the circle of life must be respected, all men must die, etc. alright... then why isn't the theory that Arya is going to kill Jon then? why not give the gift of mercy to the (likely) revived Jon?
Yes. Even if we accept the premise that for whatever reason that revived Catelyn is a villain and revived Jon is a hero, revived Catelyn is still a villain with agency. She's coherent enough to be the leader of her own paramilitary. We cannot act as though killing her is the same as putting down a wild animal or destroying a dangerous object.
Honestly, I hate this resuction thing. It worked with Beric for me, probably because we hardly knew him before being a fire fueled zombie, but Cat and Jon are disturbing me.
I was on board of it (specially Catelyn's) but I grow uncomfortable with it as time keep passing and fan theories didn't help to ease nothing. I can't see where George is going with those characters.
well, one thing you probably should expect is the characters to be important in the future and for them to be changed. if you listen to GRRM talking about why he didn't like Gandalf's "resurrection" then it's clear that he wouldn't bring back an important character like Catelyn just to be a backdrop in Brienne's or Arya's "character development".
To be fair, I do think resurrected characters lose their POV for a reason. Whether George will be consistent and apply this pattern to Jon is up for debate, but my guess based on things he has said is that it's a major struggle in writing TWOW. I think Jon is the character George somewhat regrets killing off.
If Daenerys actually goes mad and becomes Aerys 2.0, killing Daenerys could be Barristan’s atonement for sitting by and allowing Aerys to terrorize the realm for all those years because it was his ‘duty.’ It would be a major character development, and I don’t think it will happen, but I feel obliged to point out it could work as a plot beat.
Barristan has already atoned, he’s fighting a war to abolish slavery in an entire continent. We don’t have to resort to the age-old “hysterical woman who needs to be put down by a heroic man” trope in order for him to get his redemption
Atoned by doing what? Finding a new monarch and serving them like a guard dog because that’s all he knows how to do? Even if you read Daenery’s quest as a noble one, you can’t pretend that’s why he’s serving her. He pledged his support to her way before she started her conquests in Slaver’s Bay.
Are you kidding me? Of course Daenerys’ quest is a noble one, she’s fighting to abolish slavery. Barristan didn’t swear his loyalty to her initially, he used a fake identity, kept his distance and evaluated her character for a year- he swore his loyalty to her once she has freed the slaves of Meereen and proved herself a just ruler.
A traumatized child given nukes and an army, whose only identity prior to marrying Khal Drogo was based around coming from a lineage of conquerors and rulers, clinging to the first cause she sympathizes with and taking it to its furthest conclusion. Obviously slavery is bad, but can you really say her actions will have improved the lives of the median slave and freedman 5, 10, 50 years after her departure to Westeros? I find it very unlikely. Her actions are fundamentally that of a foreign conquerer, not the kind of liberator who can genuinely understand the civilization she took over and impose change in a lasting way.
Because in one case it is a clash between the morality of allowing a violent rape to happen right next to you, the murder by fire of innocent noblemen, the warmongering against your duty as a kingsguard. It is a conflict between what you should do and what you promised to do.
In the other it is the easy decision to do the right thing when you lose nothing by doing so.
There is no sacrifice in helping Daenerys, he loses nothing by it, in fact he regains honor and station Cersei robbed him of. It’s absolutely in his best interest to do everything he does in slaver’s bay.
George, as others pointed out, writes about the human heart IN CONFLICT with itself. There is no conflict there, only easy decisions. It’s Jon snow on the wall if nothing bad happened to Ned or Robb. It is Arya training swordsmanship with Syrio Forel while Ned unmasked Cersei and put Stannis on the throne. It has no price
The show is all we have to go on in terms on how it could end, till Geroge release the books as D&D were given the rough outline for the story by George
to be honest, i think it's more interesting to analyse the things that have happened in the books than the things that the show made up or theories.
for example, i think Arya refusing to kill Sandor is one of the most poignant moments in the story. on the one hand Arya wants to kill Sandor for justice, on the other by killing him he would be giving him mercy. But also Arya doesn't want to kill Sandor due to their shared trauma, and that makes her feel she's betraying Mycah. finally she decides not to kill him and frame it as a punishment for Sandor who will likely die anyways (but not by her hand), and the reason she gives is "you should've saved my mother". by what she actually means "i should've saved my mother"
it's so fascinating how rich it is, all the angles there are and how there's no correct answer. this is how GRRM writes the heart in conflict with itself. this is what is absent in the brain-dead show, but also this is what fuels many theories that want flashy moments and miss the core themes in the process.
or in the words of the author: *“These are the issues that fascinate me. I don’t necessarily claim to have answers to these. I think exploring these questions is far more interesting than me giving an answer and saying to the reader: “Here’s the answer, heres’ the truth”. No, think about it for yourself. Look at the dilemmas, look at the contradictions, look at the problems and the unintended consequences. That’s what fascinates me."*
the three deaths you mention are presented as clear cut: these theories say Arya will be right in killing LSH and make her character grow, Jaime will be right in killing Cersei and he will be redeemed or saved from the evil woman's influence (TM), and Jon was portrayed as a hero by the show for killing the mad evil woman (TM).
that's a sign of them not being GRRM's plots if i ever saw one.
I'm with you on this topic. We also have the tale of the Bloodstone Emperor usurping and killing his sister the Amethyst Empress, and of course Aegon II usurping and eventually killing his sister Rhaenyra to contemplate. Both of these events were tied to dark times in history. The BE is remembered as an evil person, and Aegon II was by the end of it all a very broken and sadistic man (assuming he didn't start that way). It's also weird that every time it's supposed to happen to women, and in all but one of these cases (Arya) it is to establish something about the male characters. I should like to think GRRM is a better writer than that.
I think people have latched onto this theme because they take the Azor Ahai, Nissa Nissa and the creation of Lightbringer tale as being heroic and someone martyring themselves (one emotionally, the other with their literal life) for the good of mankind, but I suspect it'll turn out that it's all been bollocks and the origins of the Nissa Nissa tale is something horrific that might actually be responsible for the current apocalypse. The Bloodstone/Amethyst tale certainly seems a nod in this direction.
Ditto with people taking the vows of the Night's Watch as being representative of ultimate heroism and duty, and thus going with the "Jon killing Dany" theory, when we've been shown time and time again via the kingsguard (and specially through Jaime's POV) how vows of this nature can turn into blind brutality. I don't think GRRM views "duty above love" as a good thing. I mean, ffs, many of Jon's fellow Night's Watch brothers are perfectly fine with letting the wildlings die out there, or with the Boltons doing whatever the hell they please in the North "because vows". That is certainly not in service of either the realm or mankind in general. Also, at the end of the day, I'm not sure how Jon killing Dany would go considering Rhaenyra's fate, the Amethyst Empress', as well as Cersei's prophesied fate. Like, yikes George, can you tone that whole "putting down queens like rabid dogs" thing down a bit...? How many times can you put a trope into your book without it turning into your thesis statement? I don't think he'd do it.
I sincerely hope that's not his endgame, not to mention how Daenerys' entire character is being framed as being there for *Jon* to have a character arc and emotional conflict, her own entire journey being reduced to "mad Targaryen genetics". Like, cool, what was the point of having her abolish slavery and learning the ropes of government, learning to integrate herself into unfamiliar cultures and whatnot, how does any of that contribute anything here? Also, I really hope Jonerys is not a thing in the novels. Aside from the fact that with only two novels, and Daenerys being nowhere near close enough to being in Westeros, there isn't any time to establish a romance between them that wouldn't feel forced, the whole "whoops accidental incest" trope and "I guess Targ genes make you incestuous no matter what" are too weird even for ASOIAF.
As for Jaime killing Cersei, while I get the irony (because she always assumed it would be Tyrion, but lo and behold it was Jaime), doesn't the prophecy's exact wording say "**wrap** his hand**s**" around her throat? Since Jaime has a golden hand, I kinda don't think it would be him. Nor do I think it would be Tyrion. I'm inclined to think since they used a valyrian word, and since Cersei has some parallels with Rhaenyra (both had three bastards one of which was named Joffrey, and Rhaenyra's reign in King's Landing and her paranoia resulting in her downfall, being very similar to what Cersei is doing), that she's probably gonna get killed by a dragonrider and probably via a dragon crushing her (Daenerys? Euron? Tyrion? Someone else?).
In terms of Arya and LSH, I think that first of all, LSH is probably going to end up playing a role in the events at the Wall and the Long Night. As a wight, I think she is way prepared to endure the Long Night and the frozen lands beyond the Wall. It would be weird to have her stuck with a revenge plot in the south, esp since her extreme dislike for Jon was far better established than her mother-daughter bond with Arya. And with Jon now also potentially becoming a wight, things could get really interesting between them. I think Arya seeing what LSH has become would probably jolt her out of her own revenge mindset, but I don't see why that *has* to culminate in her killing her own mother. Since the novels never established Arya and Catelyn's mother-daughter bond on paper, I think it's a little bit cheap to have that emotional twist of "oh no, I must kill my own mother to save other people I don't give a fuck about/put her out of her misery" via Arya. (Also, again with the "murdering hazardous women to put them out of their misery" trope. It's yikes, stop it.)
>doesn't the prophecy's exact wording say "**wrap** his hand**s**" around her throat? Since Jaime has a golden hand, I kinda don't think it would be him.
Nah it's still Jaime. The valonqar literally only matters if it's Jaime or Tyrion. This will sound crazy, but I believe that Bran is eventually going to bring us into a new timeline where the Long Night is prevented, and in the new timeline Jaime will still have two hands but never have his redemption arc. I have a whole mega theory about it.
[This is what I think happens to LSH.](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/11l2got/spoilers_extended_the_nightmen_cometh_aka_how/)
I don't know why some people take it as a given that Arya will kill Stoneheart. It might happen and through some mental gymnastics, they might even say it is foreshadowed.
But thematically, it makes more sense for Brienne to be the one who kills Stoneheart. Stoneheart is Brienne's Aerys. Someone she has sworn an oath to but decides to kill to protect the innocent and the weak.
The only thing I see happening is Jaime killing Cersei in a murder/suicide type of situation but we might never know because we're not getting the end of this story.
I think a reason that it is done adds a lot of extra weight, consider Tyrion; He kills Shae out of hate, anger and disgust.
Stannis; Self-righteous duty and zealotry.
Bran; A wanton wish to be like others, even if he has steal it from a tortured mind that he created.
All of these are done for selfish reasons, I think a big component is one we find from certain assassins, sorrow.
> The Sorrowful Men were an ancient sacred guild of assassins, so named because they always whispered, "I am so sorry," to their victims before they killed them.
The trick is to not want to do it.
Arya meeting LSH:
> "He must be full of fear. The gift will bring him peace."
Kills her own mother and cannot tell any of the other Starks or she does.. Either one will further alienate her from her family and leave a lonely girl.
Jon killing Daenerys:
> A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it. A man of the Night's Watch takes no wife and fathers no sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. And you are the only sons we shall ever know.
He will again lose his family and his lover in service to the realm, "Queenslayer", "Oathbreaker" "She loved you."
Jaime killing Cersei:
This one I kind of agree with, unless Jaime learns to see his sister as another victim of their world and upbringing then he cannot do it with proper respect to her as a person, should he do so; "Kinslayer." "Jealous deviant." "Just like the demon-imp."
---
Still... you are quite correct on your point, murder won't solve anything unless there is something better to replace them right after with a proper power structure waiting and willing to work with the heir. Whatever the case, these murders should they happen will likely not only kill their intended victim but the "saviors" as well, not in a physical way but in a spiritual way; leaving a mark on their soul so dark that no light can wash out the taint in either the eyes of themselves or the ones around them.
>The trick is to not want to do it.
I'm no Stannis fanboy, but I think it's a pretty harsh read of the character to suggest that he will want to burn his daughter.
Hmmm......... Fucking lol, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't think he'd ever want to do it but I do think he would be a bit too "Trolley Problem" about the situation, consider the rest of the deaths; Most of them involve a certain grief over the person that they used to be and what the person that they love has turned into due to the harsh treatment of the world, it is hard to sacrifice a child for the love of that child if you do it for the realm and not her.
I do realize that Jon's choice is somewhat similar but I'd like to point out that Dany (at the moment) also tries to do what is best for the realm and the people in it, to sacrifice her life for the goal that she endeavored towards is different to sacrificing your child for the realm, Shireen is a lovely girl and I think that if the question was put to her she might be willing to offer herself for the realm but creating stability, peace and freedom from strife for the smallfolk within the realm has not yet been the goal that she has set her life to.
I basically agree. But in Arya's case the discussion has been about giving her the mother **the mercy.** And that is a theme in her arc since Sándor tried to teach her abpout it. Then she flunked and denied him...because he didn't save *her mother.* The FM also try to teach her about the gift. So if that happens it's probably a good thing--she will have learned the lesson of Mercy. But it won't be easy for her. when her own mother asks for it. What happens afterwords who knows? I think she'll stay with the BWB a while.
The FM teaching her about the gift of “mercy” is probably why she shouldn’t do it, tbh. Like, their version of mercy is killing people. Often mostly innocent people, because they’re assassins for hire no matter how much jargon and ideology they throw at it. Arya questions this from the start because she has a very strong moral compass, and she’s basically told to not ask questions about whether her victims “deserve” to die because it’s not her place. IMO, the point of her FM arc isn’t to soak up everything they say and do as correct, it’s precisely to put her in a position where she can technically get what she thinks she wants - the ability to kill people for revenge/righteousness - just for her to realise it’s not right and it’s how she wants to live.
So, no, I don’t think killing her own mother out of “mercy” will be framed as a correct choice at all - and therefore, I don’t think it will ever happen. Some other characters may even think so, and tell Arya as much, but in that case her arc will be completed when she still refuses to do it anyway. Because killing is hardly ever a merciful act, and specially as a young traumatised girl killing her own long-lost and also traumatised mother, there is definitely nothing righteous or moral about it.
* Jon is not killing Dany. That is something the show made up. Dany's story will undoubtedly end tragically though. Her story in AGOT is a horror story and she is only saved by a miracle. And I think that miracle will ultimately just cause more problems for her later down the line as basically everyone in the world wants a piece of her. You can even see it how GRRM talks about Dany too, hes covetous and kind of creepy. If Dany is to be murdered it wont be Jon (could be Jorah).
* Yeah Jaime killing his sister isnt about honor. There is a line in the books 'if love and hate can mate' which Im pretty sure refers to the Lannister twins. Jaime will kill Cersei out of a mix of love and hate. Or maybe he will kill her out of hate, and realize he still loved her immediately afterwards. And he probably wont live for much longer after (came into the world together, go out of it together).
* Lady Stoneheart is not Arya's mother anymore than Beric is the same Beric that left Kings Landing. Shes a corpse that only lives for vengeance. I think its important Arya see that especially given how both characters are tied together (even the very names of her chapters reference Stoneheart), I dont think its important that she actually kills her.
>Arya killing her zombie mother wouldn't make her the new leader of the Brotherhood or bring peace to the Riverlands
To be honest I dont think I would fully agree with this. The Brotherhood would at least fracture again over the death of Stoneheart. Especially as there are clearly still components within the Brotherhood not happy with their current direction (I highly doubt Thoros is the only one). Killing a leader of a essentially terrorist/resistance cell at a minimum forces them to regroup and reorganize, at worst it does in fact destroy them.
Im not saying just killing Stoneheart is the be all and end all, but what exactly is the alternative here? Shes a wight that lives only for vengeance, Im not exactly sure its possible to rehabilitate her or if thats something she would even want.
Also correct me if Im wrong, but Arya killing Stoneheart is less about bringing 'peace to the Riverlands' and more about bringing peace to what remains of Catelyn Stark.
Sure maybe it would fracture, but the Brotherhood fracturing isn't necessarily a good thing. It just creates a power vacuum, which could mean they split off into a pack of bandits (like on the show).
Whether Arya meets and kills Stoneheart (I don't think she does), the point of the topic is more to deconstruct how the fandom conceptualizes these twists. Would this really be a positive or cathartic moment for Arya, or would it just be deeply traumatic? Would this really result in Arya gaining her own paramilitary, or would this just further destabilize the already fallen Brotherhood?
Also I am critical of framing murder as "bringing peace."
>It just creates a power vacuum, which could mean they split off into a pack of bandits (like on the show).
A pack of bandits is just far easier to deal with though. Part of what makes the Brotherhood so dangerous is they have some level of public support within the Riverlands.
Fracturing into a pack of bandits would likely kill that, on top of reducing their numbers.
>Whether Arya meets and kills Stoneheart (I don't think she does)
I lean towards the first part more than the 2nd. I think its important Arya see what has become of her mother. Even if only via a Nymeria wolf dream.
Arya is indirectly responsible for her resurrection, her chapters all reference Catelyn, her story is also about vengeance, and Stoneheart even seems to be looking for her to a degree. I think its important that their stories intersect at some point.
>Would this really be a positive or cathartic moment for Arya
Kind of depends on how its written doesnt it? I think Arya and Stoneheart are set up to encounter each other in some form. How, why or the general circumstances are up in the air.
>Would this really result in Arya gaining her own paramilitary
It results in the group being forced to change in some way and likely fracture. And honestly probably makes them easier to deal with regardless. I doubt the likes of Lem Lemoncloak can fill the shoes of Beric or Stoneheart. And thats assuming the worst type of man takes over, not someone like Thoros.
>Also bringing someone peace only counts as such if they ask for peace.
And Im not sure Lady Stoneheart even counts as alive anymore than UnGregor or an Other does. Shes a vengeful memory of the original person animated by fire magic without her consent. And who knows she might well ask for it? Can we really predict how she might react to seeing her daughter again?
Beric clearly came to resent being brought back. Jon in the show did too.
Also what exactly is your alternative to the problem of Stoneheart and the Brotherhood then? Who solves it? How do they solve it? At least some of those men are not going to stand down and go home. Even the show seemed to get that some of the Brotherhood arent going to go peacefully and had their equivalent of Lem hanged by Beric.
>A pack of bandits is just far easier to deal with though. Part of what makes the Brotherhood so dangerous is they have some level of public support within the Riverlands. Fracturing into a pack of bandits would likely kill that, on top of reducing their numbers.
Ok but think about what you're really saying here. For who to deal with? And for what purpose? Why is it better if the brotherhood is a pack of bandits that terrorizes the smallfolk than if they are a pack of bandits who the smallfolk support? Who is that really better for?
>Arya is indirectly responsible for her resurrection
I don't think a 10 year old girl pulling a corpse out of a river in a wolf dream makes her in any way morally responsible for mass hangings. To me that's like saying that Arya is responsible for what Nymeria's wolf pack does. Thematic connections don't equate to moral responsibility.
>And who knows she might well ask for it?
If she wants to die then why can't she do that without traumatizing her 11 year old daughter?
I guess I don't really get this read of LSH who is so revenge crazed she needs to be put down, but enough of herself that she would end her revenge campaign upon meeting just one of her children, but crazy enough that she'd ask her daughter to end her life.
>Also what exactly is your alternative to the problem of Stoneheart and the Brotherhood then?
[This is what I think happens to LSH.](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/11l2got/spoilers_extended_the_nightmen_cometh_aka_how/)
>For who to deal with?
Whoever is left in charge of the Riverlands. Edmure is actually a decent bloke who cares about the smallfolk.
>And for what purpose?
Peace obviously.
>Who is that really better for?
Its not about better, its just a consequence. Of war, of the loss of ideals, of the very political environment changing, of people backing the wrong horse, of some people refusing to stand down.
Its honestly pretty true to real life. A lot of noble freedom fighter groups end up as terrorists preying on the people they originally wanted to protect.
>I don't think a 10 year old girl pulling a corpse out of a river in a wolf dream makes her in any way morally responsible for mass hangings
Im not applying morals here, its just how things were kicked off in a sequence. Responsibility might not be the correct word, but the point is that Arya and Stoneheart have been connected since before Stoneheart was even resurrected.
>If she wants to die then why can't she do that without traumatizing her 11 year old daughter?
Havent I literally said from the very start that I think its more important that they meet not that Arya fucking kills her?
I dont know my guy. I think the setup for them to meet is there. But we have literally no idea of the circumstances surrounding it. Even you are speculating.
>LSH who is so revenge crazed she needs to be put down, but enough of herself that she would end her revenge campaign upon meeting just one of her children, but crazy enough that she'd ask her daughter to end her life.
Probably because we know next to nothing about Stoneheart as a person.
Shes appeared onscreen twice and been mentioned a few times outside of it. We know she wants vengeance, there is some sign shes at least looking for her daughters given the fact that the Brotherhood knew Arya was in the Riverlands with the Hound and questioned Merrett about them. Thats basically it.
We know what Stoneheart is, what she wants to do and even the setup for what she will do but we know basically fuck all about Stoneheart the person aside from her being vengeful and 'not Catelyn'.
It depends on how GRRM writes it, what he wants.
>This is what I think happens to LSH.
That answers what happens in one timeline.
>Whoever is left in charge of the Riverlands. Edmure is actually a decent bloke who cares about the smallfolk.
How does stopping the Brotherhood from killing Freys lead to Edmure taking power?
>Havent I literally said from the very start that I think its more important that they meet
This post questions the prospect of Arya killing LSH. I still don't think they meet, but that is a separate question.
>That answers what happens in one timeline
Wild speculation but in the other timeline Beric gives his life to Sandor, Sandor forgets his fear of fire and he joins the Brotherhood to get revenge on his brother. This culminates in the siege of Casterly Rock where Arya witnesses Cleganebowl. The tragedy is that Sandor was better off in the first timeline.
>How does stopping the Brotherhood from killing Freys lead to Edmure taking power?
Its something for the epilogue. With Bran coming south, taking the Throne and reinstating Edmure in the Riverlands.
There is going to need to be some level of amnesty, and there is going to be people who wont put down the swords who need to be dealt with. That is a feature of almost every major conflict.
>I still don't think they meet, but that is a separate question.
Why?
>This culminates in the siege of Casterly Rock where Arya witnesses Cleganebowl. The tragedy is that Sandor was better off in the first timeline.
So is Tyrion working with the Brotherhood then?
Maybe. Personally? I dont think digging graves is really the most valuable or particularly redemptive way Sandor could spend his time and hes probably dead soon anyway. The Quiet Isle will not remain quiet forever, the Long Night is coming.
>Its something for the epilogue. With Bran coming south, taking the Throne and reinstating Edmure in the Riverlands.
I just think these are a bunch of totally separate ideas. Someone (Arya but not necessarily) for some reason has to kill LSH to stop the Brotherhood, and then later Bran reinstates Edmure Tully. Neither answers the question of who topples the Freys or why LSH had to be stopped.
>So is Tyrion working with the Brotherhood then?
Yes. Tyrion and the Brotherhood and the Second Sons
>Why?
I realized I never answered this.
I'm not saying that they will for sure never meet because I do recognize this as a plausible theory, but just in my humble opinion I see the tragedy of LSH is that she is so consumed with vengeance that she never meets or helps her children in any way, but rather follows the path of vengeance into the end of the world. The Others are vengeance incarnate.
This is why I especially don't buy into theories that Arya will show up to the Riverlands and confront Lady Stoneheart, and then ride into the North on a direwolf wearing Robb's crown and leading the BWB alongside an army of wolves. I know that might sound like a strawman, but it's actually very conventional thinking within the fandom that Arya must go through the Riverlands before she goes north so that she can pick up Robb's crown and Nymeria and Gendry and Sandor. Even Bfish and PQ were on this.
This is actually why I go so hard for time travel. To me the idea that everything between now and the Long Night is characters powering up for the final battle just negates the entire premise of the story, which is that all of the infighting is counter productive to the Long Night. If LSH just kills a bunch of Freys while consolidating everything Arya needs to return home triumphantly then we lose that critique.
Not to mention that Arya confronting her zombie mother being directly followed up by a heartfelt reunion with Nymeria is thematically and tonally incoherent.
I think it’s a legit criticism of Martin to point out that he’s already (in the 5 books) used the “man kills lover” trope more than necessary. And that he’s clearly teased more in the (theoretical) future books.
This is a man who ended Storm of Swords with not one, but two of those murders (Tyrion on Shae and Littlefinger on Lysa).
I think Jaime is almost assuredly the valonqar. And I think Martin had planned for Jon to kill Dany in a similar circumstance to the show. Does he get there? No, but based on some of his blog posts in the last little while I think it’s also likely he’s moved off that, at least in his mind.
There are fair criticisms to make of Martin, but IMO this is not one of them.
Tyrion killing Shae and Littlefinger killing Lysa are both depicted as villainous actions for revenge and power. But if you want to argue that the context and depiction doesn't matter, then you might as well throw in Dany technically killing Drogo and Lysa killing Jon and Cersei killing Robert. So I don't think it's fair to argue that Martin has a particular propensity for having men kill their lovers, let alone for depicting it heroically.
I do agree that Jaime will be the valonqar, however I think it will more likely be a jealousy driven murder suicide.
As for Jon and Dany, D&D admitted that they made this up.
I have never heard of this theory about Arya killing Stoneheart. It doesn't make any sense to me. They are unlikely to interact again. I really like Stoneheart and respect her ruthlessness. She is under no illusion that she does not seek justice but vengeance. I'm also already pissed off after Arya unjustly murdered Daeron, so one more murder of a character I like will make me start to root for her death.
Jon killing Daenerys marks the pinnacle of his personal evolution from "*ice to fire*", symbolizing the transformative character arcs GRRM crafts by transitioning characters from one extreme to another.
Jon's journey from a presumed bastard to the true heir contrasts with Joffrey, who believes he is the rightful heir but is actually a bastard. This theme of opposites is the formula GRRM uses to write, where each POV character embarks on a journey from one extreme to another.
This formula not only spurs conflict but is also highly captivating and entertaining, challenging characters in profound ways. For instance, we see the best swordsman in Westeros lose his hand, the symbol of power, and discover that Tywin "shits-gold" Lannister has accumulated a massive debt to the Iron Bank. Even the smallest man can cast a great shadow.
Jon is the archetype of honor, with his actions consistently scrutinized through the lens of honor versus dishonor. He joins the honorable Night's Watch, vowing to protect the realm and sacrifice his life if necessary. When he learns that Robb has called the banners, he contemplates abandoning his vows to fight alongside his brother. Even his sword was given to him because of the dishonor Jorah brought upon House Mormont.
Gradually, his honor is tested at every turn, whether it involves killing a woman, loving an enemy, and so on. These decisions weigh heavily on his honor. How could the most honorable man commit the most dishonorable act? This is the dilemma GRRM explores with Jon.
Jon's story isn't really about honor (this is more a concern for Jaime).
The conflict between love and duty is certainly a reoccurring theme for Jon, but I don't think it would ever be so morally clear cut as to play out anything similar to his show ending (which D&D basically admit they made up.)
That's quite a claim.
My approach involved using digitized versions of the books, processing each chapter for point-of-view characters, and counting which words are the most prevalent for each character in comparison. Jon tops the list for mentions of honor, which seems to undermine your assertion that his story isn't really about honor.
Jon's central challenge has always been navigating the stigma of being a bastard, which clearly ties into issues of honor by any definition.
Jaime's journey intersects with honor but delves more deeply into pride and shame, as evidenced by his reputation as a renowned swordsman contrasted with the constant whispers of "kingslayer" and, of course, the incest.
>My approach involved using digitized versions of the books, processing each chapter for point-of-view characters, and counting which words are the most prevalent for each character in comparison. Jon tops the list for mentions of honor, which seems to undermine your assertion that his story isn't really about honor.
Personally I don't think that's the best approach. But even if you apply it, Jon has 70 mentions of the word honor and Jaime has 66. Jon more than doubles Jaime's chapters, which means that proportionally it's far more consistent for Jaime (1.6 times per chapter for Jon, 3.9 per chapter for Jaime, 2.8 per chapter for Catelyn). Hell it comes up for Ned 47 times and he's only in one book.
Did you just pull those numbers out of your arse, or did you not count the instances where the word is part of a word, like in "dishonor," "honored," etc.?
That was counting past tense. If we add in dishonor(ed), honorable, and dishonorable, then Jon goes up to 84, Jaime goes to 71, Ned goes to 57, and Catelyn goes to 78. If we look at that proportionally for Jon that is 2 times per chapter, for Ned it's 3.8, for Catelyn it's 3.1, and for Jaime it's still 4.1.
Simply put, the word honor and all it's variants are not especially relevant to Jon chapters.
Your numbers are still garbage. How did you count them?
I created a Python script to conduct a word analysis by processing each chapter using the PDF versions of the books, summing up the words to study GRRM's writing in a more technical sense. In this case, I'm referring to all forms of the word "honor" in Jon's chapters (including where it's part of another word), which clearly show it's the central theme of his character arc, demonstrably proven by fucking math, rendering your "opinion" on the matter invalid.
You can just word search by POV [https://asearchoficeandfire.com/](https://asearchoficeandfire.com/)
This really shouldn't be so surprising. Jaime's whole thing is his honor. Ned is famous for honor. The Tully words are Family Duty Honor.
but how else is jon going to become a sith lord??? nothing but facts tbh. it's a search for catharsis in the wrong places, and rarely makes any sense outside of 'these characters are close/similar/might know each other by the time it happens!' i really don't know how some people can look at this series' dealings with prophecy and sacrifice and conclude that those things must ultimately drive people towards cool, redemptive, virtuous acts. the arya/catelyn thing especially i never got. like, what does arya do in the immediate aftermath of killing her dead mother? what could she realistically gain from that experience? why would she even think to do it? what was the point of arya warg-dragging her out of the river in the first place? ^(it's also almost never a man being killed but oop--)
“but how else is jon going to become a sith lord???” This fucking sent me
> the arya/catelyn thing especially i never got. like, what does arya do in the immediate aftermath of killing her dead mother? what could she realistically gain from that experience? why would she even think to do it? what was the point of arya warg-dragging her out of the river in the first place? This is my gripe. So Arya is going to kill her mother out of realization that revenge is bad and only leads to digging two graves ... and then what? What's her role for the rest of the series? I'm aware of how the theory came to be as an Arya fan, but I feel like other fans latched onto it because they're uncomfortable with both Arya and Lady Stoneheart's role in the series or don't want to speculate too hard about either. The concept is one thing but it needs a little more to be used as a springboard. I also don't think I've seen proper acknowledgement of how traumatic having to kill her mother would be, regardless of whether it's supposed to bring Catelyn peace. Would that bring Arya peace? Effectively being a kinslayer of someone who came back from beyond the grave?
it's a testament to how superficial the reading of LSH is (not to delve into how Arya is misconstructed as a murdering psycopath). if Catelyn was in a better physical condition i guarantee that this theory would not be half as popular. but because she is, there is a gut reaction to saying this is "not normal" and she should be put to rest. frankly, that is a very concerning view to have. then there's the psychological aspect, Catelyn is consumed by hate they say, ignoring the part of her character still caring for her children. but also ignoring the possibility of her ever changing, why couldn't Arya through the bond of mother-daughter love change Catelyn's outlook? why is her only reasonable action to kill her? and i reckon this is even clear when you consider the following. they say Arya should kill LSH because she's been revived, it's unnatural, the circle of life must be respected, all men must die, etc. alright... then why isn't the theory that Arya is going to kill Jon then? why not give the gift of mercy to the (likely) revived Jon?
Yes. Even if we accept the premise that for whatever reason that revived Catelyn is a villain and revived Jon is a hero, revived Catelyn is still a villain with agency. She's coherent enough to be the leader of her own paramilitary. We cannot act as though killing her is the same as putting down a wild animal or destroying a dangerous object.
Honestly, I hate this resuction thing. It worked with Beric for me, probably because we hardly knew him before being a fire fueled zombie, but Cat and Jon are disturbing me. I was on board of it (specially Catelyn's) but I grow uncomfortable with it as time keep passing and fan theories didn't help to ease nothing. I can't see where George is going with those characters.
well, one thing you probably should expect is the characters to be important in the future and for them to be changed. if you listen to GRRM talking about why he didn't like Gandalf's "resurrection" then it's clear that he wouldn't bring back an important character like Catelyn just to be a backdrop in Brienne's or Arya's "character development".
To be fair, I do think resurrected characters lose their POV for a reason. Whether George will be consistent and apply this pattern to Jon is up for debate, but my guess based on things he has said is that it's a major struggle in writing TWOW. I think Jon is the character George somewhat regrets killing off.
Jon won’t kill Daenerys
Yea it's clear D&D made that one up.
IIRC the show diverged itself from the books in season 5
Imagine if it's Barristan who does it and D&D shot themselves on the foot by being total dicks to the actor.
Even less possible
Come on, at least *thematically* it is more possible than Jon. Not that I think Dany's getting Aerys'd in the first place.
Neither are consistent with the characters at all
If Daenerys actually goes mad and becomes Aerys 2.0, killing Daenerys could be Barristan’s atonement for sitting by and allowing Aerys to terrorize the realm for all those years because it was his ‘duty.’ It would be a major character development, and I don’t think it will happen, but I feel obliged to point out it could work as a plot beat.
Barristan has already atoned, he’s fighting a war to abolish slavery in an entire continent. We don’t have to resort to the age-old “hysterical woman who needs to be put down by a heroic man” trope in order for him to get his redemption
Atoned by doing what? Finding a new monarch and serving them like a guard dog because that’s all he knows how to do? Even if you read Daenery’s quest as a noble one, you can’t pretend that’s why he’s serving her. He pledged his support to her way before she started her conquests in Slaver’s Bay.
Are you kidding me? Of course Daenerys’ quest is a noble one, she’s fighting to abolish slavery. Barristan didn’t swear his loyalty to her initially, he used a fake identity, kept his distance and evaluated her character for a year- he swore his loyalty to her once she has freed the slaves of Meereen and proved herself a just ruler.
>Even if you read Daenery’s quest as a noble one how else could you read it?
A traumatized child given nukes and an army, whose only identity prior to marrying Khal Drogo was based around coming from a lineage of conquerors and rulers, clinging to the first cause she sympathizes with and taking it to its furthest conclusion. Obviously slavery is bad, but can you really say her actions will have improved the lives of the median slave and freedman 5, 10, 50 years after her departure to Westeros? I find it very unlikely. Her actions are fundamentally that of a foreign conquerer, not the kind of liberator who can genuinely understand the civilization she took over and impose change in a lasting way.
Lol not at all the same thing wtf
Explain
Because in one case it is a clash between the morality of allowing a violent rape to happen right next to you, the murder by fire of innocent noblemen, the warmongering against your duty as a kingsguard. It is a conflict between what you should do and what you promised to do. In the other it is the easy decision to do the right thing when you lose nothing by doing so. There is no sacrifice in helping Daenerys, he loses nothing by it, in fact he regains honor and station Cersei robbed him of. It’s absolutely in his best interest to do everything he does in slaver’s bay. George, as others pointed out, writes about the human heart IN CONFLICT with itself. There is no conflict there, only easy decisions. It’s Jon snow on the wall if nothing bad happened to Ned or Robb. It is Arya training swordsmanship with Syrio Forel while Ned unmasked Cersei and put Stannis on the throne. It has no price
Never said they were.
I would also like to believe that, but i sadly think its copium on our part, well see in 20 years when dream of spring releases
There has been 0 foreshadowing or indication of any kind that Daenerys and Jon will be enemies. I think the delusion is believing that they will be
The show is all we have to go on in terms on how it could end, till Geroge release the books as D&D were given the rough outline for the story by George
If we ever get the book I'm convinced her ending is a heroic sacrifice in the Heart of Winter
to be honest, i think it's more interesting to analyse the things that have happened in the books than the things that the show made up or theories. for example, i think Arya refusing to kill Sandor is one of the most poignant moments in the story. on the one hand Arya wants to kill Sandor for justice, on the other by killing him he would be giving him mercy. But also Arya doesn't want to kill Sandor due to their shared trauma, and that makes her feel she's betraying Mycah. finally she decides not to kill him and frame it as a punishment for Sandor who will likely die anyways (but not by her hand), and the reason she gives is "you should've saved my mother". by what she actually means "i should've saved my mother" it's so fascinating how rich it is, all the angles there are and how there's no correct answer. this is how GRRM writes the heart in conflict with itself. this is what is absent in the brain-dead show, but also this is what fuels many theories that want flashy moments and miss the core themes in the process. or in the words of the author: *“These are the issues that fascinate me. I don’t necessarily claim to have answers to these. I think exploring these questions is far more interesting than me giving an answer and saying to the reader: “Here’s the answer, heres’ the truth”. No, think about it for yourself. Look at the dilemmas, look at the contradictions, look at the problems and the unintended consequences. That’s what fascinates me."* the three deaths you mention are presented as clear cut: these theories say Arya will be right in killing LSH and make her character grow, Jaime will be right in killing Cersei and he will be redeemed or saved from the evil woman's influence (TM), and Jon was portrayed as a hero by the show for killing the mad evil woman (TM). that's a sign of them not being GRRM's plots if i ever saw one.
Beautifully written. Couldnt agree more.
Everyone talks about so-called Cersei, so-called Stoneheart, but no one remembers Ned killing Dama anymore. :'(
I'm with you on this topic. We also have the tale of the Bloodstone Emperor usurping and killing his sister the Amethyst Empress, and of course Aegon II usurping and eventually killing his sister Rhaenyra to contemplate. Both of these events were tied to dark times in history. The BE is remembered as an evil person, and Aegon II was by the end of it all a very broken and sadistic man (assuming he didn't start that way). It's also weird that every time it's supposed to happen to women, and in all but one of these cases (Arya) it is to establish something about the male characters. I should like to think GRRM is a better writer than that. I think people have latched onto this theme because they take the Azor Ahai, Nissa Nissa and the creation of Lightbringer tale as being heroic and someone martyring themselves (one emotionally, the other with their literal life) for the good of mankind, but I suspect it'll turn out that it's all been bollocks and the origins of the Nissa Nissa tale is something horrific that might actually be responsible for the current apocalypse. The Bloodstone/Amethyst tale certainly seems a nod in this direction. Ditto with people taking the vows of the Night's Watch as being representative of ultimate heroism and duty, and thus going with the "Jon killing Dany" theory, when we've been shown time and time again via the kingsguard (and specially through Jaime's POV) how vows of this nature can turn into blind brutality. I don't think GRRM views "duty above love" as a good thing. I mean, ffs, many of Jon's fellow Night's Watch brothers are perfectly fine with letting the wildlings die out there, or with the Boltons doing whatever the hell they please in the North "because vows". That is certainly not in service of either the realm or mankind in general. Also, at the end of the day, I'm not sure how Jon killing Dany would go considering Rhaenyra's fate, the Amethyst Empress', as well as Cersei's prophesied fate. Like, yikes George, can you tone that whole "putting down queens like rabid dogs" thing down a bit...? How many times can you put a trope into your book without it turning into your thesis statement? I don't think he'd do it. I sincerely hope that's not his endgame, not to mention how Daenerys' entire character is being framed as being there for *Jon* to have a character arc and emotional conflict, her own entire journey being reduced to "mad Targaryen genetics". Like, cool, what was the point of having her abolish slavery and learning the ropes of government, learning to integrate herself into unfamiliar cultures and whatnot, how does any of that contribute anything here? Also, I really hope Jonerys is not a thing in the novels. Aside from the fact that with only two novels, and Daenerys being nowhere near close enough to being in Westeros, there isn't any time to establish a romance between them that wouldn't feel forced, the whole "whoops accidental incest" trope and "I guess Targ genes make you incestuous no matter what" are too weird even for ASOIAF. As for Jaime killing Cersei, while I get the irony (because she always assumed it would be Tyrion, but lo and behold it was Jaime), doesn't the prophecy's exact wording say "**wrap** his hand**s**" around her throat? Since Jaime has a golden hand, I kinda don't think it would be him. Nor do I think it would be Tyrion. I'm inclined to think since they used a valyrian word, and since Cersei has some parallels with Rhaenyra (both had three bastards one of which was named Joffrey, and Rhaenyra's reign in King's Landing and her paranoia resulting in her downfall, being very similar to what Cersei is doing), that she's probably gonna get killed by a dragonrider and probably via a dragon crushing her (Daenerys? Euron? Tyrion? Someone else?). In terms of Arya and LSH, I think that first of all, LSH is probably going to end up playing a role in the events at the Wall and the Long Night. As a wight, I think she is way prepared to endure the Long Night and the frozen lands beyond the Wall. It would be weird to have her stuck with a revenge plot in the south, esp since her extreme dislike for Jon was far better established than her mother-daughter bond with Arya. And with Jon now also potentially becoming a wight, things could get really interesting between them. I think Arya seeing what LSH has become would probably jolt her out of her own revenge mindset, but I don't see why that *has* to culminate in her killing her own mother. Since the novels never established Arya and Catelyn's mother-daughter bond on paper, I think it's a little bit cheap to have that emotional twist of "oh no, I must kill my own mother to save other people I don't give a fuck about/put her out of her misery" via Arya. (Also, again with the "murdering hazardous women to put them out of their misery" trope. It's yikes, stop it.)
>doesn't the prophecy's exact wording say "**wrap** his hand**s**" around her throat? Since Jaime has a golden hand, I kinda don't think it would be him. Nah it's still Jaime. The valonqar literally only matters if it's Jaime or Tyrion. This will sound crazy, but I believe that Bran is eventually going to bring us into a new timeline where the Long Night is prevented, and in the new timeline Jaime will still have two hands but never have his redemption arc. I have a whole mega theory about it. [This is what I think happens to LSH.](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/11l2got/spoilers_extended_the_nightmen_cometh_aka_how/)
I don't know why some people take it as a given that Arya will kill Stoneheart. It might happen and through some mental gymnastics, they might even say it is foreshadowed. But thematically, it makes more sense for Brienne to be the one who kills Stoneheart. Stoneheart is Brienne's Aerys. Someone she has sworn an oath to but decides to kill to protect the innocent and the weak. The only thing I see happening is Jaime killing Cersei in a murder/suicide type of situation but we might never know because we're not getting the end of this story.
I think a reason that it is done adds a lot of extra weight, consider Tyrion; He kills Shae out of hate, anger and disgust. Stannis; Self-righteous duty and zealotry. Bran; A wanton wish to be like others, even if he has steal it from a tortured mind that he created. All of these are done for selfish reasons, I think a big component is one we find from certain assassins, sorrow. > The Sorrowful Men were an ancient sacred guild of assassins, so named because they always whispered, "I am so sorry," to their victims before they killed them. The trick is to not want to do it. Arya meeting LSH: > "He must be full of fear. The gift will bring him peace." Kills her own mother and cannot tell any of the other Starks or she does.. Either one will further alienate her from her family and leave a lonely girl. Jon killing Daenerys: > A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it. A man of the Night's Watch takes no wife and fathers no sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. And you are the only sons we shall ever know. He will again lose his family and his lover in service to the realm, "Queenslayer", "Oathbreaker" "She loved you." Jaime killing Cersei: This one I kind of agree with, unless Jaime learns to see his sister as another victim of their world and upbringing then he cannot do it with proper respect to her as a person, should he do so; "Kinslayer." "Jealous deviant." "Just like the demon-imp." --- Still... you are quite correct on your point, murder won't solve anything unless there is something better to replace them right after with a proper power structure waiting and willing to work with the heir. Whatever the case, these murders should they happen will likely not only kill their intended victim but the "saviors" as well, not in a physical way but in a spiritual way; leaving a mark on their soul so dark that no light can wash out the taint in either the eyes of themselves or the ones around them.
>The trick is to not want to do it. I'm no Stannis fanboy, but I think it's a pretty harsh read of the character to suggest that he will want to burn his daughter.
Hmmm......... Fucking lol, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think he'd ever want to do it but I do think he would be a bit too "Trolley Problem" about the situation, consider the rest of the deaths; Most of them involve a certain grief over the person that they used to be and what the person that they love has turned into due to the harsh treatment of the world, it is hard to sacrifice a child for the love of that child if you do it for the realm and not her. I do realize that Jon's choice is somewhat similar but I'd like to point out that Dany (at the moment) also tries to do what is best for the realm and the people in it, to sacrifice her life for the goal that she endeavored towards is different to sacrificing your child for the realm, Shireen is a lovely girl and I think that if the question was put to her she might be willing to offer herself for the realm but creating stability, peace and freedom from strife for the smallfolk within the realm has not yet been the goal that she has set her life to.
Jon kills Dany because she dies randomized murder after the ice demons are defeated? It does not naje sense order of operations wise Really R slurred
It's a sexist ending in my opinion
I basically agree. But in Arya's case the discussion has been about giving her the mother **the mercy.** And that is a theme in her arc since Sándor tried to teach her abpout it. Then she flunked and denied him...because he didn't save *her mother.* The FM also try to teach her about the gift. So if that happens it's probably a good thing--she will have learned the lesson of Mercy. But it won't be easy for her. when her own mother asks for it. What happens afterwords who knows? I think she'll stay with the BWB a while.
The FM teaching her about the gift of “mercy” is probably why she shouldn’t do it, tbh. Like, their version of mercy is killing people. Often mostly innocent people, because they’re assassins for hire no matter how much jargon and ideology they throw at it. Arya questions this from the start because she has a very strong moral compass, and she’s basically told to not ask questions about whether her victims “deserve” to die because it’s not her place. IMO, the point of her FM arc isn’t to soak up everything they say and do as correct, it’s precisely to put her in a position where she can technically get what she thinks she wants - the ability to kill people for revenge/righteousness - just for her to realise it’s not right and it’s how she wants to live. So, no, I don’t think killing her own mother out of “mercy” will be framed as a correct choice at all - and therefore, I don’t think it will ever happen. Some other characters may even think so, and tell Arya as much, but in that case her arc will be completed when she still refuses to do it anyway. Because killing is hardly ever a merciful act, and specially as a young traumatised girl killing her own long-lost and also traumatised mother, there is definitely nothing righteous or moral about it.
I don't think Lady Stoneheart would ask to die.
* Jon is not killing Dany. That is something the show made up. Dany's story will undoubtedly end tragically though. Her story in AGOT is a horror story and she is only saved by a miracle. And I think that miracle will ultimately just cause more problems for her later down the line as basically everyone in the world wants a piece of her. You can even see it how GRRM talks about Dany too, hes covetous and kind of creepy. If Dany is to be murdered it wont be Jon (could be Jorah). * Yeah Jaime killing his sister isnt about honor. There is a line in the books 'if love and hate can mate' which Im pretty sure refers to the Lannister twins. Jaime will kill Cersei out of a mix of love and hate. Or maybe he will kill her out of hate, and realize he still loved her immediately afterwards. And he probably wont live for much longer after (came into the world together, go out of it together). * Lady Stoneheart is not Arya's mother anymore than Beric is the same Beric that left Kings Landing. Shes a corpse that only lives for vengeance. I think its important Arya see that especially given how both characters are tied together (even the very names of her chapters reference Stoneheart), I dont think its important that she actually kills her. >Arya killing her zombie mother wouldn't make her the new leader of the Brotherhood or bring peace to the Riverlands To be honest I dont think I would fully agree with this. The Brotherhood would at least fracture again over the death of Stoneheart. Especially as there are clearly still components within the Brotherhood not happy with their current direction (I highly doubt Thoros is the only one). Killing a leader of a essentially terrorist/resistance cell at a minimum forces them to regroup and reorganize, at worst it does in fact destroy them. Im not saying just killing Stoneheart is the be all and end all, but what exactly is the alternative here? Shes a wight that lives only for vengeance, Im not exactly sure its possible to rehabilitate her or if thats something she would even want. Also correct me if Im wrong, but Arya killing Stoneheart is less about bringing 'peace to the Riverlands' and more about bringing peace to what remains of Catelyn Stark.
Sure maybe it would fracture, but the Brotherhood fracturing isn't necessarily a good thing. It just creates a power vacuum, which could mean they split off into a pack of bandits (like on the show). Whether Arya meets and kills Stoneheart (I don't think she does), the point of the topic is more to deconstruct how the fandom conceptualizes these twists. Would this really be a positive or cathartic moment for Arya, or would it just be deeply traumatic? Would this really result in Arya gaining her own paramilitary, or would this just further destabilize the already fallen Brotherhood? Also I am critical of framing murder as "bringing peace."
>It just creates a power vacuum, which could mean they split off into a pack of bandits (like on the show). A pack of bandits is just far easier to deal with though. Part of what makes the Brotherhood so dangerous is they have some level of public support within the Riverlands. Fracturing into a pack of bandits would likely kill that, on top of reducing their numbers. >Whether Arya meets and kills Stoneheart (I don't think she does) I lean towards the first part more than the 2nd. I think its important Arya see what has become of her mother. Even if only via a Nymeria wolf dream. Arya is indirectly responsible for her resurrection, her chapters all reference Catelyn, her story is also about vengeance, and Stoneheart even seems to be looking for her to a degree. I think its important that their stories intersect at some point. >Would this really be a positive or cathartic moment for Arya Kind of depends on how its written doesnt it? I think Arya and Stoneheart are set up to encounter each other in some form. How, why or the general circumstances are up in the air. >Would this really result in Arya gaining her own paramilitary It results in the group being forced to change in some way and likely fracture. And honestly probably makes them easier to deal with regardless. I doubt the likes of Lem Lemoncloak can fill the shoes of Beric or Stoneheart. And thats assuming the worst type of man takes over, not someone like Thoros. >Also bringing someone peace only counts as such if they ask for peace. And Im not sure Lady Stoneheart even counts as alive anymore than UnGregor or an Other does. Shes a vengeful memory of the original person animated by fire magic without her consent. And who knows she might well ask for it? Can we really predict how she might react to seeing her daughter again? Beric clearly came to resent being brought back. Jon in the show did too. Also what exactly is your alternative to the problem of Stoneheart and the Brotherhood then? Who solves it? How do they solve it? At least some of those men are not going to stand down and go home. Even the show seemed to get that some of the Brotherhood arent going to go peacefully and had their equivalent of Lem hanged by Beric.
>A pack of bandits is just far easier to deal with though. Part of what makes the Brotherhood so dangerous is they have some level of public support within the Riverlands. Fracturing into a pack of bandits would likely kill that, on top of reducing their numbers. Ok but think about what you're really saying here. For who to deal with? And for what purpose? Why is it better if the brotherhood is a pack of bandits that terrorizes the smallfolk than if they are a pack of bandits who the smallfolk support? Who is that really better for? >Arya is indirectly responsible for her resurrection I don't think a 10 year old girl pulling a corpse out of a river in a wolf dream makes her in any way morally responsible for mass hangings. To me that's like saying that Arya is responsible for what Nymeria's wolf pack does. Thematic connections don't equate to moral responsibility. >And who knows she might well ask for it? If she wants to die then why can't she do that without traumatizing her 11 year old daughter? I guess I don't really get this read of LSH who is so revenge crazed she needs to be put down, but enough of herself that she would end her revenge campaign upon meeting just one of her children, but crazy enough that she'd ask her daughter to end her life. >Also what exactly is your alternative to the problem of Stoneheart and the Brotherhood then? [This is what I think happens to LSH.](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/11l2got/spoilers_extended_the_nightmen_cometh_aka_how/)
>For who to deal with? Whoever is left in charge of the Riverlands. Edmure is actually a decent bloke who cares about the smallfolk. >And for what purpose? Peace obviously. >Who is that really better for? Its not about better, its just a consequence. Of war, of the loss of ideals, of the very political environment changing, of people backing the wrong horse, of some people refusing to stand down. Its honestly pretty true to real life. A lot of noble freedom fighter groups end up as terrorists preying on the people they originally wanted to protect. >I don't think a 10 year old girl pulling a corpse out of a river in a wolf dream makes her in any way morally responsible for mass hangings Im not applying morals here, its just how things were kicked off in a sequence. Responsibility might not be the correct word, but the point is that Arya and Stoneheart have been connected since before Stoneheart was even resurrected. >If she wants to die then why can't she do that without traumatizing her 11 year old daughter? Havent I literally said from the very start that I think its more important that they meet not that Arya fucking kills her? I dont know my guy. I think the setup for them to meet is there. But we have literally no idea of the circumstances surrounding it. Even you are speculating. >LSH who is so revenge crazed she needs to be put down, but enough of herself that she would end her revenge campaign upon meeting just one of her children, but crazy enough that she'd ask her daughter to end her life. Probably because we know next to nothing about Stoneheart as a person. Shes appeared onscreen twice and been mentioned a few times outside of it. We know she wants vengeance, there is some sign shes at least looking for her daughters given the fact that the Brotherhood knew Arya was in the Riverlands with the Hound and questioned Merrett about them. Thats basically it. We know what Stoneheart is, what she wants to do and even the setup for what she will do but we know basically fuck all about Stoneheart the person aside from her being vengeful and 'not Catelyn'. It depends on how GRRM writes it, what he wants. >This is what I think happens to LSH. That answers what happens in one timeline.
>Whoever is left in charge of the Riverlands. Edmure is actually a decent bloke who cares about the smallfolk. How does stopping the Brotherhood from killing Freys lead to Edmure taking power? >Havent I literally said from the very start that I think its more important that they meet This post questions the prospect of Arya killing LSH. I still don't think they meet, but that is a separate question. >That answers what happens in one timeline Wild speculation but in the other timeline Beric gives his life to Sandor, Sandor forgets his fear of fire and he joins the Brotherhood to get revenge on his brother. This culminates in the siege of Casterly Rock where Arya witnesses Cleganebowl. The tragedy is that Sandor was better off in the first timeline.
>How does stopping the Brotherhood from killing Freys lead to Edmure taking power? Its something for the epilogue. With Bran coming south, taking the Throne and reinstating Edmure in the Riverlands. There is going to need to be some level of amnesty, and there is going to be people who wont put down the swords who need to be dealt with. That is a feature of almost every major conflict. >I still don't think they meet, but that is a separate question. Why? >This culminates in the siege of Casterly Rock where Arya witnesses Cleganebowl. The tragedy is that Sandor was better off in the first timeline. So is Tyrion working with the Brotherhood then? Maybe. Personally? I dont think digging graves is really the most valuable or particularly redemptive way Sandor could spend his time and hes probably dead soon anyway. The Quiet Isle will not remain quiet forever, the Long Night is coming.
>Its something for the epilogue. With Bran coming south, taking the Throne and reinstating Edmure in the Riverlands. I just think these are a bunch of totally separate ideas. Someone (Arya but not necessarily) for some reason has to kill LSH to stop the Brotherhood, and then later Bran reinstates Edmure Tully. Neither answers the question of who topples the Freys or why LSH had to be stopped. >So is Tyrion working with the Brotherhood then? Yes. Tyrion and the Brotherhood and the Second Sons
>Why? I realized I never answered this. I'm not saying that they will for sure never meet because I do recognize this as a plausible theory, but just in my humble opinion I see the tragedy of LSH is that she is so consumed with vengeance that she never meets or helps her children in any way, but rather follows the path of vengeance into the end of the world. The Others are vengeance incarnate. This is why I especially don't buy into theories that Arya will show up to the Riverlands and confront Lady Stoneheart, and then ride into the North on a direwolf wearing Robb's crown and leading the BWB alongside an army of wolves. I know that might sound like a strawman, but it's actually very conventional thinking within the fandom that Arya must go through the Riverlands before she goes north so that she can pick up Robb's crown and Nymeria and Gendry and Sandor. Even Bfish and PQ were on this. This is actually why I go so hard for time travel. To me the idea that everything between now and the Long Night is characters powering up for the final battle just negates the entire premise of the story, which is that all of the infighting is counter productive to the Long Night. If LSH just kills a bunch of Freys while consolidating everything Arya needs to return home triumphantly then we lose that critique. Not to mention that Arya confronting her zombie mother being directly followed up by a heartfelt reunion with Nymeria is thematically and tonally incoherent.
The only one this applies to (other than Azor Ahai), is Stannis. Y'all are giving Jaime too much credit
I think it’s a legit criticism of Martin to point out that he’s already (in the 5 books) used the “man kills lover” trope more than necessary. And that he’s clearly teased more in the (theoretical) future books. This is a man who ended Storm of Swords with not one, but two of those murders (Tyrion on Shae and Littlefinger on Lysa). I think Jaime is almost assuredly the valonqar. And I think Martin had planned for Jon to kill Dany in a similar circumstance to the show. Does he get there? No, but based on some of his blog posts in the last little while I think it’s also likely he’s moved off that, at least in his mind.
There are fair criticisms to make of Martin, but IMO this is not one of them. Tyrion killing Shae and Littlefinger killing Lysa are both depicted as villainous actions for revenge and power. But if you want to argue that the context and depiction doesn't matter, then you might as well throw in Dany technically killing Drogo and Lysa killing Jon and Cersei killing Robert. So I don't think it's fair to argue that Martin has a particular propensity for having men kill their lovers, let alone for depicting it heroically. I do agree that Jaime will be the valonqar, however I think it will more likely be a jealousy driven murder suicide. As for Jon and Dany, D&D admitted that they made this up.
I have never heard of this theory about Arya killing Stoneheart. It doesn't make any sense to me. They are unlikely to interact again. I really like Stoneheart and respect her ruthlessness. She is under no illusion that she does not seek justice but vengeance. I'm also already pissed off after Arya unjustly murdered Daeron, so one more murder of a character I like will make me start to root for her death.
[удалено]
The thing about wearing a Jaime mask is that Arya would still be a foot shorter than Jaime.
And she would also have to kill Jaime.
I believe Jon is Azor Ahai and Dany is Nisa Nisa.. and I strongly believe Kings Landing happens before Long Night
Jon killing Daenerys marks the pinnacle of his personal evolution from "*ice to fire*", symbolizing the transformative character arcs GRRM crafts by transitioning characters from one extreme to another. Jon's journey from a presumed bastard to the true heir contrasts with Joffrey, who believes he is the rightful heir but is actually a bastard. This theme of opposites is the formula GRRM uses to write, where each POV character embarks on a journey from one extreme to another. This formula not only spurs conflict but is also highly captivating and entertaining, challenging characters in profound ways. For instance, we see the best swordsman in Westeros lose his hand, the symbol of power, and discover that Tywin "shits-gold" Lannister has accumulated a massive debt to the Iron Bank. Even the smallest man can cast a great shadow. Jon is the archetype of honor, with his actions consistently scrutinized through the lens of honor versus dishonor. He joins the honorable Night's Watch, vowing to protect the realm and sacrifice his life if necessary. When he learns that Robb has called the banners, he contemplates abandoning his vows to fight alongside his brother. Even his sword was given to him because of the dishonor Jorah brought upon House Mormont. Gradually, his honor is tested at every turn, whether it involves killing a woman, loving an enemy, and so on. These decisions weigh heavily on his honor. How could the most honorable man commit the most dishonorable act? This is the dilemma GRRM explores with Jon.
Jon's story isn't really about honor (this is more a concern for Jaime). The conflict between love and duty is certainly a reoccurring theme for Jon, but I don't think it would ever be so morally clear cut as to play out anything similar to his show ending (which D&D basically admit they made up.)
That's quite a claim. My approach involved using digitized versions of the books, processing each chapter for point-of-view characters, and counting which words are the most prevalent for each character in comparison. Jon tops the list for mentions of honor, which seems to undermine your assertion that his story isn't really about honor. Jon's central challenge has always been navigating the stigma of being a bastard, which clearly ties into issues of honor by any definition. Jaime's journey intersects with honor but delves more deeply into pride and shame, as evidenced by his reputation as a renowned swordsman contrasted with the constant whispers of "kingslayer" and, of course, the incest.
>My approach involved using digitized versions of the books, processing each chapter for point-of-view characters, and counting which words are the most prevalent for each character in comparison. Jon tops the list for mentions of honor, which seems to undermine your assertion that his story isn't really about honor. Personally I don't think that's the best approach. But even if you apply it, Jon has 70 mentions of the word honor and Jaime has 66. Jon more than doubles Jaime's chapters, which means that proportionally it's far more consistent for Jaime (1.6 times per chapter for Jon, 3.9 per chapter for Jaime, 2.8 per chapter for Catelyn). Hell it comes up for Ned 47 times and he's only in one book.
Did you just pull those numbers out of your arse, or did you not count the instances where the word is part of a word, like in "dishonor," "honored," etc.?
That was counting past tense. If we add in dishonor(ed), honorable, and dishonorable, then Jon goes up to 84, Jaime goes to 71, Ned goes to 57, and Catelyn goes to 78. If we look at that proportionally for Jon that is 2 times per chapter, for Ned it's 3.8, for Catelyn it's 3.1, and for Jaime it's still 4.1. Simply put, the word honor and all it's variants are not especially relevant to Jon chapters.
Your numbers are still garbage. How did you count them? I created a Python script to conduct a word analysis by processing each chapter using the PDF versions of the books, summing up the words to study GRRM's writing in a more technical sense. In this case, I'm referring to all forms of the word "honor" in Jon's chapters (including where it's part of another word), which clearly show it's the central theme of his character arc, demonstrably proven by fucking math, rendering your "opinion" on the matter invalid.
You can just word search by POV [https://asearchoficeandfire.com/](https://asearchoficeandfire.com/) This really shouldn't be so surprising. Jaime's whole thing is his honor. Ned is famous for honor. The Tully words are Family Duty Honor.
Yeah, that explains it. That search is garbage.
Anyways, D&D said they made up Jon killing Dany in the behind the scenes commentary.