A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Song of Ice and Fire / Information from GRRM (II)

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 22nd 4:17 PM
Well, the original thread begun by labor seems broken, figured I'd start a new one.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 22nd 4:26 PM
Markus sent a very nice thing, already in the collection text (but not yet up), from Martin concerning the Kingsguard.

I'll just give a brief synopsis, before I put up some of my stuff. Markus asked about Prince Lewyn of Dorne -- he was uncle to Doran Martell, but he died at the Trident, not at Harrenhal as Markus speculated.

Markus asks what happens if a Kingsguard is disabled so he can't fight, but isn't likely to die anytime soon. Looks like I'm right -- it seems something like that has never happened, and if it should happen to one Kingsguard there are usually younger, stronger men in the White Swords who can carry on so that he can live out his life serving with honor despite his inability to fight effectively.

When Markus asked about whether or not the Kingsguard are supposed to be under vows celibacy, GRRM replied : "In theory, yes, but at least one Kingsguard was executed for sleeping with a king's mistress, and many others have doubtless had "lapses.""

When Markus asks if the oath of the Kingsguard include serving the king, whether he's a new one who one through rebellion or not, Mr. Martin replied that the oaths never took rebellion into account. Robert pardoned Barristan and Jaime, and they accepted the pardon and continued to serve.

I'll quote this one in full. Basically, Markus asks why men like Meryn Trant, Arys Oakheart, Preston Greenfield, and Boros Blount are in the Kingsguard when no one seems to think much of their prowess. Martin replies:

Sometimes the best knights are not eager to take such stringent vows, and you have to settle for who you can get. Other factors also enter into the choices -- politics, favoritism, horse trading, rewards for past service, etc. It's a plum appointment for a younger son, or a knight from a minor house. Less so for the Great Houses. Also, Robert had five vacancies to fill all at once, an unusual situation -- imagine the nominations we might get if six of the nine members of the Supreme Court all died within a few months.

Institutions like the Kingsguard change over time. The original Knights of the Garden were warriors all, the strongest, bravest, deadliest men of their time, with an average age under thirty. The present Knights of the Garter are octagenarians, and their parades are processions of wheelchairs and walkers.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 22nd 4:34 PM
As to my own tidbits, Martin replying to a mail I sent awhile ago --

I was curious as to whether Jacelyn Bywater was basically raised from being a sellsword to a knight at Pyke.

"Jacelyn may not have been knighted until Pyke, but he did have a surname, which implies he had noble/knightly ancestors somewhere back there, though his might well have been a cadet branch fallen low in the world."

I asked for a little more detail on the Mudds and Fishers that he mentioned, as dynasties of the River Kings. I guessed that one was the line ended by the Storm Kings and the other being the line of the River King that was ended when the Iron King slew his sons a thousand years ago.

"A logical assumption, and maybe half true. There were actually more dynasties in the riverlands than these two... but so far I've only come up with two names. The riverlands have been much warred over. The Mudds were the last of the First Men to rule the Trident, I seem to recall; it was Andal invaders who put an end to that line."

Ran
User ID: 0283314 May 27th 11:16 AM
Anyone happen to live in the area of Kansas City? ;)

Mr. Martin is going to be away from his computer for a week or so because he's going to ConQuest 30 in Kansas City, Missouri. It runs from the 28th to the 30th.

They've a website at http://www.kcsciencefiction.org/con30.htm

Too bad I'm no longer in the U.S., that one wouldn't have been so far away from my prior address... ;)

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Jun 5th 3:38 PM
Short and sweet, this one; just got it today, as Mr. Martin's returned from Kansas City. I asked Martin just how old Bronn is (a question which came up in one thread or another in the CoK section, after Claidhaim(?) tried to get a profile of our favorite sellsword):

"Bronn is in his early to mid 30s, I'd imagine."

Ser Gary
User ID: 9279843 Jun 5th 4:15 PM
Ran, I don't know if anyone's said it before, but this is a great source of info from the maestro himself. And your contribution in that regard is noteworthy.

After a lot of back and forth on the Treachery topic, we had eventually ascertained Bronn's age to be in that general area -- so there's something to be said for these discussions, especially when lots of people throw in their two cents. Nice job everyone and nice job in finding out the actual info, Ran. I don't suppose you could ask GRRM if Bronn's a spy or will be a traitor to Tyrion, huh? Okay, okay. Even if you could, don't. We'll work it out ourselves.

Min
User ID: 9433023 Jun 6th 4:43 AM
Oh, Ran, thank you. That really was helpful. Anyway, no one of us should ask the master any questions concerning the actual plot (Yes, Ser Gary, I know that was a joke :-)). I think his everlasting and admirable patience with his fans yould suffer from that.

Jeff
User ID: 8506593 Jun 7th 8:33 AM
Nice job Ran! I think the Bronn information is noteworthy, at least for purposes of this Board. Martin didn't say "he's 34" or anything that exact in response to the question. Instead, he makes the vague, off the cuff statement that "Bronn is in his early to mid-thirties, _I'd imagine_.

What does this mean? Well, it means Martin isn't nearly as anal-retentive as the rest of us. He hasn't thought out all of the possible intricacies of each character, and that we can't necessarily take each statement a character makes as being accurate even when the character is not attempting to deceive anyone. Which means that when we're debating our various theories, we ought to keep in mind that some of the conclusion we draw may be incorrect in terms of Martin's intentions even if they're "correct" in terms of pure logic. And, maybe even more important is that a theory shouldn't be discredited simply because it might be contradicted by a minor piece of evidence.

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 Jun 7th 8:41 AM
Good point, Jeff. This is a major breakthrough in terms of this board. We can now go back to some of those earlier discussions where we discounted certain theories and ideas simply because of a minor contradiction in "evidence". That alone should keep these discussions alive until the next book comes out.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jun 7th 12:33 PM
I don't know...I kinda like being anal-retentive... ;)

Jeff
User ID: 8506593 Jun 7th 3:10 PM
Now back to Tywin's feint at the fords. . . .

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Jun 8th 2:24 PM
Hurrah, hurrah, the So Spake Martin collection is HTMLized at last.

It includes the Bronn bit, plus two new contributions from Nenz, our newest contributor. The first one deals with Hodor, and is in January somewhere. The last is at the end, with the name of the mysterious seventh Kingsguard.

The URL is:

http://members.xoom.com/Nymeria/SoSpakeMartin.html

Someday I'll need to go through and make it all clearer, perhaps by dividing it up into topical sections . . .

But, anyhow, for now that's it. Enjoy.

labor Jun 14th 6:29 PM

Subject:
Re: Thanks and questions
Date:
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:51:37 EDT
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]

In a message dated 6/10/99 4:33:11 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<<
1. Could Ned's evidence about the bastardy of Cersei's
children have convinced a Great Council, such as gave Aegon
V his crown? Is this evidence completely unequivocal in the
context of this fantasy world (it wouldn't be in our
own)? >>

Having just given a real life deposition in a court case in which I am a
witness, I can tell you that no evidence is "completely unequivocal," either
in Westeros or the USA. Lawyers will argue about anything.

And the Great Council is a very rare event. Westeros has no equivilent of a
Parliament meeting at regular time. If Ned had been able to establish his
authority as regent and summon a Great Council... well, the lords would have
presumably heard the evidence and decided...

<<2. Was Littlefinger saying the truth, when he told Ned that
Tyrells and Redwynes would rise against Stannis's
succession?>>

No comment.

<<3. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to
arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's
abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence,
legal? >>

It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn
would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north.
Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and
powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you
have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their
honor.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Jun 15th 6:38 AM
Mind forwarding that one, labor? Probably be a little easier to format it as email for the file. :)

Markus
User ID: 2547224 Jun 17th 6:30 AM
<< 1. Can you say a bit more about the Grand Council?>>

If I do it will be in the books.

<< 2. How many men can the Greyjoys rally?>>

No comment.

<< 3. How old was Jaime Lannister as he joined the Kingsguard?>>

15. Youngest in history.

<<4. Who was Ned's mother and what happened to her?>>

Lady Stark. She died.

<<5. Was Aegon the Dragon married with Rhaenys and Visenja at the same time? >>

Yes.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Jun 17th 7:31 AM
Well, the 15 for Jaime proves Markus' theory out. Very nifty. And number 5 finally gives the answer to the question no one asked about. ;)

But, you know, it's #4 that makes me wonder. GRRM rather purposefully answered in a very uninformative manner. This might be because he just felt like pulling our legs, and giving us something else to discuss ...

... or there's some importance to who Lady Stark was.

Which is interesting. I'm thinking the former right now, but who knows.

BTW, that, labor's previous mail, and a couple of Martin's most recent postings to Legends are now up in the So Spake collection.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Jun 17th 7:44 AM
Perhaps GRRM did not think the late Lady Stark significant, and have not worked out any background for her.
OTOH, he seems to have done so for every other great or small character in aSoIaF.

Markus
User ID: 2936914 Jun 17th 8:12 AM
Well, it is of course possible that he didn't deem her important enough, and therefore didn't work out her background, but on the other hand, the mothers of characters of comparable age in other houses are mentioned, and it is at least a little unusual that Ned didn't think about her at least once.

An explanation could be that Mr. Martin might want that we forget that Robb and co. should have relatives through their grandmother. He might have thought that such relatives could complicate the relation between the Starks and them somehow, which he didn't want, thus he avoided any kind of reference to them.

The other possibility, that the former Lady Stark has some significance, wouldn't explain why he didn't simply say "No comment", or "I will bring it up in the books" in my opinion.

Btw, Ran, does it have a special reason why you didn't include the information about Bywater and the Mudds in your file?

And how do you progress with the post-ACoK version of your concordance?

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Jun 17th 8:32 AM
Hrm, didn't realize those weren't in there. I'll look into fitting them in.

And ... well, slow. Got a lot of other work, but I'm going to force myself to start working on it soon and try and finish it by this time next month. Who knows, though.

Jeff
User ID: 0909594 Jun 17th 8:54 AM
Martin's response about Ned's mother seems similar to his response about Bronn's age, which was something like "In his mid-30's, I'd imagine."

I think he just doesn't plan out every detail about every character, which seems pretty reasonable to me. The identity of Ned's mother has no importance in the story, so he never bothered to flesh it out, just as he never precisely calcualted Bronn's age.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Ran User ID: 0283314	May 22nd 4:17 PM Well, the original thread begun by labor seems broken, figured I'd start a new one.
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 22nd 4:26 PM Markus sent a very nice thing, already in the collection text (but not yet up), from Martin concerning the Kingsguard. I'll just give a brief synopsis, before I put up some of my stuff. Markus asked about Prince Lewyn of Dorne -- he was uncle to Doran Martell, but he died at the Trident, not at Harrenhal as Markus speculated. Markus asks what happens if a Kingsguard is disabled so he can't fight, but isn't likely to die anytime soon. Looks like I'm right -- it seems something like that has never happened, and if it should happen to one Kingsguard there are usually younger, stronger men in the White Swords who can carry on so that he can live out his life serving with honor despite his inability to fight effectively. When Markus asked about whether or not the Kingsguard are supposed to be under vows celibacy, GRRM replied : "In theory, yes, but at least one Kingsguard was executed for sleeping with a king's mistress, and many others have doubtless had "lapses."" When Markus asks if the oath of the Kingsguard include serving the king, whether he's a new one who one through rebellion or not, Mr. Martin replied that the oaths never took rebellion into account. Robert pardoned Barristan and Jaime, and they accepted the pardon and continued to serve. I'll quote this one in full. Basically, Markus asks why men like Meryn Trant, Arys Oakheart, Preston Greenfield, and Boros Blount are in the Kingsguard when no one seems to think much of their prowess. Martin replies: Sometimes the best knights are not eager to take such stringent vows, and you have to settle for who you can get. Other factors also enter into the choices -- politics, favoritism, horse trading, rewards for past service, etc. It's a plum appointment for a younger son, or a knight from a minor house. Less so for the Great Houses. Also, Robert had five vacancies to fill all at once, an unusual situation -- imagine the nominations we might get if six of the nine members of the Supreme Court all died within a few months. Institutions like the Kingsguard change over time. The original Knights of the Garden were warriors all, the strongest, bravest, deadliest men of their time, with an average age under thirty. The present Knights of the Garter are octagenarians, and their parades are processions of wheelchairs and walkers.
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 22nd 4:34 PM As to my own tidbits, Martin replying to a mail I sent awhile ago -- I was curious as to whether Jacelyn Bywater was basically raised from being a sellsword to a knight at Pyke. "Jacelyn may not have been knighted until Pyke, but he did have a surname, which implies he had noble/knightly ancestors somewhere back there, though his might well have been a cadet branch fallen low in the world." I asked for a little more detail on the Mudds and Fishers that he mentioned, as dynasties of the River Kings. I guessed that one was the line ended by the Storm Kings and the other being the line of the River King that was ended when the Iron King slew his sons a thousand years ago. "A logical assumption, and maybe half true. There were actually more dynasties in the riverlands than these two... but so far I've only come up with two names. The riverlands have been much warred over. The Mudds were the last of the First Men to rule the Trident, I seem to recall; it was Andal invaders who put an end to that line."
Ran User ID: 0283314	May 27th 11:16 AM Anyone happen to live in the area of Kansas City? ;) Mr. Martin is going to be away from his computer for a week or so because he's going to ConQuest 30 in Kansas City, Missouri. It runs from the 28th to the 30th. They've a website at http://www.kcsciencefiction.org/con30.htm Too bad I'm no longer in the U.S., that one wouldn't have been so far away from my prior address... ;)
Ran User ID: 0283314	Jun 5th 3:38 PM Short and sweet, this one; just got it today, as Mr. Martin's returned from Kansas City. I asked Martin just how old Bronn is (a question which came up in one thread or another in the CoK section, after Claidhaim(?) tried to get a profile of our favorite sellsword): "Bronn is in his early to mid 30s, I'd imagine."
Ser Gary User ID: 9279843	Jun 5th 4:15 PM Ran, I don't know if anyone's said it before, but this is a great source of info from the maestro himself. And your contribution in that regard is noteworthy. After a lot of back and forth on the Treachery topic, we had eventually ascertained Bronn's age to be in that general area -- so there's something to be said for these discussions, especially when lots of people throw in their two cents. Nice job everyone and nice job in finding out the actual info, Ran. I don't suppose you could ask GRRM if Bronn's a spy or will be a traitor to Tyrion, huh? Okay, okay. Even if you could, don't. We'll work it out ourselves.
Min User ID: 9433023	Jun 6th 4:43 AM Oh, Ran, thank you. That really was helpful. Anyway, no one of us should ask the master any questions concerning the actual plot (Yes, Ser Gary, I know that was a joke :-)). I think his everlasting and admirable patience with his fans yould suffer from that.
Jeff User ID: 8506593	Jun 7th 8:33 AM Nice job Ran! I think the Bronn information is noteworthy, at least for purposes of this Board. Martin didn't say "he's 34" or anything that exact in response to the question. Instead, he makes the vague, off the cuff statement that "Bronn is in his early to mid-thirties, _I'd imagine_. What does this mean? Well, it means Martin isn't nearly as anal-retentive as the rest of us. He hasn't thought out all of the possible intricacies of each character, and that we can't necessarily take each statement a character makes as being accurate even when the character is not attempting to deceive anyone. Which means that when we're debating our various theories, we ought to keep in mind that some of the conclusion we draw may be incorrect in terms of Martin's intentions even if they're "correct" in terms of pure logic. And, maybe even more important is that a theory shouldn't be discredited simply because it might be contradicted by a minor piece of evidence.
Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	Jun 7th 8:41 AM Good point, Jeff. This is a major breakthrough in terms of this board. We can now go back to some of those earlier discussions where we discounted certain theories and ideas simply because of a minor contradiction in "evidence". That alone should keep these discussions alive until the next book comes out.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Jun 7th 12:33 PM I don't know...I kinda like being anal-retentive... ;)
Jeff User ID: 8506593	Jun 7th 3:10 PM Now back to Tywin's feint at the fords. . . .
Ran User ID: 0283314	Jun 8th 2:24 PM Hurrah, hurrah, the So Spake Martin collection is HTMLized at last. It includes the Bronn bit, plus two new contributions from Nenz, our newest contributor. The first one deals with Hodor, and is in January somewhere. The last is at the end, with the name of the mysterious seventh Kingsguard. The URL is: http://members.xoom.com/Nymeria/SoSpakeMartin.html Someday I'll need to go through and make it all clearer, perhaps by dividing it up into topical sections . . . But, anyhow, for now that's it. Enjoy.
labor	Jun 14th 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Thanks and questions Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:51:37 EDT From: [email protected] To: [email protected] In a message dated 6/10/99 4:33:11 AM Mountain Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: << 1. Could Ned's evidence about the bastardy of Cersei's children have convinced a Great Council, such as gave Aegon V his crown? Is this evidence completely unequivocal in the context of this fantasy world (it wouldn't be in our own)? >> Having just given a real life deposition in a court case in which I am a witness, I can tell you that no evidence is "completely unequivocal," either in Westeros or the USA. Lawyers will argue about anything. And the Great Council is a very rare event. Westeros has no equivilent of a Parliament meeting at regular time. If Ned had been able to establish his authority as regent and summon a Great Council... well, the lords would have presumably heard the evidence and decided... <<2. Was Littlefinger saying the truth, when he told Ned that Tyrells and Redwynes would rise against Stannis's succession?>> No comment. <<3. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence, legal? >> It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Jun 15th 6:38 AM Mind forwarding that one, labor? Probably be a little easier to format it as email for the file. :)
Markus User ID: 2547224	Jun 17th 6:30 AM << 1. Can you say a bit more about the Grand Council?>> If I do it will be in the books. << 2. How many men can the Greyjoys rally?>> No comment. << 3. How old was Jaime Lannister as he joined the Kingsguard?>> 15. Youngest in history. <<4. Who was Ned's mother and what happened to her?>> Lady Stark. She died. <<5. Was Aegon the Dragon married with Rhaenys and Visenja at the same time? >> Yes.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Jun 17th 7:31 AM Well, the 15 for Jaime proves Markus' theory out. Very nifty. And number 5 finally gives the answer to the question no one asked about. ;) But, you know, it's #4 that makes me wonder. GRRM rather purposefully answered in a very uninformative manner. This might be because he just felt like pulling our legs, and giving us something else to discuss ... ... or there's some importance to who Lady Stark was. Which is interesting. I'm thinking the former right now, but who knows. BTW, that, labor's previous mail, and a couple of Martin's most recent postings to Legends are now up in the So Spake collection.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Jun 17th 7:44 AM Perhaps GRRM did not think the late Lady Stark significant, and have not worked out any background for her. OTOH, he seems to have done so for every other great or small character in aSoIaF.
Markus User ID: 2936914	Jun 17th 8:12 AM Well, it is of course possible that he didn't deem her important enough, and therefore didn't work out her background, but on the other hand, the mothers of characters of comparable age in other houses are mentioned, and it is at least a little unusual that Ned didn't think about her at least once. An explanation could be that Mr. Martin might want that we forget that Robb and co. should have relatives through their grandmother. He might have thought that such relatives could complicate the relation between the Starks and them somehow, which he didn't want, thus he avoided any kind of reference to them. The other possibility, that the former Lady Stark has some significance, wouldn't explain why he didn't simply say "No comment", or "I will bring it up in the books" in my opinion. Btw, Ran, does it have a special reason why you didn't include the information about Bywater and the Mudds in your file? And how do you progress with the post-ACoK version of your concordance?
Ran User ID: 0283314	Jun 17th 8:32 AM Hrm, didn't realize those weren't in there. I'll look into fitting them in. And ... well, slow. Got a lot of other work, but I'm going to force myself to start working on it soon and try and finish it by this time next month. Who knows, though.
Jeff User ID: 0909594	Jun 17th 8:54 AM Martin's response about Ned's mother seems similar to his response about Bronn's age, which was something like "In his mid-30's, I'd imagine." I think he just doesn't plan out every detail about every character, which seems pretty reasonable to me. The identity of Ned's mother has no importance in the story, so he never bothered to flesh it out, just as he never precisely calcualted Bronn's age.