I always assumed it could be remnants of the First Men.
Any magic from Targaryen blood is probably due to Valyrian ancestry. Jon is the only Targaryen I can think of off hand that is also descended from the First Men. When the Targaryens didn't marry other Targaryens they usually entered into marriage alliances with southern (usually Andal or Dornish) houses. They also married into marriage alliances with other families descended from Valyrians, like the Baratheons.
I meant the power of kingsblood for Robert, Mance etc. Targaryens have their own mojo, I'm not talking about them.Any magic from Targaryen blood is probably due to Valyrian ancestry. Jon is the only Targaryen I can think of off hand that is also descended from the First Men. When the Targaryens didn't marry other Targaryens they usually entered into marriage alliances with southern (usually Andal or Dornish) houses. They also married into marriage alliances with other families descended from Valyrians, like the Baratheons.
Really a dick move after leading a man to his complete destruction.
Interpreting things in the flames can't be THAT hard Melisandre.
Unless she's using an illusion to make Stannis see things in the flames and her "visions" are nothing but the work of a conjurer of cheap tricks.
What I find interesting is that book Stannis rides into battle in Winterfell without her. Wasn't he chastised by her for not taking her into battle at Blackwater?
Unless she's using an illusion to make Stannis see things in the flames and her "visions" are nothing but the work of a conjurer of cheap tricks.
What I find interesting is that book Stannis rides into battle in Winterfell without her. Wasn't he chastised by her for not taking her into battle at Blackwater?
There is no reason to believe that her powers are charlatan's tricks
book!Stannis isn't a brow beaten, writer hated, fanatic with no redeeming qualities
He didn't take her because she is useful for two things:
There's also the fact that he doesn't trust her as much as he used to. She has no use, and so she was left behind.
What is the trait you most deplore in others?Disagreeing with me.What makes you unhappy?Other people.
He had another question which was really funny too:
How often do you have sex?
Somewhere between all the time and never.
Stephen Dillane works because in many ways, he does fit Stannis' personality himself. He's a very professional and reserved person. That said, he does have a sense of personality and humor that Stannis himself lacks.
Love gets you killed.
I'm pretty sure everyone who's ever been in love in the show either dies or has their loved one die, and often that love is related. So much so that I once posited GRRM was really bitter about something...
The exception of course is Tyrion who killed his own love and thus became immortal. Also Cersei, probably out of spite.
(sigh) Not to be a dick, but read the books.
Love is a factor in the story, and it isn't bereft of consequences. Nothing is. But that isn't altogether the purpose behind it.
Taking the usual ubermensch ideal (I'm aware of how you are with your ideology and opinions) and applying it to this universe isn't an altogether sound idea. It really doesn't translate well here.
Afterall, suffering is a part of love. It's an acceptance that someone is going to get hurt. Everyone dies. Valar Morghulis. It's a premise of the show. But you can move on and recover and continue to love.
There is no reason to believe that her powers are charlatan's tricks
book!Stannis isn't a brow beaten, writer hated, fanatic with no redeeming qualities
...you're mom isn't a... brow beaten... writer... with no... redeeming... coupons...
Stephen Dillane works because in many ways, he does fit Stannis' personality himself. He's a very professional and reserved person. That said, he does have a sense of personality and humor that Stannis himself lacks.
Apart from a few chuckles, it's Stannis everybody.
I should look into a comedy film of his. It'd be weird as hell but it'd probably be enjoyable.
(sigh) Not to be a dick, but read the books.
Love is a factor in the story, and it isn't bereft of consequences. Nothing is. But that isn't altogether the purpose behind it.
Taking the usual ubermensch ideal (I'm aware of how you are with your ideology and opinions) and applying it to this universe isn't an altogether sound idea. It really doesn't translate well here.
Afterall, suffering is a part of love. It's an acceptance that someone is going to get hurt. Everyone dies. Valar Morghulis. It's a premise of the show. But you can move on and recover and continue to love.
Not to be a dick, but reread the part where a) I clearly disclaim my comments are always about the show, not the books because I haven't read them (and I stated why) and 
I responded directly to your post about how the show treated love differently from the books i.e. not carrying an undercurrent of hope.
In the show, everyone who explicitly loves someone (typically romantically) dies or has their loved one die, often in front of them. Do you have a counter example to add?
And this is the second time you've referenced my supposed ideology. What do you mean by that? Feel free to PM if you don't want to derail the thread.
I really hate the posting system here, that's all I'm going to say.
I had a response. I posted it. It didn't post.
As I'm tired of drawing another response, I'll just say that your question is logical, but not viable towards my point.
I'll say that I'm rather irritated with the response I was initially given due to its contentious nature (you seemed to be moving to either contradict me or give an unneeded (and in my eyes, condescending) response which wasn't necessary to highlight as I had done just that, highlighting the issue) and its redundancy (you weren't saying anything I disagreed with, but you framed the response in a manner that I found provocative and, as I said, condescending)
Back to the question: It's not really pertinent here. I made no statement in contradiction to it, but I state the flaw of the question in the context of the dramatic show (which I stated was because of poor writing on the part of the writers who are more interested in controversy than storytelling). As well, the question is only invalid when stacked with immortal characters who love one another and cannot die. It's unfalsifiable by definition. Given time, every character in the series will meet that point. As well, we are given remarkably few explicit declarations of love. Thus, it's kind of hard to actual state by what number of characters actually even use the L word.
In the interest of discussion, I'll simply state there's no argument. I'm in agreement. That you posit the question to me is in lack of recognition that I have no argument.
If you are asking thus far in the series however (which would make a more pertinent question), then my answer is Sam and Gilly, and that's being liberal with how far you're willing to accept the lack of death between those two compared to the large amount of death with the other characters they associate with.
Thus, the better question (or statement, I suppose, and the one I think you meant to use) would be "everybody in the series who loves someone dies or has their loved one die, often in front of them." Which is still ambiguous in terms of love, as everyone loves someone who has died (nor are you restricted from loving one person), except for perhaps Ramsay (who likely only loves himself).
If we're to take that for a romantic pairing, then my offer of Sam and Gilly stands. It may not be explicit, but it's pretty obvious they love each other. And they're both still alive and well as far as the show goes. Now, you could argue that Sam has lost Jon (and what brothers that he was close to like Pyp, Grenn, and Maester Aemon), and Gilly her sisters at Craster's Keep (those that weren't rescued by Jon Snow last season). However, that serves to undermine the intended point I think you were trying to make.
Apart from a few chuckles, it's Stannis everybody.
I should look into a comedy film of his. It'd be weird as hell but it'd probably be enjoyable.
Have you seen John Adams? It isn't a comedy obviously, but he was good in that as Thomas Jefferson.
Interesting.
But death is hardly the worst Stannis could do to her. And I think she'd feel the fire if it was turned on her.
But yeah, once we see her at the Wall, it's clear she didn't just bail.
She believes Fire makes for the "best death". She says it to Davos son. Death by fire leads straight to her lord.
"Hey guess what we're making your character do just to make people hate him that he never did in the books!"
They really are horrible people besides being awful writers. If they wanted to Burn Shireen they could have done it in Castle Black without having him standing there watching the whole thing.
Jon is the only Targaryen I can think of off hand that is also descended from the First Men.
Whoa are we talking as if R+J is a known fact?
They really are horrible people besides being awful writers. If they wanted to Burn Shireen they could have done it in Castle Black without having him standing there watching the whole thing.
But that would make him look less EBIL! Can't have that.
Whoa are we talking as if R+J is a known fact?
It is really heavily implied in the books so far, that he is not Ned's bastard.
It is really heavily implied in the books so far, that he is not Ned's bastard.
Meh it won't end up mattering. Season Six will see them doubling down. They're going to find a list of remaining characters by popularity.
And kill everyone above or close to Dany on the list.
...I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed off Jon permanently because GRRM told them he'd end up being the true Targaryen who takes the throne at the end rather than Dany...
...I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed off Jon permanently because GRRM told them he'd end up being the true Targaryen who takes the throne at the end rather than Dany...
Mel resurrects him then they have him go full Show! Stannis.
The Edge will be off the charts!
I meant the power of kingsblood for Robert, Mance etc. Targaryens have their own mojo, I'm not talking about them.
Robert has Targaryen blood. Not sure about Mance, though. But Mel never actually burned him. It was all for show.
...I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed off Jon permanently because GRRM told them he'd end up being the true Targaryen who takes the throne at the end rather than Dany...
Hell, the way Daenerys is portrayed in her last chapters of ADwD is pretty ominous, and possibly even a foreshadow towards what her nature may end up being in the long run of the books... an antagonist, given the whole 'A true Targaryen is a conqueror, not a peacemaker' self-righteous speech.
...I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed off Jon permanently because GRRM told them he'd end up being the true Targaryen who takes the throne at the end rather than Dany...
Nobody takes the throne in the end. In Dany's vision it is empty, covered in snow.
Nobody takes the throne in the end. In Dany's vision it is empty, covered in snow.
Snow.
Jun Sneeuuuuwwww.
Snow.
Jun Sneeuuuuwwww.
Actual snow. The whole throne room is covered in it. As in the winter has come. The ceilling is ruined as well. The throne is a red herring. + Jon Snow needs someone to back up his claims as a Targaryan, and that person has to be believed. Howland Reed is the only one that can do it, and it will still only be his word against everybody else.
Hell, the way Daenerys is portrayed in her last chapters of ADwD is pretty ominous, and possibly even a foreshadow towards what her nature may end up being in the long run of the books... an antagonist, given the whole 'A true Targaryen is a conqueror, not a peacemaker' self-righteous speech.
"My Queen this advisor has reasonable suggestions for how we should proceed... but they differ slightly from your current plan."
"What does a Dragon do to lessers that get in her way?" *Cue feeding the advisor to a dragon*
"I'm totes sane. SHUT UP VOICES! I'll burn more things later!"
Retour en haut