The Citadel

recluser wrote:Well books were always a form of media very depentand to personal expirience and using a healthy dose of your imagination to supplement the lack of visual stimulation a flashy hbo show might have,

And lets face it if you wish to gloss over something you'll do it wether its ignoring a passage in a book or removing the ''offending'' trait from sead character(s).

It's nowhere near that simple or objective.

Just curious if anyone can actually give me examples of the blackfish being hinted at being gay, also i dont recall anything about jon c either. I picked up on the loras/renly thing pretty early and am amazed i missed something about the blackfish, he is one of my fav characters. I have no problem with it in the game, though i was surprised to see it as a trait. As far as Jon C, i haven't really enjoyed the last two books as much as the first 3 so having read them only once compared to the 3-4 times on the others i may have missed a subtle hint or two.

Yeah Jon C basically loved Rhaegar from a distance just like The Hound loved Sansa. I don't think it was mutual, unless someone has a good theory of Rhaegar experimenting in his Emo teen years

g.r.r.m. has personaly stated that jon connington is gay, no mention of the blackfish however by official ressources but his actions make it very plausible that he is gay.

*serious DwD spoilers*









Jon Connington spent his entire career trying to do nothing but impress Rhaegar, was incredibly jealous of how close Arthur Dayne was with him, almost singlehandedly lost the War of the Usurper because he wanted to impress Rhaegar by slaying Robert in personal combat, and spent the remainder of his life raising his child. Sounds like he was in love to me.







*okay, you're clear*

You left out the whole "silver prince" thing, too.

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:*serious DwD spoilers*









Jon Connington spent his entire career trying to do nothing but impress Rhaegar, was incredibly jealous of how close Arthur Dayne was with him, almost singlehandedly lost the War of the Usurper because he wanted to impress Rhaegar by slaying Robert in personal combat, and spent the remainder of his life raising his child. Sounds like he was in love to me.







*okay, you're clear*

Yep the good ol' Battle of the Bells. Jon C. still has nightmares of those ringing bells. Just think though, on the flip-side, he could of single-handedly won the War of the Usurper if he met and defeated Robert. Although I personally doubt he could of taken Robert one-on-one.

He almost got himself killed fighting Robert on the steps of Stoney Sept.

And yet, currently the Lord of Acorn Hall doesn't have the homosexual trait. His desire to grab young men's penises is the reason Pyp is at The Wall (at least according to the TV show, don't recall if they went that route in the books or not).

That had happened only in the TV series.

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:

recluser wrote:Well books were always a form of media very depentand to personal expirience and using a healthy dose of your imagination to supplement the lack of visual stimulation a flashy hbo show might have,

And lets face it if you wish to gloss over something you'll do it wether its ignoring a passage in a book or removing the ''offending'' trait from sead character(s).

It's nowhere near that simple or objective.

Sorry, but why not?

Arguing with a black person does not make you racist by default, perhaps you just happen to disagree with a point he made..
Besides the OP stated clearly enough that he does not have a problem with ''said trait'' only that he is not sure the said character should even have it as he percived him in a completely different manner.

I'd say (that in this case atlaest) it IS that simple.

I remember all that from DwD about jon c, just never took it as love, at least not a homosexual type of love. Just a young lord trying to prove himself to the cp, who also was his friend. The thing about being jealous of arthur dayne didnt surprise me considering they have several times mentioned how close Rheagar was to him. Though i guess if grrm said hes gay, hes gay, lol, just amused at what "proof" some people read in the books. I am a R+L=J believer, so to each their own. Than again by that earlier logic William Darry was in love with aerys cause he saved 2 of his children,hiding them in the free cities and raising them tell he died .

laker226 wrote:I remember all that from DwD about jon c, just never took it as love, at least not a homosexual type of love. Just a young lord trying to prove himself to the cp, who also was his friend. The thing about being jealous of arthur dayne didnt surprise me considering they have several times mentioned how close Rheagar was to him. Though i guess if grrm said hes gay, hes gay, lol, just amused at what "proof" some people read in the books. I am a R+L=J believer, so to each their own. Than again by that earlier logic William Darry was in love with aerys cause he saved 2 of his children,hiding them in the free cities and raising them tell he died .

it doesn't really matter what Connington did, only what he thought about doing it. The language used to describe Rheagar in the Connington chapters is normally only used to describe one's lover.

As for the Blackfish, it's hard to say for sure as we haven't gotten inside his head. My only comment for adding the trait to him in game is this: There is far more textual support for R+L=J than there is for the Blackfish's homosexuality, however the Tower of Joy is submod while the trait is in the main mod. That doesn't seem consistent to me, but YMMV.

Foxd1e wrote:

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:*serious DwD spoilers*









Jon Connington spent his entire career trying to do nothing but impress Rhaegar, was incredibly jealous of how close Arthur Dayne was with him, almost singlehandedly lost the War of the Usurper because he wanted to impress Rhaegar by slaying Robert in personal combat, and spent the remainder of his life raising his child. Sounds like he was in love to me.







*okay, you're clear*

Yep the good ol' Battle of the Bells. Jon C. still has nightmares of those ringing bells. Just think though, on the flip-side, he could of single-handedly won the War of the Usurper if he met and defeated Robert. Although I personally doubt he could of taken Robert one-on-one.

Jon C did win a duel against Robert in one of my playthroughs as the Martell's, Stannis now still the Iron Throne in that after he won a duel with Rhaegar...

So 'Griff' may have had a small chance


Still theres nothing wrong with Blackfish being hetero or homo. I believe its more to do with a dislike of being ordered to do something he doesnt wish to do. Maybe he just didn't like the potential wives Hoster was promising to him. Or maybe he loved someone else (man or women, maybe Hoster's own wife?!) and could never have them so choose no one.

Yet with a family as small as the Tully's in the main line and with their words, I am surprised he didn't take a wife "Family, duty, honour." There's what? Two male Tullys now? I suppose if he did love Hosters own wife (no evidence just a theory I thought of while writing this now.) he is following the Tully words. He's respecting his Family as its his duty to his lord and he chooses to remain honourable rather than his own love of lady Tully.

recluser wrote:

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:

recluser wrote:Well books were always a form of media very depentand to personal expirience and using a healthy dose of your imagination to supplement the lack of visual stimulation a flashy hbo show might have,

And lets face it if you wish to gloss over something you'll do it wether its ignoring a passage in a book or removing the ''offending'' trait from sead character(s).

It's nowhere near that simple or objective.

Sorry, but why not?

You really want me to explain the complexity of subjective literary criticism, postmodernism, and the cognitive, psychological, and philosophical basis of subjectivity in art? Well, alright, you might want to start with these...

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slo ... 818&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Theatre-Absur ... 861&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Being-and-Nothing ... 879&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Martin ... 894&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Of-Grammatology-J ... 934&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Remembrance-Thing ... 998&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-Vo ... 082&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Swan-Im ... 297&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Postmodern ... _lmf_tit_1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dismemberment ... 370&sr=8-1

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:You really want me to explain the complexity of subjective literary criticism, postmodernism, and the cognitive, psychological, and philosophical basis of subjectivity in art? Well, alright, you might want to start with these...

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slo ... 818&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Theatre-Absur ... 861&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Being-and-Nothing ... 879&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Martin ... 894&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Of-Grammatology-J ... 934&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Remembrance-Thing ... 998&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-Vo ... 082&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Swan-Im ... 297&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Postmodern ... _lmf_tit_1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dismemberment ... 370&sr=8-1

Well now allow me to make a rebuttal with a few links of my own:
http://www.winningtheweb.com/being-snarky-bite.php
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/jump+to+conclusions
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rimination
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Making ... a+molehill
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-General-Intro ... 334&sr=1-1
http://karenisrael.blogspot.com/2005/11 ... anger.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Affirmative-Act ... 722&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-racism-reve ... 22&sr=8-13

By the way if I happen to be of hebrew descent, does that make you racist?
or should you perhaps treat a fictional character on the merits of HIS world and not based on the issues of OURS?

recluser wrote:

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:You really want me to explain the complexity of subjective literary criticism, postmodernism, and the cognitive, psychological, and philosophical basis of subjectivity in art? Well, alright, you might want to start with these...

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slo ... 818&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Theatre-Absur ... 861&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Being-and-Nothing ... 879&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Martin ... 894&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Of-Grammatology-J ... 934&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Remembrance-Thing ... 998&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-Vo ... 082&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Swan-Im ... 297&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Postmodern ... _lmf_tit_1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dismemberment ... 370&sr=8-1

Well now allow me to make a rebuttal with a few links of my own:
http://www.winningtheweb.com/being-snarky-bite.php
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/jump+to+conclusions
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rimination
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Making ... a+molehill
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-General-Intro ... 334&sr=1-1
http://karenisrael.blogspot.com/2005/11 ... anger.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Affirmative-Act ... 722&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-racism-reve ... 22&sr=8-13

By the way if I happen to be of hebrew descent, does that make you racist?
or should you perhaps treat a fictional character on the merits of HIS world and not based on the issues of OURS?

You sir, just won the internet.

recluser wrote:Well now allow me to make a rebuttal with a few links of my own:
http://www.winningtheweb.com/being-snarky-bite.php
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/jump+to+conclusions
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rimination
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Making ... a+molehill
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-General-Intro ... 334&sr=1-1
http://karenisrael.blogspot.com/2005/11 ... anger.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Affirmative-Act ... 722&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-racism-reve ... 22&sr=8-13

By the way if I happen to be of hebrew descent, does that make you racist?
or should you perhaps treat a fictional character on the merits of HIS world and not based on the issues of OURS?

What rebuttal? I wasn't asserting or arguing anything. You asked for an explanation about why literary criticism isn't cut and dry and I gave you one because this shit is my field. I still don't have any clue about what you're talking about. You really should check out those books.

*edit*
I really have no idea what you're even trying to say. I'm not even a part of the conversation you're having.

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:*edit*
I really have no idea what you're even trying to say. I'm not even a part of the conversation you're having.

Really?
I try deflating the situation as this has escalated on paradox boards time and again and you keep trying to blow this up into a fullscale Helter Skelter..
Besides you offered to educate me and I'm such a nice guy that I respond in kind.

If my words don't work as well as I hoped perhaps pictures can help.


Now can we please let this tired thread die?

Pretty sure you have me confused with someone else. Or you're in the wrong thread of something.