Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="yasas bandara" data-source="post: 20152999" data-attributes="member: 246044">Well that’s what GRRM chooses to tell us. Jamie is the only eyewitness, the only person who can say what happened inside the castle during the sack. As long as there is no conflicting evidence, we choose to believe what Jamie says because there is no other choice. Does that seem unfair to you?Ned is the only eyewitness account (GRRM chooses to provide) as to what happened at the tower or joy. As long as there’s no conflicting evidence (ex- Reed says something), we choose to believe what he  says because there is no other choice. The conversations you pasted before are from a DREAM Ned had. He’s not even saying them directly. We choose to go by Ned’s dream because that’s what GRRM gives us. You’re making two claims not supported by the text.1.    Jamie lied to the face of Lady Tarth – This is not supported by any evidence in the text. Does Lady Tarth doubt his words? No. Does Lady Catlyn doubt his words? Again no. Jamie is a POV character in the text. That means we know what he’s thinking and we know his reflections etc. Is there any place where he thinks about lying to Lady Tarth? No. Also he tells the truth to the face of Lady Catlyn when she asks about Brian. Is there any gain in that? What possible gain can he expect? Why didn’t he lie?2.    He understands those lies and tries to cleanse himself – again is not supported by any evidence in the text (as far as I can remember). Jamie is a POV character in the text and GRRM would at least include one sentence to support this claim if this was the case. Is there any evidence in the text to indicate that he was lying to himself and others about his actions? If you can provide something, we don’t have to argue about this any more.I will repeat again. There is no evidence in that cannon that a Kingsguard can disregard his previous oaths in favor of the ones he take as a kingsguard. There are certain things he has to disregard but certainly not the oaths.In contrast, a man of black has to disregard everything about him when he joins. This is explained in details with many examples.OK. Let’s go by your argument here. Say I’m Jamie, I’m the only kingsguard who knows. I want to stop the bloodshed, I sent a massage asking permission to negotiate (I can’t do without king’s order). MK says “No negotiations. Go and kill your father”. I learn that Rossart is with the king. I know what’s coming and go to stop Lossart. I don’t have time to deal with anything else.1.    I meet Rossart face to face. But I can’t kill him. How can I kill the king’s hand? That’s betraying the king and breaking my oath. So I take him prisoner and tie him up. While I waste 5 minutes doing that, MK has ordered another ass#ole to burn down the city. This second dude takes another route and start preparations.2.    Now I meet MK. But I can’t kill him. How can I kill the king? That’s breaking my oath. So I take him prisoner and tie him up too.3.    And then comes my father’s men. I ask them to spare anyone who surrenders. I can’t do anything else ‘cause I’m the only kingsguard and I have to protect MK.4.    Then comes Ned. I hand over MK and tell him what happened. Ned says “Oh you caught the king? But you’re kingsguard. How can you betray the King? You broke the oath! Also I just caught the hand. You’ve attacked him too. You naughty boy! You betrayed the king!”5.    MK also wakes up and shout “traitor” because I didn’t obey his order and killed my father.6.    Then comes the fire. It kills a thousand before it’s put out. 7.    Later comes the trials. I can’t testify against MK because of my oath. Rossart says he was only following orders. In the end, no one knows what Rossart and other ass#oles really did and they all escape justice. So in the end, what am I? An oathbreaker. That’s it. Attacking the king’s hand is betraying him. Holding the king prisoner is betraying him. Not killing my father is betraying king. If I decide to testify and tell the truth, I’ll be breaking yet another oath. Thousand people died anyway because I couldn’t kill just one pathetic ass#ole.Jamie has already explained all of these in one sentence. No matter what you do, you’re an oathbreaker. So, what’s your solution to this? Explain clearly what Jamie should have done. Explain how he could have upheld his vows AND stop mass murder at the same time. If you can do this, there's no need to argue about this any more.Sorry you can’t justify a third option in your own line of thinking. Attacking the king’s hand/holding him prisoner is betraying king. Holding the king prisoner is betraying king. Not killing his father is betraying king. You want a fair trial for MK? Jamie can’t testify. That’s also breaking the oath. MK can never have a fair trial.So you want him to break two vows instead of one? Did he not explain why he did not tell anyone about MK’s plans to burn everyone? He says he’s trying to honour that vow at least but you’re having non of that.OK. Let’s just say he wanted to kill Tywin. Can you please explain how he’s going to do that within the limited time he had? Did he have time to find and kill Tywin? He rushed to stop Rossart the moment he heard about him. Then he rushed to stop MK. Then he didn’t even have time to hide before others showed up. Here's another one of your claims that's not supported by the text.Immediately after he killed MK, his father’s men came in. He did not even have the time to hide and escape blame (he thinks this). Then he sees the BLAME in their face (this is in one of his POV chapter) and he knew that there’s going to be blame. So if he didn’t care at that time, why did he ever thought of hiding and escaping blame? If he didn’t care about what others think, why did the blame bother him that much?Here’s another – I previously pointed out that his father’s men came immediately after he killed MK. He told them to spare anyone who surrenders. But you say he didn’t even attempt to stop the murdering. What do you have to say about that? You said previously - Ned says this well in the show "You served him well, when serving was safe."You forget that the show had already established Ned as a liar. People who have not read the books are already questioning his honour but you’re comfortable quoting Ned just to throw some blame at Jamie.Can’t you see that you’re heavily biased against this character?</blockquote>

Verification: Winadiyakata thappara keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom