I know we have already an argument here about Alyssa Rosenberg. Nevertheless I wanted to say thank you for the solid episode and open a topic for it. Good 3.9 lemoncakes from me!

You looked for the knight of seashells - here he is:
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Raynald_Westerling
http://www.towerofthehand.com/reference ... index.html

I wanted to add that while I didn't agree with many of the things Alyssa said, I thought this was a great episode. I was glad you guys had Alyssa on. She made for very interesting conversation and I did agree with some of the things she said. Her discussion of sexual mores among the different cultures of Westeros and Essos in particular. I think this 'Ranging Beyond the Wall' will make for a great podcast series and can't wait for the next one. Any idea which essay will be focused on next?

Since this was a more serious episode, I figure I'll go ahead and lewd things up a bit by saying that I always assumed TV Margaery was "officially" a virgin in the msiguided horney christian teens sense - i.e. sticking to anal and BJs.

Just when I was smiling at the "shocking lack of knowledge", out of nowhere came the Knight of Seashells!

Really liked this episode and looking forward to more Ranging Beyond the Wall discussion. Too often the serious "literary critic" analysis of the books is done by people who aren't fans, either of the fantasy genre or GRRM in particular, and this podcast was a great departure from that. Yet another reason you all are the best ASOIAF podcasters out there!

Great episode, I'm glad I got to be a little part of it! While I agree with others that it's not quite so clear if rape is The Ultimate Crime in Westeros, Alyssa has hit on an interesting point in regards to the fact that sexual violence is at the root of so much of the conflict and evil in the series. I'm not sure what this says about individuals in Westeros that they don't seem fazed by this, but I do think Martin's opinion of the devastating consequences of rape comes through loud and clear when viewed through this lens.

And I appreciate the valiant attempt at my name, Kyle

So long time listener, first time poster. But anyway, I really liked this one, I thought it was interesting to hear you guys get into some of the more serious details. Don't get me wrong, I love listening to all the wonderfully ridiculous and crazy theorizing that you all do, but it was fun hearing your takes on some of the more serious stuff. As to what Alyssa was saying about rape being the ultimate crime in Westeros I would agree with one caveat, I would say that I think that the murder of children is considered even worse. Rape has contexts in which it is considered acceptable in Westeros, as characters like Steelshanks (I think that's his name, Bolton's dude?), but infanticide never seems to be considered acceptable. I did love the idea of Gregor owning up to and glorifying in his own monstrousness in what he thought were his last moments. I can't remember which one of you said that, but it was perfect. Can't wait for the next one!

So long time listener first time poster here myself. Love the show. So I'm currently listening to it episode 83 right now, and I can't stop myself. I find this whole discussion annoying. Sorry. In fact, I may find the whole Beyond the Wall book Annoying. I'll gobble up just about any content I can on ASOIF, but discussing some of these things as if there are real and/or have occurred is a bit off putting. For instance, Dario can't be cheesy, because Dario does not exist. Margaery Tyrell can't have sex, because she doesn't exist. Except in our minds of course, but trying to tie these things as if they happened or occurred or have some sort of bearing on things is just -I don't know-annoying. It's one thing to discuss topics like rape and war in the books and use that as a window into our world and it's history. It's another to talk about sexual politics in Westeros as if it's important in Westeros because there is no Westeros. It's fiction, and frankly Martin can write and create about whatever the hell he wants. Lots more ranting where this came from, but frankly i don't have the energy.

I think Mimi was finding the whole discussion annoying as well and that's why she ditched early.

This is not to say I don't like to discuss the books, plot points, connections, theories, etc. But let's not attach an artificial sense of importance to it.

I can't help but feel that this book Beyond The Wall is just a cash grab. Cashing in on the popularity of the books and show. Just my opinion.

Flame away i guess....

Welcome to the forums!

Yeah. Okay. Why do we analyze any work of fiction? Because no form of entertainment exists in a vacuum. It affects us in subtle ways. So why not analyze it?








That is all.

Hey. Thanks for the welcome. Right, I totally agree. It affects us. So analyze it as it relates to us, no?

So broader gender relations/"sexual politics"/constraints on female characters placed by their societies doesn't affect anybody in the real world?

Oh, and don't get me started on societies that verbally condemn rape but do very little to curb it. Sound familiar?

As for going out there and saying it, I think the podcast tries to maintain neutrality with political issues pertaining to the real world. But it's not too hard to draw the parallels, methinks.

Agreed. And anyway, a large part of why art exists in the first place is to provide a space where ideas and issues about life can be discussed and considered from multiple angles. It's fine if that aspect of art or the way it is applied in a particular case isn't someone's cup of tea, but for many people (well, for me) that process is "part two" in the experience of that art, and a big part of why it is enjoyed and given value to begin with.

Baron,
I, at least, don't really get the distinction you're making there between discussion plot points and theories and "discussing it like it's real" unless it's just one of personal, ideosyncratic taste. And Beyond the Wall is surely an attempt by book publishers to make money, but when I think of cash grab, I think of something where there's some deception or skullduggery involved where the intended consumer buys something and doesn't really get what they think they're getting. Like a video game sequel that's almost identical to the previous game or something. I can't imagine anyone mistaking Beyond the Wall for anything but geekery by Song of Ice and Fire geeks for Song of Ice and Fire geeks.

But I like ubergeeky discussions of how things work in fictional worlds. I owned an Enterprise technical manual as a young teen. One of my favorite things ever is David Brinn's essay on why the Lord of the Rings is propaganda written by the shitty, aristocratic and elf-loving winners and Sauron was actually the attempted savior of the common people of Middle Earth. I don't believe Tolkien meant it that way, and neither does Brinn, but it's just a lot of fun to me to look at a story like that from another perspective.

It's a way to analyze a lot of things inside the story, such as what does it tell us that Martin has created this dark, depressing world, but, as Rosenberg points out, rapists seem to beyond the pale for this story whose mission statement seems to be there aren't good characters or bad characters, just characters. That either just tells us something interesting (to some) about the writer or the society that produced the writer.

And you are on the forum of a podcast dedicated to discussion the minuatie of a series of fantasy novels...

I agree completely. I do get the distinction between the two different kinds of discussion, one is plot based and speculative and will end when the series does, the other is broader and is more about drawing analogies between the books and the real world and using fandom as a way to have discussions of real world issues and problems. On the other hand, talking about Daario and Margaery clearly fits into the first category and I don't really get why talking about that is so off-putting. Also there's something to be said for the whole Beyond the Wall phenomenon, sure it's not for everyone but discussing the sexual politics of Westeros can a) give us insight into sexual politics in our own world and b) is an important way of demonstrating that the rape and violence that fill these novels is not meant to be titillating, it's meant as a commentary. Still, to each their own I guess.

During the chapter re-read of Episode 83, the podcast members were discussing how it could be possible that Jaqen, Rorge, and Biter could have been allowed to join Ser Amory Lorch's troupe. I believe that there is sufficient evidence that Rorge killed Yoren with Arya's axe, thus providing these three the opportunity to defect.


Take No Prisoners
At the time of the assault, Amory was not in a mood to recruit or make new friends. When ordering the attack, he told his troops to "Storm the walls and kill them all." (202) His men followed those orders, even killing defenders who attempted to yield: "She saw Koss throw down his blade to yield, and she saw them kill him where he stood." (225-226) It would have been impossible for the cage trio to have merely talked their way into Ser Amory's good graces.

The Axe
The caged men escaped from the wagon with the aid of Arya's axe. "She threw the axe into the wagon. Rorge caught it and lifted it over his head, rivers of sooty sweat pouring down his noseless face." (226) With a fight raging all around them, there would have been no reason to drop the weapon immediately after breaking free. It would also seem out of character for Rorge to hand the weapon off to one of his companions. This means that Rorge would still have been armed with the axe after escaping.

Later, when Arya and the other survivors return to the site, she finds Yoren had been killed by an axe: ""The axe blow that had killed him had split his skull apart, but the great tangled beard could be no one else's". (290) Lorch's men were always described as using swords or spears for hand-to-hand fighting. A few axes were noted among Amory's troupe attempting to destroy the gate, but they had already been killed. "When four men assaulted the gate with axes, Koss shot them down with arrows, one by one." (222) It would not make sense for men fighting Yoren to discard the swords and spears they favored and return to the gate to pick up their dead comrades' axes.

Who Struck the Blow
The power behind the strike indicates that the wielder must have been somewhat strong. Yoren's skull was split apart to the point where his 'great tangled beard' was needed to identify the body. Arya describes Rorge as "squat and thick, with huge hands." (86) Thus he appears to have been more physically capable than most people present to be able to successfully land the killing blow as described.

Finally, Yoren seemed to have had no trouble dealing with Lorch's men. "The corpses of four Lannister men-at-arms were heaped near Yoren's." (290) Yoren was doing a good job defending himself against the enemy soldiers, but he may have hesitated killing men he thought were from his own side had they approached him. A possible moment's hesitation may have given Rorge a greater opportunity to land the fatal blow.



Lorch was intent on killing everyone, but Yoren was giving him significant trouble. The three men betraying Yoren and killing him is the only sufficient explanation possible that would make Ser Amory not just spare their lives, but actively recruit them into his ranks.

Good observation.

You're a fucking genius man, that's perfect.

Wow Falowyn. Very interesting indeed.

That is a neat theory.

However, it should probably be asked: might Arya have not recognized the axe she gave Rorge just the previous evening?

There's a good case to be made that she wouldn't, though. It was night, and on some level an axe is an axe: nondescript.

You're right that Arya would have recognized the axe. Gendry saw Yoren's body as well, and he would have recognized the axe too. It was the same one he had used to chop firewood the previous day: the axe was where Gendry had left it, by the woodpile outside the haven. (225).

However, the description of Yoren's body did not include an axe left at the scene. Only that "the axe blow that had killed him had split his skull apart" (290). An axe blow only indicates a wound created by an axe; not the presence of the axe itself. No axe is described located at the scene.

Rorge would not have disarmed and left his only weapon at the body any more than he would have left it in the cage after escaping. The evidence still supports the theory that Rorge killed Yoren with Arya's axe.

Awesome theory Falowyn, makes totally sense - I agree with you, although I never would have puzzled that out for myself.

Agreed! I would bet substantial money that you're right here, though I'd bet just as much that we never get official confirmation.