Jump to content

Plot holes (Real ones, not things you don't like)


Recommended Posts

I'm going to start this off with an example:



In ACoK, when Theon is looking for Bran and Rickon after they "run away" it makes no sense for him to take Reek's advice and kill the miller's boys. He even thinks to himself earlier in the chapter that Bran and Rickon will get to a village and the whole North will rally around them. His reason for doing it is that he doesn't want to be laughed at, but when the Starks turn up, as he has no doubt they will, he'll be laughed at even more for trying to pass them off as dead. Also, he'll be seen as truly a monster then by the people he wants to win over.



It can slip past the reader b/c you see Bran in the crypts and know noone's going to find him there, but Theon doesn't know that.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Theon does follow Reeks advice & Bran & Rickon do not surface again so it kind of worked out for Theon.

I agree it was stupid of him but I guess I view it more as Theon being arrogant and too worried about the other Iron born viewing him as weak than a plot hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the bigger plot holes (if you want to call it one) is Roose's indifference to Ramsay killing his heir. Then letting said murder get close to him and rewarding him. But then again Roose may be lying about who killed his heir.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert's "assassination".



It's not that he died due to his recklessness and being a drunk, not even that Cersei eventually got him, but the timing is really, really convenient. And then Ned gets blamed for it? Ugh.



It's probably rather contrived than a plot hole. Still annoys me the most, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert's "assassination".

It's not that he died due to his recklessness and being a drunk, not even that Cersei eventually got him, but the timing is really, really convenient. And then Ned gets blamed for it? Ugh.

It's probably rather contrived than a plot hole. Still annoys me the most, though.

This did pop in my head, but I think it's more a lame convenient thing rather than a true plot hole. That being said, even though I saw season 1 before I read AGoT, it's pretty obvious that Bob's death will happen sooner than later. Cersei's bit about Game of Thrones when Ned confronts her while Bobby is still alive was a dead giveaway. Plus all the other foreshadowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the bigger plot holes (if you want to call it one) is Roose's indifference to Ramsay killing his heir. Then letting said murder get close to him and rewarding him. But then again Roose may be lying about who killed his heir.

Some people think that Roose is setting Ramsay up as a scapegoat. The more crazy stuff Ramsay does, the more believable it is for Roose to blame Ramsay for stuff that Roose himself did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between plot holes and character's actions and motivations; Roose's son was already dead. He didn't have any heirs so he did what a calculist and cold man would do. And that ended up being the legitimacy (is that the right word?) of Ramsay. He lost a son but he gained one.



As for Theon's actions, he was desperate. After the sack of Winterfell, all he did was getting himself in more trouble and being more humiliated by his old and new family. He couldn't be the man/prince/heir/Balon's son who lost two children (Staks, on top of it all), so he chose to be the one who killed them.



I can't think of any plot holes in ASOIAF right now, but I'm sure that there's many in such a great and complicated universe that Martin gave us.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Jon negotiate a loan with the most feared bank in the world when he has no assets or any way at all to pay it back?

That's a pretty blatant one.

Mance blindly trusting him is also a fairly out of character moment.

As is Tyrion simply forgetting that Littlefinger framed him for the attempted murder on Bran, which almost led to his death and caused a continent wide war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theon successfully attacking Winterfell/Ser Rodrik completely exposing it. The rest, that's all possible. Maybe not very likely, but possible. But this particular passage is just plain bollocks,





How does Jon negotiate a loan with the most feared bank in the world when he has no assets or any way at all to pay it back?




He has assets - the Gift, a 8000-years-history, a claim on Winterfell and Stannis/the Iron Throne as an overlord.





The Giantsbanes love for Jon, he is suppose to be a harden warlord, yet a guy betrays him and can be blamed for two of his sons death and they are bosom buddies.




Which sons? That's not out of the books.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has assets - the Gift, a 8000-years-history, a claim on Winterfell and Stannis/the Iron Throne as an overlord.

The Gift that he can't farm during the winter.

A history of being dependent on the Seven Kingdoms.

A claim on Winterfell that is weak and means nothing since he has taken the Black.

Stannis and the Iron Throne- overlords who are heavily indebted to the same bank.

He has absolutely nothing with which to tempt this banker. It's a plot hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giantsbanes love for Jon, he is suppose to be a harden warlord, yet a guy betrays him and can be blamed for two of his sons death and they are bosom buddies.

That's not a plot hole, that's readers (and Jon) being naive. Tormumd is playing Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the Iron Bank believes the NW and the Wall are truly protecting their southern interests, it makes a great deal of sense to fund them. Jon probably didn't have to offer much. Also, don't confuses the books with the show. The IB in many ways sought Stannis out, not the other way around.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using a shadowbaby to murder Cortnay Penrose. The shadowbaby itself is awfully convenient and one could argue that a problem resolved by a deus ex machina is a (covered) plothole, but either way: After the murder of Renly, it's clear that shadowbabies take a massive toll on Stannis and that they can change the outcome of entire battles. Yet, much like Arya in Harrenhal, Stannis wastes his second (and possibly last) shadowbaby on an insignificant castellan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using a shadowbaby to murder Cortnay Penrose. The shadowbaby itself is awfully convenient and one could argue that a problem resolved by a deus ex machina is a (covered) plothole, but either way: After the murder of Renly, it's clear that shadowbabies take a massive toll on Stannis and that they can change the outcome of entire battles. Yet, much like Arya in Harrenhal, Stannis wastes his second (and possibly last) shadowbaby on an insignificant castellan.

It was also pretty weird that Varys immediately blames it on magic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Battle of Blackwater



Amphibious assaults are extremely costly. Assaulting fortified city walls without artillery is also extremely costly. Trying to do both at the same time is suicidal. Davos even saw the chain and thought about crossing the army out in the Bay, which would've been A MUCH BETTER IDEA. Instead, Stannis's entire plan centered around crossing his army in the worst place possible, with flaming arrows and trebuchet fire reigning down on his ships from defenders safe behind high walls. Stannis has been built up to be a tactical genius, but this battle plan was retarded. Added to that, Tyrion's battle plan was wholly dependent on Stannis making this horrible mistake.



George should have played more Medieval Total War.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...