• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About LordBlakeney

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

638 profile views
  1. Right? There's a million reasons for Dany's scene on Dragonstone. We're smart enough to understand that we don't need exposition for every little detail. Get on with the story!
  2. Think about it this way. We know Dany probably took some nasty shits on her voyage to Westeros. It's a long way, nature will come calling, especially with god-knows-what kind of food they would serve on a medieval sea crossing. However, I don't need to watch her take those shits. There's only so much screen time a TV show can give something, and I'd rather they save their time for something besides someone struggling to take a shit. For narrative purposes, a shot of Dany leaving Mereen with the fleet and a shot of her arriving in Westeros with the fleet is enough to get the point across: she just sailed the seas and arrived back where she needs to be. I don't need scenes of her on the voyage dealing with Dothraki sea sickness and explosive diarrhea. It's probable that a couple of her ships were assailed by pirates. Maybe there was even a sea-battle or two. But none of that is shown in the TV show because 1) it won't matter to the plot in the long run and 2) taking time to show that on screen means less time with Arya killing Freys or Dragons flying around or the Mountain smashing heads. Stannis's garrison on Dragonstone can be safely put in the "sea-pirates and shits" category. Sure, watching some sea-pirates try to take a Dothraki-ladden ship would be fun, but it doesn't further the plot so let's not waste time on it in a TV show. Sure, watching 50 of Stannis's guys try to fight off some Unsullied might be cool, but Dany has tens of thousands. She's taking the Island. Why not just get to the money shot of her landing on the Island, and skip the nonsense of a tiny garrison that likely surrendered at the first sight of dragons anyway? Stannis is dead and gone. Why would I want to waste good TV time on shots of soldiers formerly loyal to him fighting for... what? That story is over. The new characters are here. The new players are here. Out with the old. The TV show is telling a story, it's going to focus on the important parts and leave the extraneous details to your imagination, as any good TV show should. So again, assume there were people. Assume they surrendered. Assume they tried to stay out of sight of the fearsome new Dragon Queen as she surveyed her conquest. It's not that hard at all. And enjoy the show.
  3. Again, most likely explanation is there was a garrison on Dragonstone, and they were quickly subdued/quickly surrendered once Dany showed up. This is such a weak excuse to complain about a "plot hole." It is ridiculous to think Dany sailed all those thousands of leagues to Dragonstone with tens of thousands of soldiers at her disposal and then took the first boat to the island. An invasion force that strong would send scouts ahead for reconnaissance. These scouts are the people who would have encountered your 50 men with crossbows. They either killed them, or those people surrendered. Then these scouts would give the go-ahead to Grey Worm "Hey you can bring the Queen now the Island is secured." I don't need to watch a 5 minute scene of Unsullied soldiers clearing Dragonstone room by room. Assume they did, assume it's then that Dany arrives, and just enjoy the show.
  4. This is silly. I guarantee before Dany landed on Dragonstone some sort of expeditionary force was sent to the island to get the lay of the land and probe for info. Any token force left by Stannis probably shit themselves and bent the knee to this token probe when they saw a huge fleet and three dragons. The smallfolk of Dragonstone probably did the same. Then, when the expedtionary force reports back to the fleet that the Island is secure, Dany gets in her little boat like Washington Crossing the Delaware and sets foot on Dragonstone for the beautifully shot silent triumphant arrival. Again, any smallfolk are probably trying to just stay out of her way. To complain about this is to complain that you lack imagination. The show shouldn't have to take the time to film smallfolk putting fresh rushes out on the floor in the bedrooms. I'm not watching Game of Thrones to watch the janitor at Dragonstone wonder when Stannis is coming back; I'm watching to see Dany walk up that bridge with Dragon's flying overhead and take her rightful seat. Even if there is a battle at Dragonstone and Stannis's peeps try to fight against Dany's force-it'd be a foregone conclusion they will lose. Don't waste time showing it. The closing scene was awesome and requires no suspension of disbelief.
  5. Robert didn't marry Cersei until a year after he had been crowned King. Crowned 283 they're married 284 (or 285). Jon was born prior to their nuptials. Therefore: 1) Whether he is Robert's bastard or Ned's, he is still a bastard and therefore an outcast. He's shunned either way. The best way to minimize that shunning? Be the bastard of the King. See, Edric Storm. 2) Again, Cersei is irrelevant, because at the time Ned is making decisions about Jon's future, she's not in the picture. The only reference Ned has for how Robert would treat one of his bastards is Mya Stone in the Vale, whom he dotes on with affection. Again, think how much more affection Ned would have expected Robert to show his son by Lyanna. There is no reason for Ned to think, prior to Cersei entering the picture, that Robert would harm him. Quite the opposite. 3) Cersei's first child wasn't born until a year after she married Robert, making Joffrey & Co even further removed from consideration. If he were to tell Robert he has a bastard son by Lyanna that he legitimizes, it offends no one and displaces no one. So again, I see absolutely no convincing argument for why Ned would hide one of Robert's bastards from him, let alone his bastard by the woman he loved so much he went to war.
  6. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why Jon had to be hidden if Robert was his father. Robert fawns over his bastards; how much more would he fawn over the son of Lyanna, the woman he loved? Unless you don't believe Lyanna is his mother. In which case what is Lyanna's purpose in our modern story? Why does her character exist?
  7. Should have added this to my first post: I mean that a central mystery of the series. It is constantly referenced across many POVs. The ancestry thing gets kind of circular. I mean yeah his ancestors matter but they only matter because of who his parents are. If the mystery gets revealed the "A-HA!" moment for readers will not be "Of course! It's because his 5th great grandparent is a Royce!" or something along those lines. It will be his parents that make him special.
  8. @LynnS of course I don't mean to say that the ancestry is irrelevant; bloodlines are obviously important in this world, and his ancestors will matter. Just that the more immediate cause of what sets him apart will be his parents.
  9. I believe the secret surrounding Jon Snow's ancestry will be much more immediate in his family tree. Going back multiple generations to find out why he's special misses the mark: GRRM left his parentage a mystery; if anything is special about him, it will be because of those two people, not some distant ancestor.
  10. I agree that he can be Jon Targaryen without being the central character.
  11. That's exactly his criticism - the stories are too easy, the character's don't earn their triumphs, the human element gets overshadowed by the magic. He could have written a story set in the real world, with just humans, but he chose to write in the fantasy genre. I read someone else on here say this, and it has made every GRRM interview I've seen make sense to me: he doesn't want to dismantle these tropes; he wants his characters to earn their tropes. The story is a masterpiece because he decided to take the time and effort to write an engaging story to reinvigorate the fantasy genre. To do it right. That means taking a little extra time and effort to build a world and backstory so are heroes are actually tested, our villians are more sympathetic, and the emotional payoff is off the charts. I've read plenty of fan theories I think are way off base. Remember, he's writing this for an extremely broad audience. Sure, out of the millions who've read it those of us who care enough to post on a fan forum probably can discern some main points, like RLJ. But the average reader doesn't obsessively re-read and write essays. He's not trying to trick audiences, he's using foreshadowing and breadcrumbs to build suspense so the reveal is worth it when it happens, like any good mystery writer would.
  12. It's not even the moral of the story this quote comes from!
  13. Just because he does not speak does not mean there isn't more to his backstory. Ilyn Payne has no dialogue, yet he has a rich backstory. Once again we are in the middle of the story! Obviously there is more to be revealed about the White Walkers/Night King. What created him? What made him that way? What is his goal? The show isn't going to ruin suspense by having the creators tell you all the details in a post-show interview. Again, you are assuming that we know as much about the Night King in the show as we're going to find out. Even in-show they've left hints that isn't true, like when Bran goes back to the weirwood where he saw the Night's King created. It's dead. Looks like it's been split by something like a lightning strike. No explanation given. There is much more still to come, let's hold off on burning our straw man NK in effigy. I'm not sure how you're making that jump. Jon Snow can still be Jon Targaryen without having to be the central character. Aragorn wasn't the main character of LOTR, but he still was the true heir who rode to victory. Prince Caspian wasn't the protagonist of The Silver Chair, but he was still the hidden prince who became King. (Silver Chair is another story with multiple protagonists: Eustace and Jill). Despite what some on here seem to desire, this moral of this story will not be "nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's gonna die."
  14. What's ludicrous is the idea that GRRM is mocking his fanbase and the vast majority of his readership by 1) somehow writing a story that mocks every mainstay of literature and the common elements of fantasy writing (because he's oh-so-smart and nerds are lazy and need to be taught a lesson about the real world), and 2), took the time to disguise that story and plant numerous false flags so the stupid readers would root for the wrong characters. I'm sorry but this idea of GRRM as some cackling troll who wrote a series to prove how dumb the fantasy genre is (which is the basic argument people who keep using the word "trope" are making) is way off base. He loves fantasy writing. He loves nerds. He wants readers to like his books. And his writing is much more traditional than these self-proclaimed literary critics will admit. But, simplistic thinking like the notion that a protagonist has to be a hero, or must take up the most pages is about what you'd expect from people whose only literary exposures are comic books and wikipedia pages. Will there be a character, or characters, whose fate matters most in these books? Absolutely. There's your protagonist(s). What a silly thing about which to argue. Reading the above says more about you than it does about GRRM.
  15. I never said there has to be a single protagonist/antagonist. Your writing betrays your ignorance of the literary notion of a "protagonist." A story is not required to have only one central, heroic character in order to have a protagonist. A story can have multiple, and multiple antagonists as well! Romeo and Juliet is a famous and simple example of a story with two protagonists, and Macbeth is a great story whose protagonist is definitely not a hero. A protagonist is more something you define with hindsight. Stephen Koch defined it this way: "The protagonist is the character whose fate matters most to the story." If you thought by saying the story will have a protagonist I meant that Jon Snow or Daenerys will wind up being the ultimate hero I apologize (though I do believe that is most likely). Frodo is pretty clearly the protagonist of the Lord of the Rings (many argue it is actually Sam) even though Aragorn gets the Kingdom, the Girl, and the "happily ever after." Someone or someones will wind up being our story's protagonist, likely Bran, or maybe whomever the "three heads of the dragon" are.