Neverborn

Members
  • Content count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Neverborn

  • Rank
    Commoner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany
  1. There is a really great analysis/article of the Sansa-Ramsay plot and why it doesn't make any sense on r/asoiaf. https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6wrad3/spoilers_extended_sansas_bolton_plotline_two/ It is basically an analysis of the inner logic, the consequences and D&D "reasons" for this plot. I can't say much about this topic that wasn't already coffered in this article. It's a bit long, but sure worth the read.
  2. Thanks for saying what I just intended to write. Seems like the showrunners now reached the point where they write a script just with the audiences reaction in mind and not with actual character arcs. D&D said in there behind the scenes video that the scene builds on the viewers thinking that the arya and sansa might kill eachother and that it was important for them to make this conflict feel like a "true rift" between them. So the viewers would be shocked in the end. The simplest explanation is often the best (especially if you analyse D&D writing). So we have to chose between three explanations why D&D created conflict between sansa and arya in e5&6: 1) They wrote it as part of a bigger plan to trick LF (dumbing-down LF to show that arya & sansa are smart) 2) They wrote it to give LF one last game before he dies (dumbing-down and destroying/ignoring character arcs of sansa & arya doing so) 3) They wrote it to shock the audience with the last episode (means no deeper thoughts / character arcs behind the conflict at all.) Judging by the isaac interview and the behind the scenes video I tend to think it was the last one. The arya-sansa conflict was written only for the audience and not for the characters. In this sense D&D somehow reached their goal because part of the audience was still surprised by this outcome. But it just contibutes nothing to the story because it wasn't written with the story in mind. It is known that D&D are bad writers, but with this I am not even sure if we can call this writing at all. Isn't the definition of writing a story to write something that contributes to the story and not something irrelevant to create a special reaction from the audience? What's your opinion: can we even call this writing? ps: the first post I ever wrote in a rant and rave topic. Seems the last two episodes have finally succeeded where two seasons of nonsense before failed.
  3. Well, the "dick at all" was what helped him winning the election against yara and theon. The "big dick" was what he wanted to offer daenerys besides the iron fleet (according to his election speech).
  4. It means that Euron "I have a big dick" Greyjoy doesn't has small hands... D&D are more political than you would imagine.
  5. Sorry, but no sorry: I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow.
  6. Well, I'm actually pretty sure that sansa will survive to the end and her skills will come to play after the long knight (to pick up the peaces). Mostly because her arc had such a minor (and often boring) role through the story I expect that she will have a bigger role in the conclusion of the story. But since we can't disprove the other we should probably just wait and see.
  7. If she does something that justifies her inclusion in the story before she dies, I could maybe buy this plot. I still don't believe it, because I think that GRRM would take the easy way out with this. But I could buy it.
  8. And why in seven hells should the lords of the vale (and their guards) allow him to do that? But if this is after sansa turned on him he should be on the run with the vale army on his heels. And if it is before she turns on him he would have no motivation to kill his most valuable card. Which means that he will most likely fail to kill sansa. Because he would need his brain to kill her once his crimes are revealed. Simple strength and anger are not enough to get past the vale lords (which I don't believe are entirely incompetent) and sneak in sansas chamber. If the lords of the vale have at least half a brain they would know that sansa is now in danger (and sansa should also know). It's not like a direwolf is impossible to replace (as a protector) by some good guards. But if the only twist that is involved in sansas death is the turn in her character, that could have happened multible times in kingslanding. If GRRM intended this as her arc he could have handeled it in book one and the impact would have been the same. I also don't see why the arc of: from "betraying" her family to refusing to betray her family should involve her death. Death is boring, live is full of possible twists. I could maybe buy this plot if it wouldn't be for: Because that reduces sansa to the simple trigger to get arya on a revenge trip (which she already is). So a POV character we followed through 6 / 7 books would die as a tool in the arc of another character without any impact by her own or changing the story. That wouldn't even be a twist. Just bad writing (IMO).
  9. I'm sorry but I just don't see how this could work. Once he lost his game and his crimes are revealed he won't have any time or opportunities for retaliation, because he will be in prison or immediately killed. As long he doesn't pull a knife and storms to sansa immediately after his trial (or what ever his downfall will be) he just won't have any chance. Why would sansa be alone with him once she turned against him? And if LF is somewhere else: shouldn't a pragmatic man like LF concentrate on escape instead of revenge? If he escapes shouldn't sansa than not be always surrounded by guards until they got him? I just don't see a way how LF could manage to take sansa down with him once he lost his game that wouldn't feel very forced by GRRM. Apart from the practical aspect: it would be (at least for my taste) very cheap writing to simply kill sansa once her purpose in the story (to bring down LF) is fulfilled. Just like "this was the purpose of her arc, now it's fulfilled, so she can die". That is not how you write a character arc. In LotR frodo also didn't died once the ring was melted. Because at this point his death would be pointless. I don't think that sansa would have much to do after LF is dead. But to simply kill her because her purpose was fulfilled is (IMO) the definition of taking the easy way out. And GRRM doesn't like it when authors take the easy way out.
  10. Nice completion of foreshadowings. But I still have one big problem with this theory: Littlefingers motivation. Sansa is LF most valuable card in the game. He can't gain real power without her as his marionette. So the only way he would consider to lose sansa is if she becomes a threat to him or his plans. The only way sansa could become this threat is by accuse LF for some of his crimes before the lords of the vale/north. Correct me if I'm wrong but killing your accuser usually doesn't speak for your innocence. Killing sansa would be LF last straw if she would threaten his plans. He would try to bring her back on track, because if he loses her his game has failed (no marionette with a huge name anymore). So the only time when he would consider to kill sansa is after she became a threat to him. Since she can only become a threat to him by accuse him before others we are back with the point I made above (killing the accuser). Summarized: the only time when LF would consider to kill sansa as an option would be when it is already to late for him. And in general I think that if LF dies/fails it will be through a political twist not through some knife fight. He murders through politics and he has to die through politics. All this talk about a maid (be it sansa or arya) slaying a giant always takes the slaying literally and forgets about the fact that it would be extremely anticlimatic if someone would just kill LF without outmaneuver him politically first. I always interpreted the GohH-prophecy that the slaying means to politically slay LF. Because that is much more interesting and fits the character more than some simple stabby time. So I just don't see any real knifes (or in extension of this arya) involved in the slaying of the giant.
  11. Depends how you define worried. In terms of, I think he is the most likely to die: Grey Worm In terms of, I would be the most devastated about the characters death: Arya In terms of, I fear this characters arc will disappoint me (as a bookreader) next season: Jaime
  12. Sam Sansa Tyrion Davos
  13. After watching 6 seasons I think I will continue until the end, no matter what D&D deliver. Especially since D&D stated in an interview that one of the three big secrets GRRM shared with them (shireen, hodor, ???) would come to play in the very end of the last season (maybe iron throne?). Assuming that this means that we will have at least one original GRRM twist in the very last episode, I would continue even if everything else turns to shit (which I doubt since GRRM told them a few more secrets about the ending) just for the sake of this last twist.
  14. Thoughts: Tyrion: Where do whores go? Daenerys: Either: Just like a red door. or So this was the third betrayal or Burn them all! (depends on her development in TWOW/ADOS) Victarion: Eurons gifts are always poisoned. Areo hotah: Simple vows for a simple man
  15. Thanks. I also think that the faceless men have a larger (political or magical) plan behind part of their assassinations, because their is a fair amount of evidence for this through out the story (jaqen in oldtown). But there is also some evidence for faceless men assassinations just for the payment. (Robert wants to hire one in AGOT to kill daenerys, Littlefinger argues about the enormous price the faceless man would demand for a princess assassination) How corrupt the assassination for payment is is of course arguable, because it depends on the original moral code of the faceless men. If the payment for death was always a part of their religion it wouldn't be corrupt. But this seems strange to me because: 1) The kindly man said that they just deliver the death, but don't judge themself who has to die and who can live (because they are no one). But if they follow a plan on their own and kill for this plan (which they do; Jaqen in oldtown), that already contradicts with the "moral code" the kindly man told arya. 2) A system of payment based on the targets social status, seems generally a bit strange even for a death cult, when they preach that everyone is equal before their god (death). 3) It contradicts how GRRM in general writes his religious organisations: they always have flaws and to a certain degree also corruption. The religion of the seven has a history with corrupt septons. The old gods were the "sympathetic" religion when the story started, but through the books we learned more about the darker side of this religion (human sacrifices). GRRM always shows us the "darker"/corrupt/mundane truth behind his religions. In the case of the faceless man this can't be the simple fact that they kill, because that is an established part of their religion. So I think that it will be the fact that they kill for more "corrupt" reasons (gold / larger plan) which contradict with the religious believes the kindly man told arya. So I tend to think that the cult we met in AFFC is more corrupt than a really strict follower of their religion would be. Most likely as the result of a slow process over the decades when the priests of the faceless men started to use the abilities their religion gave them for more mundane goals (gold / larger plan).