Spilledguts

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Spilledguts

  • Rank
    Commoner
  1. And then allowing them to sell themselves back into slavery with a profit to herself. lol Mickey Mouse, dude? Guess you have never seen Mulan? I actually suggest when / if you babysit your grandkids next! What I meant by that is, how can someone so beautiful, that brought dragons back to the world, is a near goddess and freed the slaves from the super evil mustache-twirling slavers do anything wrong and be anything else but the savior of the world? Live happily ever after, marry her true love and sit the Iron Mf'N Throne! Did I mention, beautiful? I said based off because: Dragon reborn / intriguing madness, possibly by magic or some other power / crazy dreams, possibly prophetic / head in the sand / similar story with uncertain origins / at least 2 other possible hero candidates... But did I not say that the differences that set them apart are the reason I do not think she will be a hero? Instead, I am apparantly accusing your favorite author of plagiarism? They have chosen opposite sides of several moral dilemnas. If she suddenly starts taking different decisions, more simlar to Rand and ALSO unites the world for the final battle.... it will be fucking boring as hell and yes, way too similar. I did not think GRRM was going for a Jesus / Aragorn / Rand / "Insert other Messiah" with any of his characters... seemed the opposite to me and the appeal of the series. You link together the Dark One destroying the Wheel of Time and Danny Breaking the Wheel?? Woah, dude. Oh and yes, funny you mention Memory, Sorrow and Thorn which I am currently re-reading for the 2nd time since High School. Still very enjoyable!
  2. First, Danny was set up to become a "Threat" as big as the Others. Now, people believe her to be a Disney princess with dragons that will save the world and "Break the wheel!!" . For all we know, GRRM changed his mind to make her so, but if that is the case then its even worst. Second, if you say there is no basis for Danny being based of Rand, you did not read WoT. I learned how to use the search tool and found someone already explaining it instead of losing time: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/96551-parrallels-between-daenerys-and-rand-al-thor-from-wheel-of-time-spoilers/ The Essos storyline is horrible and most people I know did not even finish ADWD... everyone can have an opinion though and I am sure the superfans say its the best book, even though there was no advancement whatsoever. I mean slogfest at its freaking finest. Actually, no. He took WAY more from LOTR and Memory, Sorrow and Thorne then he did from WoT. But he did not plagiarize anyone, he does what every author has been doing since the alphabet. Its just grating that people defend GRRM to the death here, as if he is the most original author of the 20th century and the great subverter of tropes and then propose theories that come directly from other books as if its new shit. Just trying to point it out when I see it. Sorry if its been done before, I am new here.
  3. But he is not a piece of shit if he let his nephew and rightful king take the black? Not a piece of shit for ever telling him what the NW actually had become? The boy goes there seeking an honorable future, thinks all brothers were searching the same fate. Turns out his brothers are thieves and rapists. I did not visit any forums or any other community for this series until about a month ago. I read the series in 2003 and re-read for the release of AFFC and again for the release of ADWD. I did a re-read again after the last season ended and a google search for a mention of marriage annulments brought me here. The ideas I had were Rhaegar and Lyanna. But I thought that if this is the case it is both too obvious, I mean we are told he kidnapped and raped her to death and we hear about Ned's honor so often that he could not sire a bastard. But also the symbolism around it would have been way to weak when he is litterally throwing parallels and themes around all the time. The other thought I had was Arthur Dayne + Lyanna, but I have not seen it mentionned here at all. I thought there was more symbolism and it was more subtle + more entertaining. After reading ADWD I was convinced neither Danny nor Aegon was who they thought they were. Granted, I had just read the First Law where some wizard keeps a bunch of bastards in different families, saying it is the bastard of the king. When all the legit heirs died, he had a few possible successors to choose from. He chose the easiest to manipulate. This is the only thing that made sense in having Vyserys on the throne. All in all, if R + L = J (Lol I <3 your lingo / abbr. here) then it takes a lot out of the story. Seeing the dip in quality in the last 2 books, especially ADWD... the final product would get a much lower rating then the first 3 books. Sadly reminiscent of a Dark Tower.
  4. 1- I get that most of the dragons died in the civil wars and the ones born after were small and stunted. However, there were quite a few "Wild" Dragons - what happened to them? If they are so long lived, would they still not be around after a hundred years? Were they hunted to extinction as seems to be the case in Essos after the doom? 2- Nettles tamed a dragon with sheep. Is it safe to assume that anyone can tame a dragon? Or do you all believe she was a "dragonseed" and some Valyrian ancestry is required? By this logic, if you look at the real world for example Genghis Khan, a reasearch some 10 years ago or so said that his Y chromosome was in approx 16 Million men. Seeing as how they conquered all of Essos, nearly every person there would have some Valyrian blood. Can anyone in Essos tame a dragon but not anyone in Westeros - seems weird. 3- With the magic returning to the world, do you think that the "crazy" ideas and plots to hatch dragons such as drinking wildfire, burning Kingslanding or whatever happened at Summerhall would now work? If all that is required is "A life must pay for a life'' as Danny believes, then would every dragon egg in KL hatch if it was burned and people died? Could this be the reason for the hidden wildfire? 4- In the Malazan series they have these sayings that "Power draws power" or that "Power answers Power". Strong entities will converge and fight. One character explained it like this: When curses collide, you might say. Flaws and virtues, the many faces of fateful obsession, of singular purpose. Powers and wills are drawn together, as if one must by nature seek the annihilation of the other. Also, in a battle where a strong mage will participate, a weaker mage will discover new strengths to sort of "answer" or a new entity shows up as the "answer" to fight the powerful mage. We are introduced to the others first. Then the dragons come. Now, all in the series seem to say that magic is coming back to the world. However, Bloodraven has been hooked to a Tree doing some crazy things for quite some time. The COTF have been chilling around and the Ghost of High heart has some gifts of prophecy no? So magic has not diappeared, but destructive magic or human magic yes? Do you think we will see different types of magic such as the Rhoynar who could answer to dragons and fight back? Or is it only Dragons are the answer to the Others and the magic of the Weirwoods is neutral? Could the Doom have been the answer, because no force left could stand against the dragons?
  5. You just made the blogger's point when he said that after so many words there is still no climax and still no clarity as to what the story is. Again, GRRM is writing about a World, People and Events, not a story driven by characters or world building as far as anyone can tell. In multiple POV stories, there is usually a climax or ending of sorts every book or every other book. Each character will have a journey with an ending, perhaps more than one before it interconnects with the main story. No reader and perhaps even GRRM himself does not know what the main story is, if there still is one. Can you name a climax, or an ending of sorts for a character on a journey to then begin another that connects with the main story? In regards to the main story you mention Daenerys trying to ''Get Home'', the GoT and the Others. The original outline names all 3 of these the "Threats". When did Danny go from threat to savior / main character / breaker of chains? Did you fall into the mustache twirling inner PoV trap that she is oh so amazing? When did the idea that the GoT is horrible for the entirety of the world become the centerpiece of the story? These are not stories. He is just writing about different stuff happening in his large world and large cast with seemingly no structure. If you say there is a structure, I will not even reply.
  6. I do not understand the outlook people have here on the Targs. Neither of the people you mention were megalomaniacs.... The list of mad monarchs in our own world history is freaking small regardless of inbreeding. The Targs are ALL mad to varying degrees...That is how they are described. Is fan fiction bigger than the text here?
  7. Mirri was trying to help since the beggining. Also, she did offer more than fair warning and would have told Danny exactly what would happen if asked. As soon as Danny finds out it is not her death, she does not care what the price is. Burning people alive to ''Punish'' them is in her blood.
  8. Off-topic but you guys would really like Crusader Kings 2 with the Westeros mod.
  9. 1- I never thought that the incest / madness was based off of the Hapsburgs? Else, where are all the deformities such as the hapsburg jaw or the wide tongue? Have the Targs beeng getting dumber and dumber with more and more physical issues as they go? By this definition, Danny should be unable to talk nor walk correctly, look up Charles 2. Also, incest was not the cause of the weird behaviors. Rather, marrying into a family with mental health issues brought them in and they never left. Seems the madness of the Targs has ben around since before the Doom, or else why did no one follow them to Dragonstone? I thought they were just most likely brushed off as crazy... 2- Dragonriders are mentionned and there are three dragons. There will be three dragonriders or Checkhov's gun will be renamed George's Dragons. 3- What I meant about the bloodriders, is whoever will be king will have whoever is riding the dragons as his protectors. I thought this was the point of introducing three bloodriders and 3 dragonriders... 4- A sort of Dark Ages after the fall of Rome and all goes back to petty kings would make sense, but self rule with the same families being the 7 Kings sounds very much like bad fan fiction.
  10. Just curious, how much fantasy have you read? It is ''girtty realism'' because the characters and the world is realistic in the sense that not all is white and black. Good shit happens and bad shit happens. Characters feel ''human'' as opposed to most fantasy / fiction where a person is either a Jedi or a Sith. The map is barely adequate and I totally agree with what the blogger said. The map is mostly there so you recognize where certain people are from. Else, the entire makeup of the map makes no sense in a geographical, social or even cultural sense. You actually make his point by saying that the BASIC info is there. Look at where the main trade posts are, big cities and ummm Blackwater with no city until Kings Landing?? There is no actual plot. There is a World, People and Events. Do not get me wrong, this is what I actually like about the series. There is no actual ''story'' but all the characters, places and events are interesting. I am curious if you disagree, what is the actual story? Because this seems to be the biggest debate on these forums. Some think it is all about Jon being the Chosen One, while others disagree and think Danny is the main character and Chosen One. Is it about the GoT, the Others or how each of the aforementioned are dangerous in their own way to the 7 Kingdoms? If its about all of them, then there is no plot and there is no story, again there is a World, People and Events. BTW climax is defined as the most intense, exciting, or important point of something; a culmination or apex. Only thing I can think of is the Red Wedding being the climax to the shit show that was Robb Stark's invasion of the South... Has there been another climax that I missed? The way you describe Ned would still define him as a minor character in literature. Important or necessary to the plot does not make a person a main character... Before coming to this forum I had never heard of GRRM's "subversion of tropes". He uses so many! Some he disguises well, others less so but which trope has been subverted? It is tropes with some ''gritty realism'' thrown in. I agree with the blogger. I would be very curious to see what he would say about ADWD if he thought AFFC was bogged down LOL Most people I know could not even finish AFFC because there was no advancement, just wandering from characters and issues (Brienne!). Those that did, only one of the 5 people I knew that had started the series actually finished ADWD. He also thought it was shite. My experience is that if you read lots of fantasy, you will love the first 3 books, dislike the 4th and hate the 5th unless you like the Twilight kind of fantasy or think Danny is the amazing breaker of chains lol.
  11. I feel like there is something that we are missing from the description of the Valyrians. The Freehold conquered most of Essos, but mainly continued to live in Valyria. They would send a single Dragon Lord to rule a conquered city. Every nation, or ''Peoples'' they conquered were enslaved and their largest city sacked, burned and salted. Their only reasons for conquering seem to be for more slaves, sent to their own mines and also perhaps because they could or just for the plain fun of it. There was no single ruler and instead it was a ''Free Hold''. They do not seem interested in actually ruling in any way, and when the doom happened EVERY nation or city turned against them. There is no explanation and no logical reason for Aegon's conquest other than "Because he could". All this talk about the gods flipping a coin for madness or greatness for the Targs always rang false with me. It seems they are all born with the same capacity. They only become ''Mad'' or not depending on the councel they receive. When their ears are filled with whispers of treachery, the end result is they believe it and in turn act out against it. Also keep in mind that very few of them actually ruled save for those who were named as Hand of the King. The others were content letting a family outsider rule for them. I re-read the Danny only chapters and it seems that certain emotions and thoughts are completely lacking. Is it possible that their entire race is actually lacking the same things? Mainly, a consciense, compassion, lack of empathy and an ability to feel for others in different situations? They seem to be only capable of thinking how certain situations or acts affect themselves. Re-read the early Danny chapters, and realize that she thinks mostly on how slavery affects her and how her own act of being sold is the bedrock for any decision. Her "children" are dying of hunger and selling themselves back into slavery while she sits atop a pyramid eating nice foods and banging a sell-sword, never once thinking about a solution. I recently re-read The Riftwar Saga due to lack of good releases in the fantasy genre this year and got this idea from the character of Ashen-Shugar. He comes from a race of Dragonriders that lacked a certain conscience and it led them to actually fighting the Gods, becoming a single entity called "The enemy" and trying to pretty much destroy the world. Only the fact that a human merged consciences with him stopped him from being the same as the rest of his race. I think the same could be true of the Valyrians, which is why they never had a single ruler... they were all insane in a way. I think that as a result the Targs are unfit to rule, as shown throughout their history. They are blood of the dragon and are the same as the dragons themselves. They NEED to be controlled because they can not control themselves. As a result, I think the endgame for them will be far from the Iron Throne. Here are my theories: 1- The others are pushed back beyond the wall as in the first Long Night. The Targs / dragonriders become the new Nightswatch. Sworn to protect all realms of men but never rule them. 2- The 3 heads of the dragon and the 3 bloodriders are interconnected. The next ruler has Dragonriders as bloodriders. 3- As per the original outline, they are a threat as big as the Others and need to be destroyed. 4- 7 Kingdoms ruled by 3 different Dragonriders in a sort of Trinity or a return of the Freehold.
  12. The Reynes of Castamere, the Brackens fighting the Blackwoods, Lord Eustace versus the Red Widow, rebellions on Skagos each have a purpose. To show that power is not centralized and that the Iron Throne is really a soft power seat of prestige like a Pope or weak Holy Roman Emperor. The Lords play their games while the Iron Throne watches on. Each region has pretty much remained the same, laws, rulers, culture and blood feuds included. Westeros has only been ''United'' once for the war of the Ninepenny Kings. Whenever an actual threat has arisen, either from within with the first civil wars or from without when the Golden Company attacked, the 7 Kingdoms were not united and each Lord chose a side. Let's take a character from a story that GRRM took a lot from: Rand from Wheel of Time. He conquered the Aiel, a warrior like society which the wildlings seem very strongly based on. He ended all the Blood Feuds and had mortal enemies speak and drink/eat together, forced them to do so. We do not hear of Aegon doing this, or any other Targ. instead, the Marcher Lords from each region still continue to hate and fight the other Marcher Lords. Historic enemies are still enemies.
  13. Danny is already too strongly based off Rand. The differences that set them apart are also the clear reasons for Danny NOT being any sort of hero. If she ends up being a ''Savior'' or ''Uniter'' than not only is ASOIAF now based TOO strongly off of WoT, but the writing around Danny will actually be horrendous. There is no ''Main Hero'' in this story. That is part of the author's point and style here and he has said it very often. That she would go from one of the biggest threats in the original outline to a Rand type savior, after a few books of being described a certain way, would destroy the series entirely. Both in its structure as well as its theme.
  14. I do not think they were taken by surprise. More like, they thought they could actually fight dragons. I mean, the Longbow seems to be used in every region of the 7 Kingdoms? They most likely thought that with several thousand Longbows, they could deal with the dragon while their superior numbers of Infantry / Cavalry ended the battles. Also, they were living on DS peaceful for many years and had no cause to invade, why would they?
  15. Is the community here so in love with Danny that the wrecking ball of Slaver's Bay is not even mentionned? Like, this old lady who was about to get raped after we enslaved and slaughtered her people should heal my husband. This other old lady very reminiscent of the first and enmeshed in the society I destroyed is most likely very trustworthy too right? Like, she can't be part of the harpy consipirators, she's so nice! Cersei's and Danny's thought process is so similar as to be comical, no? Get out of her POV when you read it and try and see her actions and thought process in the reality she is living. Oh, she is beautiful, has dragons, is conniving, burns people and I love her for all that, but she is a DUMBASS.