• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About CrypticWeirwood

  • Rank
    The Wizard in the Tree

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,126 profile views
  1. While the Brandon Stark of the series' opening scene (and also of the book's) might conceivably somehow turn out to have some time-warping connection with the legendary Bran the Builder who in aeons past created the Wall, Winterfell, and Storm's End using powerful magic noöne today understands, it is not possible for our own young Bran to somehow "be" the Night King. Here's why: The show's writers specifically created this "Night King" as a standard plot device. They wanted a singular, identifiable antagonist to counterbalance the shows protagonists, someone for folks both in-universe and out-universe to focus on. This is a typical Hollywood-style motif used to create "dramatic tension" and payback when at last and at "great cost", "our heroes" finally defeat this supervillain-like opponent. Being a show-only invention, there's no way that what Martin had planned for Bran can possibly be this. And while the showrunners' adaptation can and has changed things and even created their own elements, everyone with the most intimate understanding of how it all fits together has repeatedly explained that the show will "get to the same place" as the books, just along its own paths. So for example that means that if in the books, Jaime Lannister isn't really the secret love-child of Ned Stark and Ashara Dayne who's destined to be the One True Hero who saves the world by wielding Dawn in his restored right hand and afterwards takes both of his secret half-sisters Arya and Sansa to wife so that the three of them can rule over a reunited Seven Kingdoms just like Aegon (=Jaime) and Visenya (=Arya) and Rhaenys (=Sansa) did the first time around, you can be plenty sure that in the show that isn't going to happen, either. And why not, you ask? Because it isn't getting to the same place via a different paths; instead it's gone haring off like a Mad Hatter pursing some crackpot fan fiction that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things, that violates all the foreshadowing carefully laid out by both book and show alike. Because the show's "Night King" character is only a facile Hollywood plot device and not something from Martin's own universe or design, there's no way that Bran's ultimate purpose in is to become the immortal incarnation of pure evil from ten thousand years ago. Just because you get a simplified Hollywood spin on things, doesn't mean you should also expect some corny comic book's spin on them that would break everything Martin set off to do in the big picture. Not going to happen.
  2. Guess that leaves Tyrion after Jon legitimizes him once he hears the real story from Bran. :=}
  3. Maybe they did it because....... wait for it.... Martin did it. People never think of that.
  4. "No evidence in the show"? Consider Tywin's dressing-down of Tyrion in the third season: he said he can't prove that Tyrion is not his son, but he would never let him inherit Casterly Rock. Later Tywin answered Tyrion's question about when Tywin had ever done anything for the family instead of for himself, Tywin told him on the day that he was born, when he stayed his hand from murder and brought Tyrion up "as his own son" out of his love for Joanna. Why was Tyrion the first man of Westeros whom Drogon revealed himself to, back on the Rhoyne? Why did the red priestess in Mereen suddenly turn to peer so intently at little hooded Tyrion when he sarcastically tell told Varys that they'd come to meet the "saviour" the red priestess had just mentioned? Why didn't the dragons eat him? How could his talking to them calm them? Was it because he told them of his childhood dream of having a dragon of his own? Why did he want that? Why did they care? There's plenty of foreshadowing in the show. Some people can waste twenty years denying the staggering evidence that Jon is Rhaegar's son by Lyanna. Some people can spend just a few seasons. But it's all the same: it doesn't matter what they want. Martin's interlocking game is something he's planned forever, and the show has been showing all the same clues, rather heavy handedly to be perfectly honest, leading to how the three-headed dragon reborn has been there all along. You'll see. It isn't worth arguing about, or ranting about, or pretending isn't there. You'll see.
  5. You've fallen into the author's trap: there can be no legitimate reason for how badly Tywin treated Tyrion. It does not matter that, or even whether, Aerys cuckolded Tywin. To hold a child to account for the acts of his parents from before his own birth is a gross injustice, an inhuman crime. It is part of Martin's brutal lessons about how terrible people can be to each other. The child is innocent. Always. When a new lion king takes over a pride previously held by another, he will often enough track down all the cubs his lionesses had given their previous king and kill them. And woe unto the lesser lion who tries to cuckold the king in secret. But men are not lions, women are not lionesses, and Man is not a pride. We're better than that. At least, we're supposed to be. That's what Martin is saying here. Tywin is a monster, no less so if he's right that Tyrion is the Mad King's son. Indeed, he is even more of a monster, for their can be no justification for his treatment of Tyrion. Tyrion is innocent of all evil here. The evil is Tywin's and Tywin's alone. We are human beings. We are not savages.
  6. We have no idea idea what the actual grounds were for for the annulment. We don't know what liberty the High Septon has in granting such, and we do not know how he was prevailed upon. It's pointless at best and highly misleading to pretend that the rules of the Roman church apply to Westeros, let alone to the Targaryens who were special in all things.
  7. Remember that Rhaegal and Viserion were all palsy-walsy with Tyrion the Dragon-Dreamer.
  8. Unlikely: I don't see Jon being that interested in Tyrion.
  9. You mean the way people were bothered by Lord Tywin's incestuous relationship with his cousin Joanna Lannister, the mother of his three children? You mean the way people were bothered by Lord Rickard's incestuous relationship with his cousin Lyarra Stark, the mother of his four children? It isn't incest if it isn't illegal. Just because you're related to someone doesn't make it incest. Everybody's related to everybody else after all. Incest is a crime. If it isn't illegal, it isn't incest -- by definition.
  10. Dany can't marry anybody: she's not a septon!
  11. Bran is the source of a lot of the old, old prophesies. He time-travelled (if you really must call it that) and implanted in people's minds once he's seen what actually happened. His past is their future.
  12. The triplicated parallels between Dany and Jon and Tyrion are incredibly strong: All three have touched a dragon and lived, but no one else has. All three are orphaned third children of their mothers. All three lost their mothers who died giving birth to them. All three lost their "official" fathers to surprise violence of vile betrayal. All three were social outcasts: bastard, dwarf, and exiled daughter. (Cue the "Bastards, cripples, and broken things shall inherit the earth" theme.) All three lost their loves, who died in their own arms: Khal Drogo, Ygritte, Shae All three represent distinct nationalities/races via their mothers: Valyrian, First Men, Andal There’s plenty more where those came from. The story beats are all there laid out for anyone to see, and have been with us since the very beginning. At this point for Tyrion not to be the “third head of the Dragon” — by which I specifically mean the fallen House Targaryen restored to the greatness of Aegon the Conqueror himself — would betray way more than just five thousand pages of narrative over twenty years in the making. It's not going to happen. Martin is not a hack, and he's planned this all along. He's said he isn't going to — can't — change the major plot oueces that he's sown the seeds of throughout the narrative. It all fits into his grand interlocking puzzle; you can't break all that now at the end when he's spent so long carefully laying its pieces to mutually reinforce each other.
  13. Oh, I imagine they will. It's hardly unheard of historically for a king to get his marriage annulled if his wife went barren, as Elia did. People forget how much Martin likes to pluck things out of the history books. It doesn't matter whether it's there for any maester to see; there was to have been no issue from that union at least as far as they were aware of, so it didn't matter at all.