Heresy 185

[Melifeather]

Since you brought up the timeline, and are vaguely familiar with my wheel of time and open hinge theory, have you noticed that the wheel of time seems to be currently running in reverse?

There were four major invaders: First Men, Andals, Rhoynar, and Targaryen. The current plot has Dany as the Mother of Dragons, and I believe she's actually serving as the starting point for dragons, which implies that the Targaryens or Valyrians got their dragons from Asshai. 

Euron Greyjoy is currently on his way to get Dany's dragons, but ultimately he will fail, because the wheel is going in reverse. Aegon succeeded in invading Westeros, so Euron will fail.

The Rhoynar: Nymeriamarried a Martell, and successfully united Dorne under one Prince and Princess. The Martells are acting like Lannisters trying to place their heirs into positions of power, but since the Lannisters succeeded in achieving the throne, the Martells will fail, but not before Arianne marries Aegon (Rhaegar's son). Cersei failed to marry Rhaegar, so Arianne will succeed. We do not know yet if Cersei will succeed her father as heir, but whatever happens to her, the opposite will happen to Arianne.

The Andals: The Lannisters were successful in getting on the Iron Throne, but their reign is threatened by the Faith Militant led by the High Sparrow. I expect them to be over taken as this would fit as my prediction that the Andals also will fail, however, the Citadel and the Faith of the Seven are still "Andal", but ultimately they too will fail when the Others reach Kings Landing.

The First Men: Ultimately, the descendants of the First Men will be the last to go, as Leaf told Bran that the wolves would live longer than anyone...which means it's up to Bran to reclose the hinge and stop the wheel of time from going in reverse. If he can achieve this, then a Stark will rule as King in the North.

[TheMiddleHero]

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on the question of Jon and Sansa [or Arya - although I do think that one has gone] for I think that in terms of the expanded story and its expanded timelines we're still on track and its not something that would have happened long ago if it was going to happen.

What I do still think significant though is that what I hadn't fully realised until starting in on this particular exercise is that in terms of the principals only Jon Snow and Danaerys the Dragonlord have their character arcs laid out. There are references aplenty to some of the other characters but nothing to compare with the paragraphs on Jon and Dany which strongly suggests that GRRM had a good idea of where he wanted to go with them, but less so with the others.

Sansa wasn't in the original outline, and a great deal of others as well.. Eddard himself wasn't, who we were led to believe would be our righteous hero in the beginning. He has obviously delegated certain aspects onto other characters. I can see some of Sandor's story line intended for the Bastard of Winterfell originally. Intending Jon in the beginning to be a more violently moody person, rather than the brooding teenager he was. (ETA- Also may be why both characters get a Cu Chulainn vibe from many readers.)

 

Though as far as the non incest thing, we have at best first cousins with many of the possibilities. Not looking all that promising on that front.

[Black Crow]

41 minutes ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Sansa wasn't in the original outline, and a great deal of others as well.. Eddard himself wasn't, who we were led to believe would be our righteous hero in the beginning. He has obviously delegated certain aspects onto other characters. I can see some of Sandor's story line intended for the Bastard of Winterfell originally. Intending Jon in the beginning to be a more violently moody person, rather than the brooding teenager he was. (ETA- Also may be why both characters get a Cu Chulainn vibe from many readers.)

 

Though as far as the non incest thing, we have at best first cousins with many of the possibilities. Not looking all that promising on that front.

Excuse my puzzlement but both Lord Eddard and Sansa are indeed in the outline, per the text attached to the OP - as is the former's demise.

I agree of course that some of the characters are being switched around for various reasons, hence the discussion as to whether Sansa might replace Arya in forming an attachment to Jon. This is why I'm keen to look at those characters, if necessary stripping out the names and looking at how far the synopsis is still being followed in one form or another.

Sansa herself appears all to typical in that we find her in both synopsis and book having to make the choice between Stark and Lannister [or Baratheon if you must] and making the wrong choice with disastrous results, but beyond that we don't get much information on outcomes

[Matthew.]

Even if Jon is to suddenly discover that Sansa and Arya are technically his cousins, as a matter of their actual relationship dynamics, they're his little sisters. That's their context, and that's our context, so I don't know why GRRM would be dead-set on following through on a relationship that seems totally inconsistent with 4/5 books worth of story that Jon and Sansa actually have, especially when it is, from a reader perspective... gross? The setup - Jon and Arya/Sansa's tortured relationship - isn't there, so why should the payoff be there?

We need only look at that 1993 letter to know that GRRM does not feel obligated to write the relationships that he'd originally planned. His original plan was that Dany would get revenge on Drogo for murdering Viserys; instead, she came to love Drogo deeply. Similarly, I'd say Tyrion's place in the love triangle is entirely out the window.

If we were to attempt to use the letter to predict character journeys, we would be almost entirely incorrect for Bran, Arya, Tyrion, Catelyn, and Sansa and there'd be things significantly wrong with our predictions for Dany's journey. Also notably absent is the whole "Jon is gonna die" thing. That's before we even get into all of the POVs whose journeys we couldn't predict because they don't even exist in the original outline.

Even our attempts to predict the broad strokes of the story would be inaccurate. The War of the Five Kings isn't "about" the bitter rivalry between House Stark and House Lannister, and that's for reasons beyond the number of claimants to the throne. From the Lannister perspective, there is no longstanding rivalry; Tyrion doesn't hate the Starks, Tywin is frustrated that Joffrey has ruined his opportunity to make peace with the Starks, Cersei is reacting to threats, and Jaime is doing his duty as a KG. The hostility is coming largely from Lord Eddard, which Littlefinger masterfully exploits.

Thus, our first arc is already different, the second arc - which was originally to be Dany's invasion - has transformed into something else entirely, and the final arc has no specific details, save what we could have guessed from the very beginning of aGoT: eventually, the Others are coming.

As an ASOIAF fan, the 1993 letter is fascinating, but it's definitely not a useful predictive tool.

[Matthew.]

I suppose, if we had access to the redacted portions of the letter, we would have better fodder for speculation. As it stands, most of what's present covers only the first third of everyone's character journey, save for the note that Jon will eventually learn his true lineage.

[Black Crow]

1 minute ago, Matthew. said:

Even our attempts to predict the broad strokes of the story would be inaccurate. The War of the Five Kings isn't "about" the bitter rivalry between House Stark and House Lannister, and that's for reasons beyond the number of claimants to the throne. From the Lannister perspective, there is no longstanding rivalry; Tyrion doesn't hate the Starks, Tywin is frustrated that Joffrey has ruined his opportunity to make peace with the Starks, Cersei is reacting to threats, and Jaime is doing his duty as a KG. The hostility is coming largely from Lord Eddard, which Littlefinger masterfully exploits.
 

Depends a bit on the perspective. The Starks aren't mere innocent bystanders in the war of the Baratheon Succession; yes its far wider than a deadly rivalry between Stark and Lannister, but its that rivalry which sees the Starks scattered and slain. The fall of House Stark is a very direct result of that rivalry - just as Catelyn warned.

As to lack of any mention that Jon is gonna die, we were certainly warned of Robb's demise, but in Jon's case death may not be as fatal as once it was.

As to Tyrion, yes, GRRM has written a different character, but that's also why I'm interested in trying to figure out who those character arcs have switched to.

[Black Crow]

2 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

I suppose, if we had access to the redacted portions of the letter, we would have better fodder for speculation. As it stands, most of what's present covers only the first third of everyone's character journey, save for the note that Jon will eventually learn his true lineage.

As I read it, the redacted passage probably relates to the coming of Danaerys the Dragonlord and shifts of allegiance to "accomodate" her.

In broader terms due allowance also has to be made for the bloating of the story, which is why I referred earlier to the timelines - not the historical ones but the internal ones in the synopsis - and how the burning of Winterfell and its consequences are only now coming into play.

I should stress by the way that while there is obviously a strong element of speculative prediction inherent in this exercise, that isn't its sole purpose and I'm just as interested in tracking the changes and why they have been made.

But with that, its my bed-time and I'll wish you all a good night. 

[Matthew.]

In some instances, the changes seem to be a result of GRRM coming up with better ideas along the way. Robb, for example, is originally planned to have a heroic (and cliché) death on the battlefield, but not before delivering a maiming blow to the vile King Joffrey. What GRRM wrote instead is more interesting, which seems to be a significant part of why so many other things have changed: along the way, the political story that developed was more interesting than the one he'd originally envisioned, to the point that it begins to consume more than just the first arc of the overall story.

You can also read old SSMs and see how other changes developed in response to his own poor pacing of the story. Originally, periods of weeks - or even months - were meant to pass between chapters, so that the characters would age up at a brisk pace. That didn't work. To solve that problem, he introduces the five year gap, which also doesn't work. If I had to take a guess, a significant amount of what has become the Bran, Dany, and Arya plotlines is a direct consequence of the story not moving along at the pace he anticipated.

Unfortunately, all of this makes tracking what has changed and why fairly difficult; there's one particular interview GRRM has with David Shuster where he even says he "leaves things open" so he can change a few things when he gets to the last book, if he comes up with any new twists or ideas that he likes better than what he had planned.

IMO, quite a few of those plotlines aren't just shifted, they're gone entirely. Others, like Bran exploring magic for its own sake, are just now beginning in earnest.

[Matthew.]

An additional thought:

The letter also gives us insight into just how badly Dany's story has been thrown off by the story growing in the telling. In GRRM's original plan, Dany was meant to unite the Dothraki by the end of aGoT. However, because Dany's invasion would represent a rather abrupt end to the (more interesting, IMHO) political intrigue in Westeros, and her dragons are too small, she has been thrust into a perpetual limbo of filler plot. First Qarth, then the Slaver's Bay quagmire.

As noted above, I suspect something similar happened with Bran. The political story grew into something much larger, it was too soon for Bran to begin having weirwood visions and exploring his magic, so what we get is an entire book of Bran moving from Point A to Point B.

Arya, on the other hand, seems to be a more interesting case. You could almost argue that her path, as planned in the 1993 letter, could have still been in play at the end of aGoT. She'd been training with Syrio, and she's been grabbed by Yoren, so GRRM might have actually intended for her to go to the Wall at that point and be a warrior, and the whole Faceless Men thing is something that developed while he was writing aCoK.

[Jairion Lannister]

6 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

An additional thought:

The letter also gives us insight into just how badly Dany's story has been thrown off by the story growing in the telling. In GRRM's original plan, Dany was meant to unite the Dothraki by the end of aGoT. However, because Dany's invasion would represent a rather abrupt end to the (more interesting, IMHO) political intrigue in Westeros, and her dragons are too small, she has been thrust into a perpetual limbo of filler plot. First Qarth, then the Slaver's Bay quagmire.

As noted above, I suspect something similar happened with Bran. The political story grew into something much larger, it was too soon for Bran to begin having weirwood visions and exploring his magic, so what we get is an entire book of Bran moving from Point A to Point B.

Arya, on the other hand, seems to be a more interesting case. You could almost argue that her path, as planned in the 1993 letter, could have still been in play at the end of aGoT. She'd been training with Syrio, and she's been grabbed by Yoren, so GRRM might have actually intended for her to go to the Wall at that point and be a warrior, and the whole Faceless Men thing is something that developed while he was writing aCoK.

I think the problem with Daenerys' story in general is that we've kind of always known she'd eventually unite the Dothraki, and head to Westeros. It was always unlikely she'd simply stagnate in the East, which is why her Slavers Bay adventures have partly felt like filler designed to increase her power. Even when she does fail, we know she'll pick up again since the story kind of demands it.

Agreed on Bran. Probably makes sense that he's not had too many chapters instead of forcing filler onto him, and I think now he's at the cave, his arc will pick up and he'll become as important to the story as the likes of Jon/Tyrion.

[Lord Pumpkin]

Just remembered, Sansa is married to Tyrion. Add Jon and there's your triangle. Sort of like.

I'm on-board that Jon isn't Ned's son, for now. Honestly though, on first time read through I was thinking Ashara Dayne by Eddard Stark was Jon's Ma. But it's OK, we'll be knowing soon enough. 

For the record, as I can see this discussion coming up, I don't believe first cousins to be incest. In saying that, in my family, we don't marry close cousins. So if Jon wants to marry his cousin Sansa, so long as he is released from his NW vows, The House of Pumpkin send their blessings.

[House Cambodia]

1 hour ago, Jairion Lannister said:

I think the problem with Daenerys' story in general is that we've kind of always known she'd eventually unite the Dothraki, and head to Westeros. It was always unlikely she'd simply stagnate in the East, which is why her Slavers Bay adventures have partly felt like filler designed to increase her power. Even when she does fail, we know she'll pick up again since the story kind of demands it.

I certainly don't see filler and stagnation there. I see a dramatic character development. She starts of with anti-slavery zeal, a young mother loving her children, we see how those ideals are thwarted and how she gradually comes to realise who she truly is, a murderous, megalomaniac anti-christ figure, sister of her brother Viserys and daughter of her father Aerys. It's been quite a journey!

[wolfmaid7]

21 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Not convinced on Val at all these days. As written in the synopsis the relationship with one of his sisters appears to be a strong element in his arc especially when linked to the revelation of his true identity. Whilst we're certainly set up for Arya at the beginning "George doesn't do obvious" I think that there's a realisation that the gap in age and story arc is too great. Substituting Sansa makes a lot of sense both in the closing of the gap and the reconciling of childhood differences.

I do agree though that Arya will return, wearing Dareon's boots, if not his face, but see that as part of the re-uniting of the children of Winterfell rather than anything more intense.

Val is the only female built up this way naturally,though Mel seemed she wanted to "force" the issue at one point in time. We have yet to see this element even take a turn in that direction with Jon and any of his sisters.With two books left i don't know if this is something to be developed enough for there to be an actuall relationship for Jon and any of his sisters.As i said to me anyway the only way i see this happening is with Arya, and as an accident of some sought where there is lack of recognition between them and that's if she develops as a Faceless man and is really far gone not to care.That is a longshot and a crackpot but as it is in the series now i don't even see this heading of in that direction.

It therefore,could be one of the things he has changed.Bran and Jon on opposite side,that element is still in play though.

 

11 hours ago, Matthew. said:

With five (well, four) books worth of character arc to draw upon, I think we can pretty confidently state that a relationship with his sisters is not a strong element of his character journey as written. What GRRM originally proposed was growing complications from a love triangle with Tyrion, and that Arya would be present at the Wall as early as aGoT, an entire social dynamic that no longer exists.

As a practical matter, GRRM has two books left to have Jon come back, to resolve whatever his plotline is going to be in the North and with the Others, to resolve Sansa's plotline in the Vale, and then have Sansa and Jon begin interacting in a way that blossoms into romance; not impossible, but to be frank, it doesn't feel organic to the story we're being told.

Though, that said, there are people who have been proposing that Sansa would end up with Jon (and since ADWD, Aegon VI) for years, based on supposed foreshadowing from the D&E novels where Lady Ashford is defended by a sequence of champions that matches Sansa's proposed betrothals: Baratheon > Tyrell > Lannister > Hardyng > Targaryen.
____

I'm still with Armstark though, I think the story we're getting is not just different in terms of various character journeys, but even different in the underlying arcs. The War of the Five Kings is different than the war GRRM originally planned; not just in scope, but in that the conflict itself was masterminded by Littlefinger, a major antagonist that is absent from the 1993 letter. While the letter itself is recognizably a description of the story that would eventually become aGoT, I think it has little guidance to offer in terms of where the story is heading.

I agree with this...It is easy to see what elements of the existing story being still in play but i think there's also some aspects of it that we can be sure GRRM did away with.

[Arry'sFleas]

Perhaps Jon's relationship torment with Arya was replaced by his torment over Ygritte? after all he spent a few chapters humming and arring about the rights or wrongs of it, duty vs oath, eventually succumbing and finally killing her in his nightmares ('it was always his arrow').

By the time he gets to join Sansa - in the books - he may no longer need to torment himself about having a relationship with her.

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

I certainly don't see filler and stagnation there. I see a dramatic character development. She starts of with anti-slavery zeal, a young mother loving her children, we see how those ideals are thwarted and how she gradually comes to realise who she truly is, a murderous, megalomaniac anti-christ figure, sister of her brother Viserys and daughter of her father Aerys. It's been quite a journey!

I'm inclined to agree to an extent, the reservation being whether Danaerys is truly cognisant of it. GRRM in a different context pointed out that "history's greatest villains and monsters were, from their own perspective, heroic, etc." I have a strong suspicion that the vision of a copper-haired youth standing before a burning city may not have been Danaerys' lost son Rhaego but herself and that she is going to unleash the Dothraki on Westeros because she is Danaerys the Dragonlord.

[Black Crow]

4 hours ago, Lord Pumpkin said:

Just remembered, Sansa is married to Tyrion. Add Jon and there's your triangle. Sort of like.

I'm on-board that Jon isn't Ned's son, for now. Honestly though, on first time read through I was thinking Ashara Dayne by Eddard Stark was Jon's Ma. But it's OK, we'll be knowing soon enough. 

For the record, as I can see this discussion coming up, I don't believe first cousins to be incest. In saying that, in my family, we don't marry close cousins. So if Jon wants to marry his cousin Sansa, so long as he is released from his NW vows, The House of Pumpkin send their blessings.

Good point on the Sansa marriage

There's already been a lot of [...eeuw] discussion of this over on the mummers' side of the forum, but the point at issue here is that whether or not this element of the synopsis actually comes into play, GRRM was prepared to enter into it thus:

Jon + sister  : attraction not good

revelation that Jon is not brother : attraction good

 

[House Cambodia]

9 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

I'm inclined to agree to an extent, the reservation being whether Danaerys is truly cognisant of it. GRRM in a different context pointed out that "history's greatest villains and monsters were, from their own perspective, heroic, etc."

Oh absolutely. That's one of those things the TV show can't do justice to. I expect to see in TWOW Dany's POV chapters fully justifying her courses of action, but we as readers will have to engage our critical 'Wait, what??' faculties!

[Black Crow]

5 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

Oh absolutely. That's one of those things the TV show can't do justice to. I expect to see in TWOW Dany's POV chapters fully justifying her courses of action, but we as readers will have to engage our critical 'Wait, what??' faculties!

Indeed, and as we used to say back in the day, its a question of mind over matter; I don't mind and you don't matter. Whatever the righteousness [or otherwise] of Danaerys the Dragonlord's claim to the Iron Throne at what point is she justified in bringing order to the kingdoms by unleashing the largest Dothraki khalasar ever assembled. Or to quote Tacitus "they create a desert and call it peace".

[TheMiddleHero]

15 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Excuse my puzzlement but both Lord Eddard and Sansa are indeed in the outline, per the text attached to the OP - as is the former's demise.

I agree of course that some of the characters are being switched around for various reasons, hence the discussion as to whether Sansa might replace Arya in forming an attachment to Jon. This is why I'm keen to look at those characters, if necessary stripping out the names and looking at how far the synopsis is still being followed in one form or another.

Sansa herself appears all to typical in that we find her in both synopsis and book having to make the choice between Stark and Lannister [or Baratheon if you must] and making the wrong choice with disastrous results, but beyond that we don't get much information on outcomes

 

My apologies. Didn't check, was remembering off the top of my head. Should have just checked up the thread, really bad examples. More just pointing out there are facets of certain main characters that have been distributed to others as it has grown in scope.

[Black Crow]

40 minutes ago, TheMiddleHero said:

 

My apologies. Didn't check, was remembering off the top of my head. Should have just checked up the thread, really bad examples. More just pointing out there are facets of certain main characters that have been distributed to others as it has grown in scope.

Not a problem  but that's the very point I'm making. The story GRRM wanted to tell back in 1993 is still in there but in order that the story is told he's found it necessary in the writing of it to attribute some aspects to different characters and sometimes to entirely new characters - rather as the mummers do.