Lord Friendzone

Speculations, news, theories for season 7. (includes leaks )

2,777 posts in this topic

27 minutes ago, Lady Ren said:

@Cas Stark I have to echo you. Having a claim is nothing unless you lay claim to what you claim is yours.

Also if Jon is considered a "righful" ruler based on his Targ heritage then Dany has right too. Law of succession places him first, but that didn't stop Renly (or Joffrey for that matter) when it came to Stannis' rightful claim.

Its all moot. Everyone has some right or claim, its whoever is most popular and bloodthirsty that will win. 

Stannis, Joffrey, Renly, all had heritage based on Baretheon bloodlines, not Targareyn. Even Jon does not initially kneel before Dany (proof he doesn't see her as legitimate heir to the throne) when he first encounters her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Short Claw said:

As for history that would apply specifically to this scenario, it is you that needs to do a brush up on history.

The claim of Prince Maegor), firstborn son of the deceased Crown Prince Aerion, was denied by a Great Council despite his right as firstborn son of the firstborn son of the King – why? His madness. ‘fears that the boy might have inherited his father’s cruelty and madness.’ (TWOIAF, p. 181)

 King Aerys II, known as the ‘Mad King’, unseated the Targaryen Dynasty as a result of his madness.

 

By the Great Council’s precedent of denying primogeniture on the basis of inherited insanity, all of King Aerys II’s descendants are ineligible to rule, disqualifying claims from Jon Snow, [Daenerys] Stormborn, and Aegon VI (book only).

 

Firstly, Maegor was Aerion's son. Jon and Aegon are Aerys' grandchildren (well, supposedly in Aegon's case), and no one thought that Rhaegar was mad. In fact, since Rhaegar lacked Aerys' madness, it stands to reason that no Great Council would think that Jon or Aegon was at risk. But I'll handwave that for the sake of argument.

Maegor's claim was voidable because of the madness of his father in the eyes of the Great Council, and so it was voided, but until the point they made that decision, his potential claim was valid. It was not voided until the Great Council made that decision.

We don't know that Great Councils consider themselves bound by precedent. Even if they do, it's questionable how much of a precedent the case of Maegor sets, since in every instance the potential insanity of the heir would have to be examined on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket disqualification.

Even assuming as you suggest that there is a precedent of denying a claim on the basis of inherited insanity and that that precedent would be applied, that wouldn't happen automatically to result in a preemptive disqualification of all of a madman's heirs. That determination would  need to be made by the body with the authority to make that decision, as in the instance of a Great Council. Until and unless the Great Council goes through the exercise of ruling out Jon, Dany, and Aegon on the basis of insanity, all otherwise valid claims are presumptively valid. The disqualification of Maegor on the basis of insanity only opens the door for other heirs to be disqualified; it doesn't automatically disqualify them.

There's no Great Council regarding King Aerys II's descendants, so as far as the law is concerned, while madness may be a basis to void one's claim, until a body with the authority to do so can make the determination that the claim should be voided, the claim is presumptively valid, as it was with Maegor. Jon, Dany, and Aegon's claims aren't disqualified from the get-go. They're valid until a Great Council makes that determination. No Great Council has been assembled to decide such matters, so Jon, Dany and Aegon's claims, whatever they may be, are presumptively valid.

The big thing to me is that Maegor was an infant when his fitness as an heir was assessed. They had no idea how he was going to turn out. Jon, Dany and Aegon are much older, and presumably any Great Council would be much more hesitant to issue a blanket disqualification on the basis of parentage, as they could get a much better sense of the capacity for madness of the three. 

Edited by Newstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Newstar said:

Firstly, Maegor was Aerion's son. Jon and Aegon are Aerys' grandchildren (well, supposedly in Aegon's case), and no one thought that Rhaegar was mad. In fact, since Rhaegar lacked Aerys' madness, it stands to reason that no Great Council would think that Jon or Aegon was at risk. But I'll handwave that for the sake of argument.

Maegor's claim was voidable because of the madness of his father in the eyes of the Great Council, and so it was voided, but until the point they made that decision, his potential claim was valid. It was not voided until the Great Council made that decision.

We don't know that Great Councils consider themselves bound by precedent. Even if they do, it's questionable how much of a precedent the case of Maegor sets, since in every instance the potential insanity of the heir would have to be examined on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket disqualification.

Even assuming as you suggest that there is a precedent of denying a claim on the basis of inherited insanity and that that precedent would be applied, that wouldn't happen automatically to result in a preemptive disqualification of all of a madman's heirs. That determination would  need to be made by the body with the authority to make that decision, as in the instance of a Great Council. Until and unless the Great Council goes through the exercise of ruling out Jon, Dany, and Aegon on the basis of insanity, all otherwise valid claims are presumptively valid. The disqualification of Maegor on the basis of insanity only opens the door for other heirs to be disqualified; it doesn't automatically disqualify them.

There's no Great Council regarding King Aerys II's descendants, so as far as the law is concerned, while madness may be a basis to void one's claim, until a body with the authority to do so can make the determination that the claim should be voided, the claim is presumptively valid, as it was with Maegor. Jon, Dany, and Aegon's claims aren't disqualified from the get-go. They're valid until a Great Council makes that determination. No Great Council has been assembled to decide such matters, so Jon, Dany and Aegon's claims, whatever they may be, are presumptively valid.

The big thing to me is that Maegor was an infant when his fitness as an heir was assessed. They had no idea how he was going to turn out. Jon, Dany and Aegon are much older, and presumably any Great Council would be much more hesitant to issue a blanket disqualification on the basis of parentage, as they could get a much better sense of the capacity for madness of the three. 

Your reasoning in part contradicts itself. While I agree that the great council may not adhere to the precedent that was set, indeed, one WAS set. As you yourself stated, there is no way Maegor could have been determined to be mad, as he was only an infant at the time. The fact that Jon and Dany appear to be sane ( I will leave out Aegon at this time) is mute, because the onset of madness can happen, and most often does, later in life, so the fact Jon and Dany are not mad at the moment, does not disqualify them from becoming mad in the future (although Jon would have a lesser chance of inheriting this). Dany on the other hand, was not only an offspring of two targs, but the offspring off in incestuous marriage as well.  

Bear in mind we are talking about matters of legitimacy, and if you think the Great Council, would take these things into account in making such a determination, your fooling yourself. 

Now of course, if Dany take the throne by conquest, it's all a mute point anyway. 

Heres the rub, and it all depends on your expectations of how the end game plays out. We know, or at least we think we do, that Cersei will be killed, Dany's conquest will be interrupted when you joins with Jon to fight the WW's. Unless we are to expect that after the battle with the WW's she will once again continue her conquest, you very well could have several people with claims to the throne, and in those circumstances a great council would be convened, 

Jon himself has several other problems to contend with should he want (although I doubt he would) the throne. He is a bastard, and he has pledged himself to the nights watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the precedent was followed, Rhaegar would have been disinherited as soon as Aerys' madness began to take over. Just because it happened once, doesn't mean it will happen every subsequent time. There might have been other reasons they didn't want Aerion's line to inherit, e.g. he was a total douche, but madness was the main reason. Whereas Aerys was quite popular before he went mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lady Ren said:

What if dany actually does get the thrown? 

Im starting to think she might. At the cost of her dragons and most of her people, but i think its possible. 

Dany dying in childbirth is not fitting. Thats usually something that happens so other things can happen, not as a conclusion to a major character arc. I dont particularly like her, but her dying while giving birth to his baby is pointless.

Jon and Dany's child being the "union of ice and fire" or the "peacemaker" etc is repetitive. Jon is already those things  

Nor am I a fan of her being his nissa. Jon is more likely to tell the lord of light to fuck off than kill someone for him. Especially after shireen. 

I dont know a lot about fAegon, but what if in the show Jon takes some of his stuff? 

I don't think so, since D&D called Jon and Dany in EW cover Ice and Fire=son or daughter from it would be union of Ice and Fire at least to them. Their opinion matter the most.

16 hours ago, Newstar said:

Jon and Dany marrying and having a child would put an end to the squabbling over the throne once and for all by uniting in marriage the only potential rivals for the throne with any sort of claim (assuming the news about Jon being the legitimate heir gets out, which I assume it will).

I wrote in another thread. Then why having a child in the first place, if there is a marriage them rulling? Isn't it too much?

Quote

A Jon/Dany marriage would also mirror the ending of the historical War of the Roses which inspired GRRM, with Dany as the Henry Tudor (conqueror who raised armies while in exile abroad, touted as a mythical hero to boost popularity) and Jon as the Elizabeth of York (person with a legitimate claim to the throne married to solidify the ruler's claim), although in ASOIAF their union may have a more romantic gloss if the Season 7 leaks are any indication.

Usually romantic angle followed by sudden deaths as we've seen before. Thanks George.

If Aegon=Henry he shares some paralles but I think we can't really place them like equivalent Jon with Elizabeth or even Sansa, Dany, Hnery or Aegon. George took insirations also rom other eras and character within the same era of WoR. But if Jon is Aegon=who resemble Henry Tudor(Jon itself does in some details) ... then that theory of Jon marrying Sansa is weirdly hanging there. One of the reasons besides Rhaegar already having son namd Aegon for me to not like it. Aemon or Jaehaerys would be better and more unique since show skipped part of Targaryen family tree. 

Quote

And yeah, GRRM isn't duty-bound to reproduce the ending of the War of the Roses, but he did do something similar in using another historical conflict for the Dance of the Dragons, which seems to have been based on the Anarchy (a civil war between Matilda and Stephen) and had a similar outcome (female claimant losing the throne to her rival but winning in the long run when her son inherited the monarchy), minus the dragons of course. I believe GRRM once intended ASOIAF to be more of a straight retelling of the War of the Roses, which would further bolster the idea that there will be a Henry Tudor/Elizabeth of York-type ending.

Never had the impression George was about to simply retelling WoR. Structure of the story might have been more straighforward to a classic fantasy (there are visible elements of it still even in this story) but along the way the he changed quite a few things. Not rulling out Henry Tudor/Elizabeth of York. ending or Aragorn and Arwen but also really can't decide if it ends this way either. Just have this hunch there is a twist to this or the overall story.

Quote

Neither Arya nor Sansa work as Elizabeth of York figures--even though Sansa at least bears some resemblances to the historical Elizabeth of York (reddish hair, gentle temperament, etc.), something which can't be said for Arya--because they don't have a claim to the Iron Throne.

Sansa does like Jon and maybe arguably more but like I said, it's hard to really say Jon or Sansa=Elizabeth because it's not accurate statement. George takes inspiration from various events. Red Wedding takes from Kojiki, the Massacre of Glencoe 1691 or the Black Dinner from 1440.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Short Claw said:

Why, oh why, do people keep saying this?

Dany has no legitimate claim to the throne, the bloodlines run through the Baretheons, not the Targyrians. Dany's only claim is by conquest, not birthright.

You may argue that her conquest is justified, but as it now stands, Gendry has a better claim than both Jon and Dany. And in the end, this is who I think ends up on the Throne.

You know that Robert based his right of conquest/rulling on the terms that he has drop of Targaryen blood in him via his grandmother to give it legitimacy. Kinda hypocrisy on his part.

Of course you can have claim, much like Jon has one but again claim only go so far. If you have army that can support it, then this combined with a claim put you in best position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, GRRM is telling a romance for Sansa and Sandor in the books. And he said "there's something there" on the show, too. So Sandor is a possibility for Sansa.

Her greatest contribution to English history is her second marriage... she hooked up with a very unlikely character, her Welsh servant, a guy called Owen Tudor... He came into her service... What is certain is the two of them meet, and they produce several children, two of whom... go on to have a very important role in the War of the Roses... So this weird little line... She makes a play on her naivete... So there it is, she takes up with Owen Tudor... They are the last men standing, the Tudors.

Edited by Le Cygne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Jon and Dany don't really parallel the War of the Roses as Dany has a very strong claim to the throne, unlike Henry Tudor.  

He has said repeatedly he's not going for straight parallels with the War of the Roses.

Edited by Le Cygne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Le Cygne said:

Well, GRRM is telling a romance for Sansa and Sandor in the books. And he said "there's something there" on the show, too. So Sandor is a possibility for Sansa.

Her greatest contribution to English history is her second marriage... she hooked up with a very unlikely character, her Welsh servant, a guy called Owen Tudor... He came into her service... What is certain is the two of them meet, and they produce several children, two of whom... go on to have a very important role in the War of the Roses... So this weird little line... She makes a play on her naivete... So there it is, she takes up with Owen Tudor... They are the last men standing, the Tudors.

Oh, I like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said:

I don't think so, since D&D called Jon and Dany in EW cover Ice and Fire=son or daughter from it would be union of Ice and Fire at least to them. Their opinion matter the most.

I wrote in another thread. Then why having a child in the first place, if there is a marriage them rulling? Isn't it too much?

Too much of what? Too much happiness?

Even if everything goes swimmingly for the main five after Season 7, and they win at pretty much everything and suffer no further devastating losses, the ending will still be bittersweet. Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya and Bran have all been through terrible, terrible things: they have all lost friends and family members, they have all suffered devastating betrayals, they have all come thisclose to death (and one of them actually died), etc. etc. They're all pretty traumatized already in their own way, from Dany's visceral hatred of slavery (from having been sold into marriage) to Bran fleeing into his visions because the present sucks so much. I think that's what GRRM meant when he was explaining a bittersweet ending: although characters move on with their lives, they're never the same because of everything they've gone through.

Back in the outline, GRRM not only said that the main five would make it through the series, he also described the story as the main five "coming of age." Usually, coming of age stories don't end with the deaths of the main characters. If you pair that with 1) his insistence that he has always meant the ending to be the same and with 2) the Season 7 spoilers indicating that Jon and Dany fall in love, then Jon and Dany being endgame king and queen seems like a foregone conclusion.

 

Quote

Her greatest contribution to English history is her second marriage... she hooked up with a very unlikely character, her Welsh servant, a guy called Owen Tudor... He came into her service... What is certain is the two of them meet, and they produce several children, two of whom... go on to have a very important role in the War of the Roses... So this weird little line... She makes a play on her naivete... So there it is, she takes up with Owen Tudor... They are the last men standing, the Tudors.

I don't think so. Those events take place long before the WOTR even begin...unless you're suggesting Sansa travels back in time to give birth to Dany, LOL.

If Sansa is anyone in the WOTR, as pointed out upthread, she's Anne Neville, particularly considering the outline where Sansa was supposed to marry Joffrey:

-married off at the age of 14 to Henry VI's son and the heir to the throne, Edward of Lancaster (the "Joffrey" of the WOTR)

-married off to Richard III (Tyrion) to secure her wealth and land for House York, as she was the heiress to a vast estate (source)

Anne Neville died of consumption, but that seems like a rare affliction in Westeros, so Sansa's probably safe from that fate. There were rumours that Richard III poisoned Anne so that he could marry Elizabeth of York, though (which GRRM would likely well know), so given that Tyrion has already used poison once before, Sansa had better watch her back, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Newstar said:

Too much of what? Too much happiness?

Even if everything goes swimmingly for the main five after Season 7, and they win at pretty much everything and suffer no further devastating losses, the ending will still be bittersweet. Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya and Bran have all been through terrible, terrible things: they have all lost friends and family members, they have all suffered devastating betrayals, they have all come thisclose to death (and one of them actually died), etc. etc. They're all pretty traumatized already in their own way, from Dany's visceral hatred of slavery (from having been sold into marriage) to Bran fleeing into his visions because the present sucks so much. I think that's what GRRM meant when he was explaining a bittersweet ending: although characters move on with their lives, they're never the same because of everything they've gone through.

Back in the outline, GRRM not only said that the main five would make it through the series, he also described the story as the main five "coming of age." Usually, coming of age stories don't end with the deaths of the main characters. If you pair that with 1) his insistence that he has always meant the ending to be the same and with 2) the Season 7 spoilers indicating that Jon and Dany fall in love, then Jon and Dany being endgame king and queen seems like a foregone conclusion.

 

I don't think so. Those events take place long before the WOTR even begin...unless you're suggesting Sansa travels back in time to give birth to Dany, LOL.

If Sansa is anyone in the WOTR, as pointed out upthread, she's Anne Neville, particularly considering the outline where Sansa was supposed to marry Joffrey:

-married off at the age of 14 to Henry VI's son and the heir to the throne, Edward of Lancaster (the "Joffrey" of the WOTR)

-married off to Richard III (Tyrion) to secure her wealth and land for House York, as she was the heiress to a vast estate (source)

Anne Neville died of consumption, but that seems like a rare affliction in Westeros, so Sansa's probably safe from that fate. There were rumours that Richard III poisoned Anne so that he could marry Elizabeth of York, though (which GRRM would likely well know), so given that Tyrion has already used poison once before, Sansa had better watch her back, LOL.

I do not agree with you. If Jon and Dany sit on the throne as lovebirds ruling the country with their children around (just like Aragorn and Arwen), this is not a bitter-sweet ending. They lost their family members and friends, that is upset, sure, but they at least survived (and became more and more successful). Their family members and friends suffered and died, it is more proper to call their endings bitter, not Jon or Dany.

Do you know how many people said Dany has plot armor?

 

Edited by purple-eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

I do not agree with you. If Jon and Dany sit on the throne as lovebirds ruling the country with their children around (just like Aragorn and Arwen), this is not a bitter-sweet ending. They lost their family members and friends, that is upset, sure, but they at least survived (and became more and more successful). Their family members and friends suffered and died, it is more proper to call their endings bitter, not Jon or Dany.

I disagree. It cheapens the love Dany, Jon, Bran, Arya, etc. had for everyone and everything they've lost along the way to suggest that they'll have an unreservedly happy ending just because they achieved success and found love. That was GRRM's point about "bittersweet" endings. It's not about mass death and catastrophe, it's about the damage people suffer through loss and trauma that casts a pall over what may seem otherwise like happy endings.

Let's take Jon. Let's suppose, best case scenario, he survives Season 8 and wins the war without losing anyone else that he cares about, he accepts his parentage and legitimacy without having a mental breakdown, and he marries Dany to ascend the throne. None of that would negate everything he has already endured: almost dying on multiple occasions, actually dying the one time, losing his adoptive father, losing his first love under horrible circumstances, losing friends in wars, losing mentors, losing Robb, learning of an existential threat to Westeros, failing to avert the Hardhome massacre and almost getting killed by a WW, being betrayed and murdered by his own men, learning that there's no afterlife, executing a child, almost being crushed to death in battle, being helpless to save his brother as he's murdered before his very eyes, going on a suicide mission and getting swarmed by wights in Season 7, etc. etc. He's been through some shit. Even if Jon breaks even in Season 8 in the tragedy department, none of his previous experiences will be wiped out by a happy marriage and ascension to the throne, and his previous sufferings will temper whatever sweetness that ending would otherwise have. He'll have to carry around what happened to Ned, Ygritte, Robb and the rest of them for the rest of his life, and no happy marriage and shiny crown will eliminate that. I could do a similar list for Bran, Dany, etc., but you get the idea.

More to the point, it's questionable how happy ruling Westeros will be for Jon and Dany, given the state Westeros I expect will be in by the end of the series. It's going to be a very tough job, and I don't think Jon or Dany, who both know well how hard it is to lead, will be under any illusions that ruling Westeros will be an easy or fun task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Newstar said:

I disagree. It cheapens the love Dany, Jon, Bran, Arya, etc. had for everyone and everything they've lost along the way to suggest that they'll have an unreservedly happy ending just because they achieved success and found love. That was GRRM's point about "bittersweet" endings. It's not about mass death and catastrophe, it's about the damage people suffer through loss and trauma that casts a pall over what may seem otherwise like happy endings.

Let's take Jon. Let's suppose, best case scenario, he survives Season 8 and wins the war without losing anyone else that he cares about, he accepts his parentage and legitimacy without having a mental breakdown, and he marries Dany to ascend the throne. None of that would negate everything he has already endured: almost dying on multiple occasions, actually dying the one time, losing his adoptive father, losing his first love under horrible circumstances, losing friends in wars, losing mentors, losing Robb, learning of an existential threat to Westeros, failing to avert the Hardhome massacre and almost getting killed by a WW, being betrayed and murdered by his own men, learning that there's no afterlife, executing a child, almost being crushed to death in battle, being helpless to save his brother as he's murdered before his very eyes, going on a suicide mission and getting swarmed by wights in Season 7, etc. etc. He's been through some shit. Even if Jon breaks even in Season 8 in the tragedy department, none of his previous experiences will be wiped out by a happy marriage and ascension to the throne, and his previous sufferings will temper whatever sweetness that ending would otherwise have. He'll have to carry around what happened to Ned, Ygritte, Robb and the rest of them for the rest of his life, and no happy marriage and shiny crown will eliminate that. I could do a similar list for Bran, Dany, etc., but you get the idea.

More to the point, it's questionable how happy ruling Westeros will be for Jon and Dany, given the state Westeros I expect will be in by the end of the series. It's going to be a very tough job, and I don't think Jon or Dany, who both know well how hard it is to lead, will be under any illusions that ruling Westeros will be an easy or fun task.

you claimed that I am "cheapening the love (and suffering) Jon had", I would say you are cheapening the suffering and sacrifice of other people such as Robb, Ned, Cat, Ygritte, etc. Sure Jon has all kinds of trauma, but he is way more fortunate than many other people in this book. He survived and thrived. Those dead people lost their chances forever. 

no wonder many readers said jon is a whiny person. He is already very lucky. 

Edited by purple-eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

you claimed that I am "cheapening the love (and suffering) Jon had", I would say you are cheapening the suffering and sacrifice of other people such as Robb, Ned, Cat, Ygritte, etc. 

It seems to me that you're ignoring everything Jon and Dany have gone through to argue that if they end up in love, together and on the throne that the ending will somehow not be bittersweet. I disagree with that argument, for the reasons I have said, particularly in relation to GRRM's own explanation of what he sees as "bittersweet" (which I cited upthread).

Possible Season 7 promotional news! Apparently the Long Walk promo has been scrubbed from the GOT official FB page...maybe to make way for something else??? I still think we're a few weeks out from the official trailer, but who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just if I may interrupt on the subject of AragornArwen/Tolkien "happy endings." the only person who really got a "happy ending" IMO was Aragorn, who achieved his Quest, got the girl, had his heir with her and grew old watching him grow up and grooming him for the succession. And he died still having hope for the future: "for behold! we are not bound to the Circles of this world, for beyond them is more than memory." Everybody else suffered physically in some way and was scarred by personal loss.

 

Let's do a quick rundown of main characters and how they fared (for the generation for whom Middle-earth is still shaped by Peter Jackson's very capable but of course still far inferior hands):

 

Arwen--Jackson covers "The Tale of Aragorn And Arwen" from the Appendices very well, and apparently people have forgotten that intensely moving montage from TTT. And in fact it all plays out just as Elrond says in his monologue. The 2000-or-so yr old Arwen who is immortal meets the love of her life when he is only 20, when they are walking through the woods of Rivendell. They fall in love and it is another 67 yrs of battle-filled suspense before the unthinkable happens and they can marry. But of couse all the Elves leave ME so she is wihout her kin and alone, and she had to give up her immortality. So she and Aragorn marry and have their son,  but she has to watch him grow old and die while she remains physically the same at that point (aging very slowly)  even though she is destined to die too. The "Tale" says that as soon as he passes she turns pale and flees the room, never to be seen again. I can't remember if she flees to Rivendell or wanders ME in grief,  but in the end she goes back to a ruined and long-deserted   Rivendell, to  the spot where she and he met,  and lays herself down and dies there, "and there is her green grave, until all the world is broken and changed" etc.

NOT happy

 

(Back)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next happiest I suppose is Pippin, who suffered the least physically during the War, byt he eventually goes Over Sea after handing all his goods and inheritance to his sons. Oh yeah, he did lose Faramir, who was a close but still a *very recent* friend.

Sam: got his girl too (Rosie) had 13 kids, Mayor of the Shire 7 times, established  dynasty. But as Frodo says "You cannot always be torn in two," and the movie does a very good job of depicting The Grey Havens and hinting at his ultimate fate. The indelible image of Sam remaining on the Shore staring into the night long after the Ships were gone on the horizon is of course not in the movie though.

Of the four hobbits Merry is the most scarred after Frodo. He became the "warrior" of the four (most un-hobbitlike)  and deeply affected by Theoden's loss. He is the last of the hobbits to marry.

OK I could go down the bunch but let me finish with what George talks about over and over: The Scouring Of The Shire. We have a whole generation of kids who just don't know that the hobbits went back to the Shire to find it not a happy place where Rosie Cotton was still a barista at The Green Dragon where  the local farmers swigged ale and showed off their prize pumpkins, but an industrial hellhole complete with smog, semi-martial law and severe food rationing--compliments of Saruman and Wormtongue,  who are running the whole operation right out of Bag End itself. And the arrival of the Frodo and co gives the others the courage to affect an uprising and overthrow the tyrants. [Jaysus our situation in the U.S. right now OH GOD *cough*.] That there is an actual battle in the SHire where hobbits are killed.

And no-one is the same ever again even though all turns out right in the end. What is lost is innocence and I can't decide if Tokien regads that as a good and necessary  thing or the greatest tragedy of all.

 

Oh and I wish this conversation from Fellowship (book) could have been in the movie:

Frodo: "I wish it need not have happened in my time,"

Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But always after a defeat and a respite, evil takes another shape and grows again..."

A MUCH more complex and realistic worldview then his endless literary critics give him credit for....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I may have  misquoted a word or two Tolkien quotes. Late at night and I don't have my copy of FOTR out. But you get the gist. "Bittersweet" can mane anything in terms of the price to be paid by each character who survives. It can run the range from any kind of physical loss/scarring to mental scarring or spiritual turmoil. We just don't know at this point. In the TV version characers will suffer a lot less, even if they suffer, I think. The past 2 seasons D/D have gone too far Full Hollywood for George's ending to have the same  impact even if it des end up the same way.

D/D ending: Peter Jackson's LOTR multi-endings, with weepy Grey Havens being the centerpeice (major character deaths in Season 8)

George: much more severe, bombshell "Scouring of the Shire" type section before we get to the "Havens."

 

And oh yeah regarding the political circus that US has become. We are indeed stuck where the North is at the end of ADOD. It's surreal, when George's fantasy is no longer fantasy. Incredible the situation the last 2 weeks changing by the hour. And the best yet to come this week, from what I hear...

 I go around these days quoting my own variation of "The North Remembers" speech, ending with: "The North remembers, Ser Davos. *America* remembers, and the Traitor's farce is almost done."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.