Sanrast

Cercei was right, Tyrion was wrong.

37 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

I'm looking forward to the excitement of a big final battle, but an ending of peace isn't necessarily cheesy or inconsistent. I mean, Twilight did it? ;) And I'm sure GRRM could do it well. He's more likely to write something along the lines of a big final battle that results in a treaty. But anyway, it's important to recognise the author's own views, and GRRM is anti-war and anti-feudalism (I should hope most people are). He hammers home just how devastating war is, and how unjust feudalism is, and I consider it a major theme. The show has largely missed out on these themes, so I may be wrong, but I personally consider this a part of why the adaptation is poor. But, there are also themes of "magical" bloodlines, so I don't know. Considering the political views GRRM has expressed, I consider ASOIAF to be definitely anti-war, and possibly anti-feudalism. I'm not saying we're going to end the novels with Westeros being reformed into a parliamentary democracy with free education and a national health service, but I think it will be in part a story of a big social shift that will ultimately improve Westeros. I can see something along the lines of more rights for peasants, more freedom of marriage for nobles, gender-equal inheritance. Westeros is already pretty good compared to Medieval Europe - gender equality in Dorne, freedom of religion. Even the Andal succession laws of a daughter before an uncle; here in the 21st century UK many noble titles can only be passed to male relatives of the male line, and if the male line dies the family lose their lands and titles. The War for the Dawn will bring with it massive devastation, and big social change is to be expected. 

Twilight. Twilight? Twilight... Okay. 

I have all sorts of thoughts and I don't know how to put them into publicly presentable sentences. I don't watch walking dead, but I really hope that show will end with a treaty too, because I really want those poor zombies to change their minds about killing everybody and live in peace and prosperity. Am I reading fiction or am I reading an educational ideological agenda though? 

I know that GRRM is anti-war and anti-feudalism. Great. 99% of western society is. I mean it's 2017, we all know that feudalism wasn't just. Grrm btw also relies a lot on real life history and in real life history social shifts didn't happen overnight because people were horrified at the gruesomeness of war after a battle that destroyed everything. I could fill pages with examples of mass destruction in real life history that didn't change the structure of society. It was really only World War Two after which society changed quickly and massively but even in that case, there were so many other factors. 

And I know I will be dissected for this, but I will say it anyways. I honestly don't care if westeros gives more right to the peasants or not, or if female succession is introduced in the Reach and the Riverlands. This is a fictional story and I read/watch it for the adventures of the characters, for the medieval context (an era long gone in my real world), that's why I read a book. I don't read a fantasy novel for an ideological agenda that proves how amazing our world is compared to something 500 years ago. I went to history class. I know that. I read this kind of book because I want to step out of my reality and experience adventures in a by-gone age with interesting characters. 

Of course this is only the humble opinion of one shallow and ignorant reader. GRRM and D&D can and should do whatever want. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cersei may be responsible for a lot, but not for Myrcella's and Joffrey's death. Just my personal opinion.

The Mountain had raped and killed Oberyn's sister under Tywin's command if I remember correctly. And Oberyn wanted to fight him, and lost. 

Joffrey was murdered by the Tyrells and Baelish. The supposed "friends" of the Lannisters. Cersei may didn't like the Tyrells but she didn't hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

Twilight. Twilight? Twilight... Okay

That was a joke lol 

It's GRRM writing the story, and I'm using what I know of his political views to consider how he might conclude it. I've not read any of his other works though, so maybe that isn't his style, to finish a book that way. Perhaps somebody could shed light on that. Westerosi society fucks over a lot of people though, and yeah, none of them are actually real, but the series deals with some very complex and widespread conflicts and it's not inconceivable that some sort of significant change will be involved in the ending. With a narrative on such a massive scale you can't just end it with, "and then everyone went back to being starving peasants ruled over by patriarchal nobility for another eight thousand years." What would be the point? 

Authors love writing books that reflect their idealogical agendas, think Margaret Atwood and Philip Pullman. For many authors it's the whole point. Even in ASOIAF, GRRM supports the US admitting refugees, he portrays the refugee issue in the Wildlings, Jon reflects GRRM's own views, and you can see he approves of admitting the Wildlings. He didn't necessarily write that with real life refugees in mind, but he has a political view, and this is portrayed in the series he has written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

That was a joke lol 

It's GRRM writing the story, and I'm using what I know of his political views to consider how he might conclude it. I've not read any of his other works though, so maybe that isn't his style, to finish a book that way. Perhaps somebody could shed light on that. Westerosi society fucks over a lot of people though, and yeah, none of them are actually real, but the series deals with some very complex and widespread conflicts and it's not inconceivable that some sort of significant change will be involved in the ending. With a narrative on such a massive scale you can't just end it with, "and then everyone went back to being starving peasants ruled over by patriarchal nobility for another eight thousand years." What would be the point? 

Authors love writing books that reflect their idealogical agendas, think Margaret Atwood and Philip Pullman. For many authors it's the whole point. Even in ASOIAF, GRRM supports the US admitting refugees, he portrays the refugee issue in the Wildlings, Jon reflects GRRM's own views, and you can see he approves of admitting the Wildlings. He didn't necessarily write that with real life refugees in mind, but he has a political view, and this is portrayed in the series he has written. 

GRRM concludes the story in whatever way he sees fit. If he decides to make it a political and ideological agenda, that's his decision. I won't be happy with it, but the only person in the world who cares about that is me, so it's not like that weighs anything. yeah, society is like that. In fiction and in real life. The story isn't about the starving peasants though, is it? it's about the adventures of the noble lords and ladies of the great houses of westeros. I didn't read a chapter from Jack Sand complaining about heavy taxes and lack of rain. I read about the game of thrones and this Lord screwing over that king because this lady married that knight.  The starving peasants came up once every hundred pages for the sake of a paragraph, when the Tyrells brought them food or the Mountian burned their villages. Maybe I'm a heartless bitch but resolving the societal issues of the smallfolk is on the bottom of my priority list when it comes to the end of this story. Sure, health and happiness for the smallfolk, but their fate and hardships and place in the society was hardly a centerpiece of this story so it should hardly be the centerpiece of the resolution. We read about the game, the iron throne, the others, so tell me about the final battle, the fate of the throne, the great families, the key players. That's what I want to know. And yes, everybody puts their various views into their work, but I'm not reading this book because of GRRM's political views. Sure, include them. But it's not grrm's political agenda that I would like to see after reading 10000 pages of fantasy plot. Not that we will ever see the end of the books anyways. 

Edited by RhaenysB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a rather chain of events that lead to this. Tyrion and Cersei both have a certain amount of responsibility as some of people here adressed. This is a typical GOT or ASOIAF where neither party is right or wrong, both are right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cersei is so paranoid about everything that she was bound to be right about something eventually. In my opinion tyrion did the smart thing and the best thing for his niece. She was safe until oberyn was killed and he could not have forseen that. Also I want to point out that they needed dorne to either join them or stay out of the war. ten thousand dornish men fighting with stannis could have completly changed the battle of the blackwater. Also If your remember correctly the battle of the blackwater was so close to being lost at one point that cersei was about to poison her youngest son so that he wouldn't be taken by stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prophesy in the show was wrong from the beginning. Cersei, in the show, has 4 children, not 3 as the prophesy says. Remember the "little black haired beauty" that was her first born, the only one she had with Robert, that she speaks of in Season 1?

I'm not sure if that's going to come up in the show, or not, but I think that hints that if the prophesy otherwise comes true, it's Cersei's own doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 6:39 AM, RhaenysB said:

Twilight. Twilight? Twilight... Okay. 

I have all sorts of thoughts and I don't know how to put them into publicly presentable sentences. I don't watch walking dead, but I really hope that show will end with a treaty too, because I really want those poor zombies to change their minds about killing everybody and live in peace and prosperity. Am I reading fiction or am I reading an educational ideological agenda though? 

I know that GRRM is anti-war and anti-feudalism. Great. 99% of western society is. I mean it's 2017, we all know that feudalism wasn't just. Grrm btw also relies a lot on real life history and in real life history social shifts didn't happen overnight because people were horrified at the gruesomeness of war after a battle that destroyed everything. I could fill pages with examples of mass destruction in real life history that didn't change the structure of society. It was really only World War Two after which society changed quickly and massively but even in that case, there were so many other factors. 

And I know I will be dissected for this, but I will say it anyways. I honestly don't care if westeros gives more right to the peasants or not, or if female succession is introduced in the Reach and the Riverlands. This is a fictional story and I read/watch it for the adventures of the characters, for the medieval context (an era long gone in my real world), that's why I read a book. I don't read a fantasy novel for an ideological agenda that proves how amazing our world is compared to something 500 years ago. I went to history class. I know that. I read this kind of book because I want to step out of my reality and experience adventures in a by-gone age with interesting characters. 

Of course this is only the humble opinion of one shallow and ignorant reader. GRRM and D&D can and should do whatever want. 

 

 

In the walking dead it would be more like a peace treaty between survivors not zombies. I doubt the white walkers will go for a peace treaty. I keep thinking more and more that by the time the show ends it will have kingslanding be destroyed because cersei refuses to give up and essentially hits the self destruct button at kings landing. That will be the bitter part in my opinion. I don't think there will be a peace treaty in the show just one side is wiped out and the other ones take over.

Share this post


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

The prophesy in the show was wrong from the beginning. Cersei, in the show, has 4 children, not 3 as the prophesy says. Remember the "little black haired beauty" that was her first born, the only one she had with Robert, that she speaks of in Season 1?

I'm not sure if that's going to come up in the show, or not, but I think that hints that if the prophesy otherwise comes true, it's Cersei's own doing. 

It's a self fufillng (I know I spelled that wrong) prophecy. Cersei essentially angers and abuses tyrion until he does become her enemy. She makes enemies left and right and she essentially raised joffrey up to think that everyone who isn't a lannister is an enemy. She helped turn him into a twisted human being which led to his death because the queen of thornes was not gonna let her grand daughter be tortured by that creature. She has essentially insured the prophecy comes true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The show was following the book when Tyrion offered Myrcella to the Martells and since then, the show has deviated sooo much from the books and in particular, Dorne is so F'd up in comparison, sure, in hindsight it looks bad on the show but then again consider what the show has done to that and other story lines that have gone off the rails/original source (another example, Sansa agreeing to mary Roose Bolton's Bastard for Revenge).

Edited by A Ghost of Someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 3:19 PM, RhaenysB said:

GRRM concludes the story in whatever way he sees fit. If he decides to make it a political and ideological agenda, that's his decision. I won't be happy with it, but the only person in the world who cares about that is me, so it's not like that weighs anything. yeah, society is like that. In fiction and in real life. The story isn't about the starving peasants though, is it? it's about the adventures of the noble lords and ladies of the great houses of westeros. I didn't read a chapter from Jack Sand complaining about heavy taxes and lack of rain. I read about the game of thrones and this Lord screwing over that king because this lady married that knight.  The starving peasants came up once every hundred pages for the sake of a paragraph, when the Tyrells brought them food or the Mountian burned their villages. Maybe I'm a heartless bitch but resolving the societal issues of the smallfolk is on the bottom of my priority list when it comes to the end of this story. Sure, health and happiness for the smallfolk, but their fate and hardships and place in the society was hardly a centerpiece of this story so it should hardly be the centerpiece of the resolution. We read about the game, the iron throne, the others, so tell me about the final battle, the fate of the throne, the great families, the key players. That's what I want to know. And yes, everybody puts their various views into their work, but I'm not reading this book because of GRRM's political views. Sure, include them. But it's not grrm's political agenda that I would like to see after reading 10000 pages of fantasy plot. Not that we will ever see the end of the books anyways. 

Yeah, you're right, of course.

That's the way of storytelling.  In rare cases, a story is told from the perspective of "insignificant" people, but for every story like that there are probably at least 100 stories that focus on the main movers and shakers.

In fact, even when a story is told from the perspective of "insignificant" characters, the story is about major events happening to major people, and the point of focusing on the "insignificant" characters is to show their perspective on the major characters and events (classic examples would be The Hidden Fortress, and Star Wars, which was purposely structured in this way based on The Hidden Fortress.  Ultimately, MUCH of Star Wars is actually related from the perspective of...R2D2 and C-3PO, and that was intentional.  Note that they are the only characters in ALL 7 movies, soon to be 8.  Well, I guess you could count Anakin as being in all moves, plus Kenobi, but those are ultra-technicalities.  In Episode 7, they only "appear" briefly, in Rey's vision, and even then, Kenobi is only a voice)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/22/2017 at 1:22 PM, Jaehaerys Stark said:

Myrcella was safe and in love with her betrothed in Dorne.  Cersei brought about the whole Tyrion-on-trial-for-Joffrey's-death thing, which led to the trial by combat that resulted in the death of Oberyn.  The Red Vipers death drove Ellaria to kill Prince Doran and murder Myrcella.

Tyrion was right.  He drinks and he knows things...

100% agree. Myrcella would have been safe with three protectors, Oberyn said we don't hurt little girls in Dorne,  and Doran and Trystane of course. I blame Cersei for all three kids. She made Joff horrible in raising him, killed Tommen's first and only love too. 

Plus, Tyrion sent Myrcella where Cersei found out about. He was rooting out disloyalty. I think he chose the best choice (for Myrcella) when tricking Pycelle, and never wanted to play a good hand for LF by choosing Arryn or even Varys anyway. 

Edited by Raeslewolhn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 10:12 PM, snow is the man said:

In my opinion tyrion did the smart thing and the best thing for his niece. She was safe until oberyn was killed and he could not have forseen that. 

But of course, typically for GoT, Oberyn died trying to save Tyrion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

But of course, typically for GoT, Oberyn died trying to save Tyrion.

to be fair I think oberyn did it more for him to get vengence then to help tyrion. He wanted to kill the mountain and that was his chance. He was just a cocky idiot or he would have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, snow is the man said:

to be fair I think oberyn did it more for him to get vengence then to help tyrion. He wanted to kill the mountain and that was his chance. He was just a cocky idiot or he would have won.

No doubt, but it's just interesting how Tyrion's life was incidentally in question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2017 at 4:48 AM, Beathag said:

I have not been here in over two years, I believe. Tyrion was correct that Myrcella would be safe as she was under the protection of the prince. Tyrion could not have foreseen that a plot would develop around her that the prince and her white knight could not protect against. I am hoping that we learn who talked ("someone always talks"), and whether Darkstar was in cahoots with the Martels.

Kind of Doran's fault for letting Arianne go through with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I don't know why so many are under the impression he would have gone through with whatever the proposal was for the one who talked (e.g. Myrcella to the Vale if LF talked).  His plan the entire time is to send Myrcella to Dorne.  The scheme is slightly different in the books - he tells Varys that he plans to send Tommen to Dorne and Myrcella to the Vale because he knew Varys would sniff out the other two gambits.  Varys mentions the queen would never consent to giving up both her children, and he's right.

Tyrion was always going to choose Dorne because they're a much more trustworthy ally than the woman who just imprisoned him and tried to have him killed or the man who burnt his father's fleet and rose in rebellion a second time.  And it was always going to by Myrcella because, as Tyrion says (at least in the show which I recently watched), she was born for this.  Dorne is not only the best ally, but also a more significant threat if they join Renly or Stannis (although I believe Renly is already dead in the show) than the Greyjoys.  You could argue the Arryns are a bigger threat (certainly a greater army), but Tyrion has been up close and personal with the Lady of the Vale's insanity.

As others have said, Tyrion is right that Dorne is the safest place for were - with the most trustworthy ally and residing in a Kingdom that was only ever conquered for three years.  Moreover, the alliance did pay off (albeit only a bit) in the books as part of the agreement was Doran sending his banners to the Prince's Pass, which lessens Stannis' forces as the Marches must be defended.  I think it's rather silly to blame Tyrion's decision because he was unable to foresee Joffrey's assassination, that he himself would be framed for it, etc..

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