Only 2 more books?

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

It should be more than 2 books if Doran's bastard travels to Sothoryos in TWOW.

[YOVMO]

12 hours ago, falcotron said:

Someone ending up on the Iron Throne isn't necessarily static, or absurdly Disney, or anything like that.

The fact that the world survived its existential threat and was able to recover relatively easily doesn't mean the ending is automatically Aragorn ruling wisely and well for a century. For example, if we see Dany on the throne, determined to push through even more radical reforms than Aegon V, with dragons and a strong royal army to back her up, and we don't know for sure whether that's going to lead to the first steps toward a modern enlightened monarchy or to tyranny under her son or to chaos as her lords are all either too weak or too recalcitrant… that would mean that ultimately, the day-to-day ruling of a kingdom is just as important as surviving the every-8000-years crises, but that would fit the themes of the story pretty well, not sell them out.

And if Dany is bitter over finding Jon, loving him, losing him to death, and having to make a political marriage to produce an heir, that would mean the personal is sometimes just as important as the grand scale, which also fits pretty well. It may be exactly the same kind of bittersweet as LotR, but GRRM has actually used LotR as an example of what he means by bittersweet, so that wouldn't be too surprising.

So GRRM doesn't need to nearly wipe out the world and set it on the long process of rebuilding from a post-apocalyptic wasteland to make the ending satisfying. Not that he couldn't do that and pull it off if he wanted to, just that it's by no means the only thing he could do.

To each their own. For me the ending you describe would be as hokey as Star Wars ewok dancing and force ghosts. In the end, if George ever writes the damn books (something seemingly increasingly unlikely) my guess is that he will do it, as he has done everything else, masterfully and whether it is what I guess at or otherwise I imagine being quiet pleased with it.

Dany on a throne with an army and dragons, however, would literally make me groan out loud and wonder why I bothered reading the books in the first place.

[YOVMO]

11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

And again, each to their own, but the idea that everyone dies is more satisfactory than a peaceful ending seems incomprehensible to me.  GRRM isn't writing Disney and he has said it will be bittersweet so I don't think the peace that may descend on Westeros or Planetos at the end will be the saccharine children's fable you fear. 

As you say, to each their own. You and I totally disagree on what would be bittersweet. In the end, should grrm finish the series, the end will be something that he finds bitter sweet...maybe a sentiment you and I will agree with or not. For me, the real beauty of asoiaf is in its post modern nihilism. For others it might be elsewhere. Either way, as I said before, George has a master hand and I truly believe that whatever his ending is will be satisfying whether my guesses and hopes are right or wrong. The bigger issue is to get the books out.

[Chris Mormont]

It is doable in 2 books.  Now that Winter is here, and most of the crops lost to war, there won't be as many feasts or meals to describe and that will save George about 100 pages a book.

[White Ravens]

2 minutes ago, Chris Mormont said:

It is doable in 2 books.  Now that Winter is here, and most of the crops lost to war, there won't be as many feasts or meals to describe and that will save George about 100 pages a book.

I know you are just making a joke but what is it with readers resenting the descriptions of food?  For me, they are a part of the rich world building that GRRM has done and they help to create an immersive experience.

[White Ravens]

20 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

You cannot have narrow, narrow intimate detailed focus, and vast, vast breathtaking scope, always, and all the time.  God Almighty can have that; but mere mortals like you, I and GRRM cannot.  Something has to give; or he will never finish his story.

LOTR often had a narrow focus.  But in the mid-section of the book, when the heroes were scattered to the 4 winds, Tolkien tended to adjust his style and focus to allow for a broader scope, without getting too bogged down in details.

 

 

I get where you are coming from but I disagree.  I like the books exactly the way they have been written and I think the number of words devoted to food descriptions is highly exaggerated by the people that have strangely decided to take exception to them.  You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that I love cooking and eating food and I have a great appreciation for the magic that happens in real life when a good wine is perfectly matched with the flavours of a specific meal.  I believe that the food descriptions enhance the story and that they are often used to support the mood of the scenes in which they are described.  The food served at the Red Wedding, for example, is unappealing and the most appetising thing served is undercooked lamb.

[White Ravens]

8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I cannot argue with your preferences, except that if you think these preferences are somehow consistent with the story ever finishing, you are almost certainly wrong.

Again, something's got to give.  GRRM can get away with a food description or two if he drops something else.  Like maybe sex scenes.

Or how about first refocusing the story, so that the 20+ odd plot threads unite into 2 or 3 plot threads supported by 6 or 7 POV  characters.  Once he does that, maybe then he can afford to waste time on poo scenes, pee scenes, sex scenes, itchy underwear scenes, food scenes, turtle scenes, squirrel scenes, bath scenes, and still have time to tell us exactly what everyone is wearing.

GRRM has already stated that as his characters converge he will eliminate POV characters (kill them).  He has also said that he doesn't intend to introduce any new POV characters.  So there you go, simplicification of the plot will happen.  His excellent stories aren't going to improve by making all of the changes you are promoting.  

[Orphalesion]

2 hours ago, White Ravens said:

I know you are just making a joke but what is it with readers resenting the descriptions of food?  For me, they are a part of the rich world building that GRRM has done and they help to create an immersive experience.

Because they are pretty much just random listings of food.

 

[the trees have eyes]

11 hours ago, YOVMO said:

As you say, to each their own. You and I totally disagree on what would be bittersweet. In the end, should grrm finish the series, the end will be something that he finds bitter sweet...maybe a sentiment you and I will agree with or not. For me, the real beauty of asoiaf is in its post modern nihilism. For others it might be elsewhere. Either way, as I said before, George has a master hand and I truly believe that whatever his ending is will be satisfying whether my guesses and hopes are right or wrong. The bigger issue is to get the books out.

I think our understanding or at least definition of bittersweet is poles apart.  I always understood his intent as to deliver an ending that was both bittersweet for the reader and for his characters, those that remian at any rate.  I don't know what a "post-modern nihilist" considers bittersweet but it appears to be changing the meaning of the word so far beyond it's actual meaning as to render your use misleading.  If you just said you wanted an apocalyptic nihilistic ending I'd understand what you meant though I would not share your wishes.

[YOVMO]

12 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I think our understanding or at least definition of bittersweet is poles apart.  I always understood his intent as to deliver an ending that was both bittersweet for the reader and for his characters, those that remian at any rate.

In my example Arya and Jon are "alive" yet warged into their wolves. So for them it would be bitter sweet.

12 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

  I don't know what a "post-modern nihilist" considers bittersweet but it appears to be changing the meaning of the word so far beyond it's actual meaning as to render your use misleading.  If you just said you wanted an apocalyptic nihilistic ending I'd understand what you meant though I would not share your wishes.

I don't want a nihilistic apocalyptic ending. That's the point. I am a reader. I want to see resolution. I also want to see world peace, free rum and a mountain of jellybeans but ya can't always get what ya want. In my eyes, having dany, or jon, or fAegon or anyone sit the iron throne is such an absurdly childish ending so such a gritty real life story that rather than bitter sweet it would be depressing. Seeing that the machinations of people and families and guilds all, like the effords of golden lads and girls in Cymbeline, according to Billy S, comes to dust is a far more bittersweet ending -- not to mention in line with grrm's ongoing view that the plotting and planning of the great houses are made of first rate hubris and arrogance and destructive to the world.

 

But like you say, we have a different vision on this and if we found 100 people my guess is we would get at least 75 different versions. In the end, should grrm finish, it is his that matters and I trust him. THis was merely my own wheels spinning at the lack of new material, one thing I am sure we both have in common  

[Orphalesion]

17 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

. In my eyes, having dany, or jon, or fAegon or anyone sit the iron throne is such an absurdly childish ending so such a gritty real life story that rather than bitter sweet it would be depressing.

Yes and having Jon and Arya jump around as magical wolves, running free as the wind blows, frolicking in flower meadows and having a litter of cubs, is "gritty and realistic" That's fanfic territory right there. Do they name their cubs Eddard, Catelyn, Brand, Rickon, Robb and Sansa, as well? 

And, just saying in the real world people ending up on a throne of a country that previously had fallen to civil war has happened considerably more often than people having their minds transplanted into animals.

[the trees have eyes]

44 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

In my example Arya and Jon are "alive" yet warged into their wolves. So for them it would be bitter sweet.

I don't want a nihilistic apocalyptic ending. That's the point. I am a reader. I want to see resolution. I also want to see world peace, free rum and a mountain of jellybeans but ya can't always get what ya want. In my eyes, having dany, or jon, or fAegon or anyone sit the iron throne is such an absurdly childish ending so such a gritty real life story that rather than bitter sweet it would be depressing. Seeing that the machinations of people and families and guilds all, like the effords of golden lads and girls in Cymbeline, according to Billy S, comes to dust is a far more bittersweet ending -- not to mention in line with grrm's ongoing view that the plotting and planning of the great houses are made of first rate hubris and arrogance and destructive to the world.

 

But like you say, we have a different vision on this and if we found 100 people my guess is we would get at least 75 different versions. In the end, should grrm finish, it is his that matters and I trust him. THis was merely my own wheels spinning at the lack of new material, one thing I am sure we both have in common  

Jon and Arya are human.  There is nothing bittersweet in losing that humanity and finally losing all trace of themselves in their wolves.  You're just left with two wolves in the end.  That's a sad and desolate ending.

As to the bolded I hate to break it to you but GRRM's criticism of LOTR was not that Aragorn became king but that "good King Aragorn ruled wisely and justly" throughout his reign like the kings in folk stories or fairy tales.  His famous rhetorical question about Aragorn's tax policy is about how JRRT ignored the realities of life: was there never a famine or plague in Gondor under Aragorn, were there never raids by the Easterlings or Corsairs of Umber, was he never criticised for not doing enough to prevent those or to instigate land or tax reform to help the suffering peasantry (who are totally invisible in LOTR of course)?

GRRM is a different sort of author and he has gone out of his way to show that whether the good guys "win" or not life is full of hardship and conflict.  We know that whoever is ruler will not usher in an age of nobility of spirit and universal well-being because human nature doesn't change and real life doesn't work like that (Dany in Meereen, Tyrion as Hand, etc).  That you consider anyone sitting the IT at the end of the story to be "absurdly childish" strikes me as a frankly silly over reaction.  It's as if you're not prepared to grant GRRM the ability to write a non-Disney ending to a story - that apparently has to involve an extinction event - and are, well, gnashing your teeth at the idea of it.

And if an ending that gives any hint of happiness to any of the characters depresses you I don't know what to say.  Maybe you're a fan of the death cult you attach so much importance to in story

[YOVMO]

7 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

And if an ending that gives any hint of happiness to any of the characters depresses you I don't know what to say

well I see you are pretty tied into your belief in this nice little clean ending. Disagreements aside here I am sure we can agree that we hope the books come out and one day we will know.

[White Ravens]

18 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

The key word is "will".  He does not claim to have done this already.  Until he gets there, getting there is a problem, one that will be slowed to a crawl by any attempt to combine intimate intimate focus with vast vast scope.

I should hope not.  The problem results from the number of separated POVs and plot threads he already has.

LOL!  If wishing things made them so, this series would have been finished 15 years ago!

LOL indeed.  I'm far more interested in letting GRRM write his excellent books however he wants than I am in reading the streamlined Lew Theobald version.

[YOVMO]

49 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Yes and having Jon and Arya jump around as magical wolves, running free as the wind blows, frolicking in flower meadows and having a litter of cubs, is "gritty and realistic" That's fanfic territory right there. Do they name their cubs Eddard, Catelyn, Brand, Rickon, Robb and Sansa, as well? 

And, just saying in the real world people ending up on a throne of a country that previously had fallen to civil war has happened considerably more often than people having their minds transplanted into animals.

I'll own that the jon and arya is a little fanfic which is why I wouldn't call it a theory but just say it gives a smile to my face. The larger picture that the plans of man all fail in the end is what I enjoy the most as well as the idea of the end of the final book bringing in the beginning of a hypothetical first book long before the Children ala Joyce's Finnegan's Wake which, as I noted earlier, is something which grrm admits directly influences him.

 

The Iron Throne is a thorne in westeros. Since its creation is has brought nothing but injustice and devastation. I would love to see it shattered. As for the real world people ending up on a throne of a country that previously had fallen to civil war, I guess you are right. After all Rome still rules the world, or the Romanov throne...that's still good, and the Qing throne, the Egyptian's, the mongols, the Macedonians.

I see the faceless men as a death cult who are out to bring on an end of times. I think the Doom was a shot at it and that Hardhome was a trial run on some new tech as it were. I think Valar Morghulis is to be taken literally as a mandate and not as a pithy existential statement. I personally would love to see them succeed. But if they don't my money is still on the destruction of all the great houses and the Iron Throne...like Iraq, a British made country patched together with other nations, the framework holding it together made for a huge lack of justice, great violence and constant war.

 

But, as I've said before, this is just my thinking. I am sure whatever George has in store for us, should we ever see it, will be terrific.

[the trees have eyes]

22 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

well I see you are pretty tied into your belief in this nice little clean ending. Disagreements aside here I am sure we can agree that we hope the books come out and one day we will know.

What nice little clean ending though?  Take the end to Robert's Rebellion: Ned loses a father, a brother and a sister and apparently a lover / love interest in Ashara Dayne; Robert loses his ideal woman and ends up locked into a miserable marriage to Cersei and a kingship he is utterly unsuited to.  Sad, bittersweet or absurdly chidish?  Seems pretty realistic to me, elements of sadness and the possibility of happiness - fulfilled for Ned, not for Robert. That feels true to life: Robert hates his and dreams of Lyanna instead of Cersei or being a sellsword king and though he has unimaginable wealth and power he is miserable.  That's realism.

My objection to your "everyone dies" ideal is that GRRM shows the realities of life and that however bad things get, or however for a fleeting moment happiness seems obtainable, life goes on in all it's messy and sometimes happy / sometimes painful course.  I still don't know why you are fixated on a Disney / Aragorn / clean or childish ending: with GRRM that is the last thing we need worry about and we don't need everyone to die to avoid having it.

For the record though: there will be a power vacuum in KL. Dany is Aery's' heir, Jon and (F)Aegon may well be Rhaegar's.  Odds are one of them will take the throne.  That's not Disney, that's the reality of a medieval world and dynastic succession.  Could a Tyrell / Martell / Lannister / Stark / or Stannis take power?  Sure but who would accept them?  That would invite another civil war and we still have a dance of the dragons to come first.

Disagreements about the hypothetical ending aside, yes we can indeed hope the next two/three/four () books will come out soon.  Honestly though the delay over TWOW, a book GRRM was sure he could finish by late 2015, then by end 2015, now teased to be ready maybe in 2018 / early 2019 makes me very sceptical about him ever finishing.  The news that he's spending his time writing short stories or side works on Targaryen history shows how much he's struggling to focus on ASOIAF outright.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/07/george-r-r-martin-offers-an-update-on-next-game-of-thrones-book-the-winds-of-winter/

 

[Dragonsbone]

Two more books should be enough, if the two upcoming books are gonna be with the same pace and focus like ASoS. 

But it won't matter actually wheather he needs two, three or fourtyfive hypothetical books, because..well I don't really have to say it, do I?

[the trees have eyes]

54 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

I'll own that the jon and arya is a little fanfic which is why I wouldn't call it a theory but just say it gives a smile to my face. The larger picture that the plans of man all fail in the end is what I enjoy the most as well as the idea of the end of the final book bringing in the beginning of a hypothetical first book long before the Children ala Joyce's Finnegan's Wake which, as I noted earlier, is something which grrm admits directly influences him.

 

The Iron Throne is a thorne in westeros. Since its creation is has brought nothing but injustice and devastation. I would love to see it shattered. As for the real world people ending up on a throne of a country that previously had fallen to civil war, I guess you are right. After all Rome still rules the world, or the Romanov throne...that's still good, and the Qing throne, the Egyptian's, the mongols, the Macedonians.

I see the faceless men as a death cult who are out to bring on an end of times. I think the Doom was a shot at it and that Hardhome was a trial run on some new tech as it were. I think Valar Morghulis is to be taken literally as a mandate and not as a pithy existential statement. I personally would love to see them succeed. But if they don't my money is still on the destruction of all the great houses and the Iron Throne...like Iraq, a British made country patched together with other nations, the framework holding it together made for a huge lack of justice, great violence and constant war.

 

But, as I've said before, this is just my thinking. I am sure whatever George has in store for us, should we ever see it, will be terrific.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust?  Men are mortal and fallible indeed so all things do come to an end - but not always violently or unnaturally.  The political power games of the mighty often end in failure or betrayal and everyone suffers greatly in the meantime - the hollownesses of that is the central theme of ASOIAF - but it's not the same as saying either that 1) all the plans of men always fail or 2) mankind will fail.  After all political careers or dynasties or kingdoms come to an end when they are replaced by another.

The struggle for the IT represents the struggle for absolute power or at least for supremacy over other contender's / rivals.  I don't think pre-Targ Westeros was really any different: e.g. the Ironborn had conquered the Riverlands; the Reach and Dorne have a longstanding enmity; and the Starks and Boltons were fighting each other throughout the Age of Heroes until some point in the distant or recent past.  The IT doesn't symbolise something evil that Westeros will be better off without if it can only be liberated from it: it's just one more phase of man's natural instinct to compete for dominance over his neighbours and to accrue as much wealth and power as possible.  Human nature doesn't change and the IT is not the cause of man's conflicts: remove the IT and the flashpoint will be the weakest kingdom (the Riverlands in pre-Targ Westeros), or the wealthiest cities and trading ports - Oldtown and King's Landing, or maybe old and new enmities between Martell and Tyrell or Martell and Lannister, the possibilties are limitless.

I don't think post-colonial issues are a good comparison for Westeros.  The problem with partition lines in the Middle East, Africa and the Indian sub-continent is that they both 1) split apart ethnic or tribal groups and put them under different sometimes alien jurisdictions and 2) put sworn enemies or at least suspicious neighbouring groups within a common jurisdiction with one group able to control all the levers of power and use that to their advantage to the detriment of the other group, sometimes brutally so.  The Targs unified Westeros but they did not put the Crannogmen under the jurisdiction of the Freys, or combine Dorne and The Reach into one administrative unit with the Tyrells holding all the prime offices, controlling the police and setting and collecting taxes.  It's precisely because the Targs were outsiders with no history of invovlement in these dipsutes and feuds that they were able to rise above them and everyone knew it.  Where they did not extinguish a House in conflict, e.g.Gardener, they left the ruling elites in place and nowhere redrew the maps to create the kind of problems ignorant Europeans did.

Honestly I think the IT is here to stay.  Whether it holds any real power or becomes more of a symbolic office like the Holy Roman Emperor in the Middle Ages people are bound to want to claim it because of the potential authority or simply the prestige that it would give them.

[YOVMO]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

What nice little clean ending though?  Take the end to Robert's Rebellion: Ned loses a father, a brother and a sister and apparently a lover / love interest in Ashara Dayne; Robert loses his ideal woman and ends up locked into a miserable marriage to Cersei and a kingship he is utterly unsuited to.  Sad, bittersweet or absurdly chidish?  Seems pretty realistic to me, elements of sadness and the possibility of happiness - fulfilled for Ned, not for Robert. That feels true to life: Robert hates his and dreams of Lyanna instead of Cersei or being a sellsword king and though he has unimaginable wealth and power he is miserable.  That's realism.

My objection to your "everyone dies" ideal is that GRRM shows the realities of life and that however bad things get, or however for a fleeting moment happiness seems obtainable, life goes on in all it's messy and sometimes happy / sometimes painful course.  I still don't know why you are fixated on a Disney / Aragorn / clean or childish ending: with GRRM that is the last thing we need worry about and we don't need everyone to die to avoid having it.

For the record though: there will be a power vacuum in KL. Dany is Aery's' heir, Jon and (F)Aegon may well be Rhaegar's.  Odds are one of them will take the throne.  That's not Disney, that's the reality of a medieval world and dynastic succession.  Could a Tyrell / Martell / Lannister / Stark / or Stannis take power?  Sure but who would accept them?  That would invite another civil war and we still have a dance of the dragons to come first.

Disagreements about the hypothetical ending aside, yes we can indeed hope the next two/three/four () books will come out soon.  Honestly though the delay over TWOW, a book GRRM was sure he could finish by late 2015, then by end 2015, now teased to be ready maybe in 2018 / early 2019 makes me very sceptical about him ever finishing.  The news that he's spending his time writing short stories or side works on Targaryen history shows how much he's struggling to focus on ASOIAF outright.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/07/george-r-r-martin-offers-an-update-on-next-game-of-thrones-book-the-winds-of-winter/

 

I can understand your trepidation with my everyone dies (or, more accurately, is killed....doom of valyria 2.0). That said, I obviously like my idea. Either way, I have no inside info nor the talent that grrm has so I am hopeful to see whatever it is. You will need to make some kind of sense of the faceless men though. That they are just a normal group of assassin monks is way beyond the scope. I do't think you and I will ever resolve our issues, but I hope George does. YOur fear about he may never finish is a well founded one and I do tend to agree. Even if he got WOW out today, took no breaks and got ADOS out in the 5 year time frame we have come to expect he would be 73. Obviously he isn't getting it out today. If he got it out on 1/2019 when he was 70 and spend a year relaxing...I mean, all men are mortal and we are cutting things awfully close. Thanks for the link and interesting chat. While we don't see eye to eye, it is always a fun way to while the day

[Ser Maverick]

I can't see it finishing in two books while being satisfying/consistent with the others. Even the show needed three more seasons to wrap up where book 5 left off and they've had to genocide half the cast and make the previous season ridiculously paced to achieve it so far.