Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ummester

  1. Populism is rising - if gen Y can'y accept it, they are lost.
  2. Is the Dany argument still happening? She was a great character because she created controversy - why is that hard to understand? I'd rather write a character the world hates than one the world finds boring - better still, a character the world love/hates. Dany is a love hate - she shows us the flaws in our own ideology - a perfect character really. And yet there is so much hate. Think that says more about audience mentality than the writing.
  3. This is props my favorite episode ever - show at it's peak. So sad it fell so far.
  4. In essence I agree - but would this not suggest there is a balance between the human species and 'nature' and. if there is, would that not suggest that 'nature' has taken the expansion of our species into some for, of account, if not a simplistic action/reaction scenario ? Let me spin you a tale - when I traveled Africa, I witnessed our truck stopping near a baby Impala. The mother ran off and an Hyena took the baby. Everyone on the truck then started arguing about how human effect nature. I called BS and said humans are part of nature - perhaps we we here just so that a Hyena pup could survive and nature knew that all along. Point - to truly understand nature we must detract our own humanity from it. Nature does not care for us as a species, we are but slightly broken gears in a massive cog. Accept that the end of our species may be upon is and move forward from there. Do it without malice and humanism and 'its not fair' ism. It is what is it is. We are tiny cogs in a massive machine which is as beyond our control as it is our comprehension. I know the ethos of the modern age is to think we can understand and control - but that is all total BS - we cannot, it is all random.
  5. It's not only population but ageing demographics - we are heading fir a once in a 1000 year conundrum. Economic and civilization collapse. Look, I don't mind the climate fundamentalists - their hearts are basically in the right place - but they don't seem to recognize the relationship between our species population levels and the environment. They want to cry about saving the future with ridiculous dreams that do not take reality into account. I see little difference between them now and the apocalyptic fundamentalists at the time Christianity was rising in Rome. Here is the reality - Western nationalism is gathering to oppose corporate globalism at a time both the economy and planet is fucked. There is no easy way out. Communist classism (identity politics) will lead to most of us being sacrificed for the elites to survive. Nationalism will lead to global war. Pick your poison. The future is about to get messy and those running around promoting the Paris Accord have no idea.
  6. It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.
  7. The collapse of the global economy will likely occur within 2 years. Axial tilt is the wobble from the Earth's normal rotation about it's axis, it changes, due to gravitational and solar pressure - look it up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php it likely has more effect on climate than anything Western humans currently do. Billions of people dying is now inevitable, get used to it and organise your own way forward.
  8. Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit. I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.
  9. I have heaps of empathy and understanding of the situation - just a total lack of sympathy for my own species as a whole, which has began to devolve rapidly in the last 20 years. - NB this does not mean I can't like and form bonds with individual humans that effect me in the real world. I am neither American or European. If our existence is the cause, then surely our depopulation will add to the solution? It's not hard to work out, humans have always been opposed to the natural environment. They are the one animal, among all others on this planet, that shapes its environment rather than exists in it. A greater number of humans is worse for the Earth, whilst a lesser number of humans is better for it. The equation is unbelievably simple. Humanism and environmentalism are not compatible. I just have faith that the worst we can do is bring about our own extinction - our planet and life on it will always survive us. BTW, if you are a young person that thinks climate change is destroying your future, there a lot of other things on the closer horizon to panic over. The global economy is on borrowed time. War between the US and China seems to be becoming inevitable. The Earth itself may be coming to a stage of dangerous axial tilt. Then we have increasing solar activity, an unstable Middle East and automation taking away all of your employment prospects. There is heaps to worry about and protest about, if you feel the need, no need to be a climate fundamentalist.
  10. The post Empire US is funny. I wonder if those in Jerusalem laughed at the Roman senate in 200 AD?
  11. If human population levels are the problem, then surely climate change is a solution? I don't see what all the fuss is about. Our planet knows how to sustain itself, it's very arrogant of us, a pathetically modern species, to assume we have any bearing on the outcome. You are a child of the universe,no less than the trees and the stars;you have a right to be here.And whether or not it is clear to you,no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Just because we have a right to be here, does not mean the universe will unfold in favor of our existence. To assume otherwise seems kind of religious and somewhat fundamentalist to me.
  12. Greyjoys - and possibly the Others (if the books ever finish). But from what of the writing is released, the book Greyjoys suffered the most compared to their onscreen counterparts. Think about it - the other houses were reasonably accurately represented. Greedy Lannisters. Stoic Starks. Righteous Targs. Broken Baratheons. Even the separatist Sandsnakes and pointlessly proud Dornish had some representation on screen. But the warmongering Greyjoys were totally muted, castrated even, in the visual version of this tale. Euron was a pathetic interpretation of his book self and Victarion was dismissed entirely. Sure, the show paid some creedence to Asha (Yara) and Theon but I doubt the books would end with Bran telling dick-less he was a good man. The Greyjoys were the most muted, by far.
  13. Time is relative - even GRRM said he doesn't want people to stress about whether the time and distances are accurate to the expense of the narrative. If we had to speed Hitler up into 60 mins, righteous would fairly adequately cover it. no? Between the world order and anti German Jewish sentiment in the 30s, he saw himself as the righteous Savior of Germany and at least half of Germany saw him the same way, at that time. NB, as always, I am not trying to say D&D are good story tellers, just that the story as a whole, as presented in season 8, does make an overarching (though poorly told) sense and that I think it is more modern politics than any kind of narrative appreciation that stops us seeing this.
  14. It's definitely more complex - Dany is either a deep anti hero or a sympathetic villain - but that is exactly what makes the narrative so intriguing. GRRM recently came out and said he would have given the finale a lot more narrative build up (which I agree it surely needed). But he never negated it was exactly where the story was going all along. The trouble is, as I have eluded to before in this thread, politics in the modern age have become incredibly binary (you are a globalist or a nationalist, there is no in between) so any nuance in either GoTs or AsoIaF would be totally lost on the mainstream. I think D&D were well aware of this when they crafted the ending and I also thing it is why GRRM (once considered very progressive) is now hiding away.
  15. The beauty of any really cleverly crafted narrative is that we can side with the antagonists or the protagonists, depending on our political mindset at the time. I recently saw Joker (mainly because it is getting a lot of controversy) and I recommend anyone who wants a film worth thinking about also do so. Is it people or society? What is a society without the views of the people that comprise it? What are the limits of an individuals sanity, when society itself feel insane? What responsibility does society have to institutionalize those outside of the norm? I agree that Dany had some positive traits and the Starks had some very negative ones. But all storys must, in the end, pick their protagonists, right? If they do not - if they just present all humanity as a grey mess of self interest - then they are nihilistic. To provide some hope, you have to pick a side and a belief.
  16. WWII is no doubt the most reasonable starting point to base a modern mythology on. Lucas did it. GRRM did it. In part, I am also doing it. Society and culture are often shaped by the major wars that precede the zeitgeist. Take the improper but still impactful usage of the word fascist in our modern times - WWII is the precursor for this. As I am writing in a similar ancient world setting (more Egyptian/Grecian/Roman than Medieval) to GRRM I can also see that slavery is not a thing onto itself - it is just a aspect of the setting. The politics of slavery therefore become irrelevant to the narrative, beyond showing perhaps which characters may err on the side of social progressive-ism (Dany) versus those which err towards a type of conservatism (Jon). NB - this should not be extrapolated to make sense in an entirely modern sense - it is more to show how the value cultural traditions effects a characters understanding of the world and reactions to it. Old Gods vs New - which is an idea I am extremely fond of. As for the Others, the way the show presented them will always remain a massive letdown to me. Lets just say Dany was meant to be Hitler and the Others Stalin/communism - or vice versa - the show did not humanize the Others at all. The Others needed something to make us empathize with their motives beyond the leader being created to get human kind out of Westeros. As it stands, they are a contradictory mess. The saviors of magic in the world worship death, as does the little assassin that killed them - seriously, WTF!!!??? Where is the symbolism and meaning in that? How does it tie into the deeper meanings of the plot?
  17. I always thought King's Landing was Martin's Mordor and Slavers Bay was an afterthought, written primarily to flesh out Danny's character. I don't mean to be rude - but have you ever tried to write an epic 150000 word fantasy? I've tried my hand at 90k word horrors, thrillers and Sci Fis but, up until recently (forgetting pathetic juvenile efforts), have never really explored a densely created world, with a myriad of fictional cultures, languages, songs, histories etc - and tried to tie it all together in a narrative with contemporary social relevance. It's a fucking mental nightmare - but a challenge worth embracing, I feel. Anyway, I think I have a modicum of experience to comment on what GRRM was trying to do and I do not think he meant Dany's adventures in Essos to become as expansive as they became - remember, he started with a planned three books, of which Dany's Essos experience would span possibly 1. I am starting with the idea of 2 books - but at 100000k words am already having to employ immense re-organisation just to get the end of book 1 to land. It's really hard - like Orwell said, "Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout with some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." Now try and focus that over 2, or 3, and you have some idea of what I think GRRM was trying to do. Note that I have a mental relationship with Martin similar to what I do with George Lucas - both incredibly inspirational and sadly disappointing at once. We are all only human, I realize, but perhaps I just expect my heroes, like Lucas and Martin, to be more - who knows? Perhaps all heroes disappoint, in the end. My hope aside, pragmatism causes me to realise that ASoIaF and GoTs went beyond GRRMs control. He literally lost the plot and, I believe, focused too hard on how to make Dany sympathetic (to increase the power of his ending) at the expense of a side culture he never intended to have any real relevance to the main plot. The main plot was always about Westeros and Jon (the rightful heir) being confronted by Dany (the righteous heir). Rightful vs righteous is actually a good way to sum up ASoIaF. Now, this is where modern politics interfere. In the 90s, when GRRM started writing, a righteous woman vs a rightful man made immense sense. Today that is considered sexist, because the West has become en-strangled by horrid politics. Martin's plan could never land, in what the world became. Society has gone off the rails. Men and women are like Ying and Yang - equal but different. That difference implies men are more equipped to wield power overtly and women subversively, as it has ever been and as GRRMwas trying to express with ASoIaF - but now we have 1.5 generations convinced that there are no differences between the sexes at all, which is absolute BS. There have always been differences - men are inspired by the biology of women to build civilizations, not the other way around.
  18. You view with a modern lens. Slave trading is commerce, not war, in the world of ASoIaF - even Tyrion noted slavery was not far removed from serfdom. And, even via our modern lenses, as I am sure GRRM wanted us to recognize by the comparison of slavery to serfdom, is either that far removed from usury or consumerism? All that bow to belief or social construct are slaves, in one way or another. Also, piracy, is dependent on POV. Is a pirate a hero or a villain? Was Hitler? Is ANTIFA? Only time judges and, even then, it is subject to the POV of those who write it. It still grieves me immensely that something which started so intelligently as GoTs finished so dumb. The whole point of Dany turning bad was to show the difference between righteousness and villainy is fine - which is something I am whole heatedly exploring in my own writings and something I am finding difficult to fully articulate. It is not easy to show how the well meaning can turn evil (reference both ANTIFA and Hitler) and still be embraced by the general readership/population. Meh, I generally like the intellect on this forum and once enjoyed GoTs - but the world at large is going to hell in a hand basket and communicating with it on more than a local, face to face, level seems insane to me right now. NB this does not mean I do not find many of your posts intelligent SeanF - as many are.
  19. That is not true. She burned the slave master of Astapor, who was a non combatant. She brought warfare to commerce and was always treacherous.
  20. I said need - to me a need is something you cannot exist without, and I define living as existence. I always meant anyone can live without love - its not a strawman, you are just not interpreting my words as I intended them to be interpreted. What do you think need means? Maslow's pyramid is a theory - but looking at it the only thing I would classify are needs are on the bottom tier and some of them such as reproduction are the needs of a species, not an individual and we also do not need clothes and shelter is entirely environment dependent. I agree life cannot sustain without sleep, so along with food, water and breathing, it is s genuine need, Re the Targ stuff you are missing the point entirely (perhaps misinterpreting, I dunno?) The Targs could not possibly have had any influence on Westeros ever, without dragons. They could never even have gotten there. Perhaps Westeros respected more about the Targs than their dragons but its immaterial in the end, because dragons enabled their conquest. No, the Stark kids did not earn being Wargs - but their accomplishment in the story (perhaps excluding Bran) were not based entirely on it. Sansa used smarts, Arya resilience and Jon strength and honor - very human and non fantastical attributes. Dany could not have accomplished what she did without her fantastical attributes - Sansa, Arya and Jon could still have done so.
  21. Like Theon with Roderick It's not a matter of cleaner though, its a matter of what the person can achieve themselves - their unaided power. Sure, there are lots of things that power comes from in the show - money, personality, sexuality etc - but when all the chips are down and all social contracts are void, the application of force and the ability to get others onside are the only powers that matter. My point re Jon and Dany is that her power (mainly) came from her dragons, just as the Lannister's came from their gold, LFs came from his sneakiness and so on. There were a couple of characters in the show (Jon and Brienne usually spring to my mind) whose power actually came from a combination of their moral code, conviction and physical strength.
  22. If people need something, they will die without it - I don't see anyone dying because they are not loved. The best part of Tywin may had died with Joanna - but he didn't, he went on. ergo he did not need love to survive - only to feel better about himself. Is Stannis craving for love or to be treated fairly by Robert? I would argue he just wants what he thinks he deserves, love or no. I think you definition of love is more broad than mine - I think you include things that I would just term friendship, respect, shared goals etc. But people can even live without all of these things, if they have to. She pushed Jorah into the wights to survive It's a fictional story, so calling things facts is kind of pointless. Would the Targs have conquered Westeros without dragons? Imagine Dany's story without dragons - it would have ended after Drogo died, because she would have joined the dead Khal's wife's club. What would Dany, or any Targ, have been to Westeros without dragons - the answer is simple - nothing. The single other thing that gave Dany power in the show was her fireproofness, when she cooked the Khal's - again, a magical gift, like dragons and not something that was part of her character or that she earned or achieved via non magical means.
  23. Seeing you mentioned him, did Tywin? Did Stannis? They needed respect - I would argue they were perfectly comfortable living without love, however, as many people are IRL. It is not like oxygen, food or water - it is not needed to survive. I'm sure Tywin could also fight if he had to. He rode into battle when he re-took Kings Landing from Stannis. That doesn't mean anyone respects Targs, only their dragons.
  24. You know, I was just watching snipets of 805 again, from where Dany spits the dummy, and it's actually pretty cool that she can swoop her dragon in and torch that wretched city. Everything is perspective right? Westeros was the wheel and she was breaking the mother fucker with fire and blood - innocents suffer either way, you want a revolution, Dany brings it. Everything depends upon which side of the aisle you view it from. And seriously, Drogon melting the IT in 806, I have been waiting 10 fucking years to see that chair destroyed, so if the events of 805 led to it, then goof fucking riddance. The end of all worthwhile narratives is about catharsis. D&D are shit house storytellers - but the overall catharsis of the narrative still shines through. Dany was entitled and lost hope, Jon's honor had him banished and the IT was melted - I mean, how much more resolution do we really need?
  25. Yes, but he no longer wanted to fuck her. He was devoted to her out of duty, not love. The difference is subtle, almost immaterial, to a man (I'll stand by my wife and kids out of duty, because it is the honorable thing to do, regardless of whether I love them or not - but you just try and get my wife to accept that). To most women, in my experience, this is very different - duty and honor is not enough - they need love. Ok, perhaps I overstated - but Dany could see that the honor driven society of Westeros would never favor her dragon empowered pussy above Jon's sword empowered cock - I do not know how much more clear I have to make this. HE WHO PASSES THE SENTENCE MUST SWING THE SWORD. Westeros cherished the accountability of those who had the strength to carry out their convictions with their own hands - not via their dragons, or their lover's swords - sure, D&D told the tale badly but the subtext was there. Brienne got respect because she could deliver justice (and kill) with her own hand. Arya got the same (though her show character was fucked up). Take Dany's dragons and lovers away and what the fuck could she do with her own hands? Stroke a cock? Seriously. Her mind may have been impressive but she was part of a barbaric world and strength matters, she was just a tad upset to discover this. Yes. I agree - and I think GRRM is too chicken shit to write it properly now, considering how insane modern PC has become.
  • Create New...