Lady Anna

RLJ predates the show by many many years. It's not so much built on it, as reinforced by it. But we'll agree to disagree on this. About your last paragraph, sure it's a theory, but then if you don't consider it a mystery then there's nothing here to debate, in your understanding, is that correct? I just think you're mostly concerned about exact words, either from George himself or the books, and like I said that's fine. But others disagree and that's also fine.

I'm definitely in the camp that thinks the show has more elements from the books than it's assumed. Denying that assumption is normal, but thinking otherwise is equally normal. Tha fact is, the show gave us more material to think about, and a lot of theories and discussions - even in the General forum here - are now based on what happened on screen. Yes, we all hated the show, it was terrible, but I think some things came definitely from George, and we need to accept that (hold the door, anyone?). Whether they will still happen on the books is another question, but at some point, for example, King Bran was an actual thing in George's mind. Imo the show, while being what it was, was still something George was involved in, and I think there are some good things to be taken from it.

Sure he's never said who she is publicly (why would he just say it) but the showrunners knew. Since they said they got it right, and George says they got it right, and we all know what transpired in the show, it's a logical inference. It seems clear to me. But I see you disagree, that's fine.

So do you think George is lying? Why would he lie to the people adapting his work, fellow creators/colleagues, and then to the readers?

Sorry to butt in, and having not read all the posts, but it seems to me whether Rhaegar married Lyanna, which he could have - what's stopping him?-, does not necessarily translate to Jon being the legitimate heir. That will depend on how people see that marriage, and the circunstances that could affect their opinion. I believe in RLJ and I'm okay with a Rhaegar and Lyanna marriage, but I think some are working backwards from the assumption that the RLJ revelation will necessarily lead to Jon automatically becoming a recognized heir or even king. Not necessarily. We don't know where the information will be coming from, in what circunstances, or how it will impact Jon, his decisions, and other characters'. I mean, at the end of the day, Jon could discover his parentage, go fight in the war, and die, without it ever leading to any ''the rightful king returns'' scenario. That said, even if polygamy is considered unpopular and sinful I think that people - the kingmakers and so forth - could still consider R+L's marriage a legitimate marriage. Especially if the powers that be at that time is Dany and she will have a strong reason to want Jon to be a legitimate Targaryen - or even legally recognize his parents marriage? But I sincerely think the polygamy just over-complicates things. He could just be a bastard, and then legitimized (or not). Just my two cents. Oh btw I have a little question (that I'm sure has been debated before in this gigantic thread): won't the RLJ revelation need some kind of proof? Imagine someone says ''I was there, I saw Lyanna giving birth to Jon and Rhaegar was his father'', which yes ok, but why would people just believe this person, even if they know they were there? After all, Stannis could say Cersei's kids were her brother's but without proof, he wasn't in a strong position...(and in that case I guess there was physical proof but only Ned discovered that through the book; still some still don't believe it.....until things go wrong for the Lannisters). Now this has gotten me thinking that it's possible no one, or only a few, will believe in RLJ....interesting parallel there with Young Griff. Maybe these revelations and secrets won't matter as much as we're thinking, or in the scenarios we're devising. (Sorry for the essay)

My question is about the map of the Wall and Beyond the Wall included in ADWD. Did that map already exist from the beginning - that is, was it made when AGOT was published - or was it only made for ADWD? Did GRRM have a good ideia of that area and its shape from the beginning? I presume so, since the published maps must be based on maps he made for himself, but also how much input does the illustrator have? Do they create maps based on the authors' but insert their own personal ideias?

Did the dragon hatching happen in Llhazar? Was that where Dany was at the time?

From Jon VI, ADWD: "No, my lord." Clydas thrust the parchment forward. It was tightly rolled and sealed, with a button of hard pink wax. Only the Dreadfort uses pink sealing wax (...). Ramsay Bolton, Lord of the Hornwood, it read, in a huge, spiky hand. The brown ink came away in flakes when Jon brushed it with his thumb. Beneath Bolton's signature, Lord Dustin, Lady Cerwyn, and four Ryswells had appended their own marks and seals. A cruder hand had drawn the giant of House Umber. "Might we know what it says, my lord?" asked Iron Emmett. Jon saw no reason not to tell him. "Moat Cailin is taken. The flayed corpses of the ironmen have been nailed to posts along the kingsroad. Roose Bolton summons all leal lords to Barrowton, to affirm their loyalty to the Iron Throne and celebrate his son's wedding to …" I thought this was a typo in my book but apparetly not. Shouldn't it be ''Lady Dustin''? Do you think this was the author's mistake or Jon thinking it's Lord Dustin, or....?

Which combined reading order of Feast/Dance would you recommend?? The boiled leather version or the ''a feast with dragons'' version? I've read the books following the latter, but the former seems more faithful to the timeline, at least from just reading the chapter order (a feast with dragons has Jon I before Aeron I, but isn't the latter the earliest chapter, chronologically?).

I think we should not confuse ''Bran will be king'' with ''Bran will be king exactly like in the show''. The former may be the only thing D&D knew, but just by itself it's a completely decontextualized spoiler. It's like, for example, ''Rhaegal will die''. We have no ideia about the how, why, or even when. And I guess they didn't either? But it will happen, just not like they showed.

Agree with all of this.

@Lord Aegon The Compromiser Sorry to butt in, but maybe the other user was referring to this which is from a recent blog post by GRRM: "It is hard to believe it is over, if truth be told. The years have gone past in the blink of an eye. Can it really have been more than a decade since my manager Vince Gerardis set up a meeting at the Palm in LA, and I sat down for the first time with David Benioff and D.B. Weiss for a lunch that lasted well past dinner? I asked them if they knew who Jon Snow’s mother was. Fortunately, they did." This implies that Jon's parentage in the show is the right one. Not sure if this was what @CrypticWeirwood was referring to in their first post about this.

Yeah. As I said before the pacing of this whole series is off. How are all those things supposed to happen in just 2 books when the Lannister-Stark/War of the 5 Kings conflict lasted 3 books, and when 5 books in we're still kinda in the middle of the story?

Not surprising. I'm ok with it.

Maybe Bran is king because he is Jon's heir as his next male relative? Idk just throwing things out there. But I guess if he or Rickon is considered Jon's heir (here presuming people consider him to be the rightful heir and he died or abdicated) then people would have a reason to want him to be king, maybe under a regency. That said, Westeros will be unrecognizable by the end so I'm not sure if there will be a king of a unified Westeros. I myself veer more towards the split kingdoms theory.

But when Drogon is outside the door to the Red Keep when Jon goes there, he was covered in snow, no? He shook it off. Or were those still ashes?

6/10. I liked it, but while it's personally satisfying, it's far from being narratively satisfying. The dialogue is still awful, some things don't make sense, but they wouldn't change that now. I did like Dany's death scene, Bran being king (I can see this happening in the books maybe through a time skip with adult Bran pov), and the Stark montage at the end. A time for wolves huh? Not a problem for me.

6/10. There's a lot of filler here, and yet the more important things seem rushed. I don't like the direction this story is going tbh, so I'll just focus on the positive things. Jon saying goodbye to Tormund, Sam, and Gilly (felt bad about Ghost but I get it), Dany's feeling of isolation at Winterfell and her gradually becoming more detached and desperate (but so rushed!), and Varys' new found usefulness were things I liked.

People talk about how Jon killing the Night King would have been a cliche, but the way they actually resolved this whole thing - with this huge threat being destroyed so quickly and so effectively - is a cliche in and of itself. And a very anti-climactic one too.

Not when Dany flies, understandably, but in Fire and Blood, I think dragonriders have saddles/harnesses (at least in the confrontation between Daemon and Aemond where this is a plot point).

.

Yeah me too.

6/10 Where to begin.... The fact the Night King and this whole battle took place in the middle of the season and not the end is... well, it's a twist I guess. I can't believe Cersei, and the whole ~game of thrones~, is the true finale of this story. Idk... something tells me the Long Night is not over (or maybe it is and I'm giving these people too much credit). On the other hand, it makes sense since D&D hate magic. All the leaks were more or less wrong and I'm glad. The Arya thing was surprising but I'm not disappointed at all. The problem wasn't with Arya, it's just that after all these seasons, this Night King storyline ended so anti-climactic. And I find Bran's role in this whole thing quite disappointing. Horrible, really. And Ghost better not have died!

Could the maesters have had their own agenda to overthrow King Aerys? Lady Dustin says that Lord Rickard's maester was behind the fact he bethrothed his children to southerners. She also believes that the maesters manipulate events to their choosing, so could the Citadel have wanted for all the great houses to develop familial bonds so then they could move together to take down Aerys?

I see people bringing this up sometimes but I think in the books there's a line by Bloodraven where he says that Bran will learn to ''see beyond the trees'' or some such. Here: "Once you have mastered your gifts, you may look where you will and see what the trees have seen, be it yesterday or last year or a thousand ages past. Men live their lives trapped in an eternal present, between the mists of memory and the sea of shadow that is all we know of the days to come. Certain moths live their whole lives in a day, yet to them that little span of time must seem as long as years and decades do to us. An oak may live three hundred years, a redwood tree three thousand. A weirwood will live forever if left undisturbed. To them seasons pass in the flutter of a moth's wing, and past, present, and future are one. Nor will your sight be limited to your godswood. The singers carved eyes into their heart trees to awaken them, and those are the first eyes a new greenseer learns to use … but in time you will see well beyond the trees themselves." "When?" Bran wanted to know. - Bran III, ADWD This may be up for interpretation, and this may not be right thread, but I wonder what it actually means? From what comes before it sounds like Bran will learn to use other ''eyes'' besides the weirwoods.