Jump to content

Ruki88

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ruki88

  • Rank
    Freerider

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I swear, sometimes I feel that if Jon so much as dares to breath a little harder he'll end up being blamed that a tornado destroyed a village somewhere in the Stormlands.
  2. I can’t quite agree with your assessment of Jon and Dany. I think that you have to take into account the circumstance of their upbringing. Dany’s worth was measured in her usefulness to her brother, and Jon was raised as a bastard with basically no prospects. Both rose meteorically in their ranks and ppl expect them to perform well? I don’t think so. Sure, they had ppl give them good counsel here and there but I don’t think that measures to a full education, such as the one Robb Stark might’ve received for example, considering that he was destined to be the new Warden of the North. You can’t have 3 characters raised as a broodmare, a bastard and a lord destined to rule half of a continent respectively, and expect them to perform on the same or similar level as if the circumstances of their upbringing are irrelevant. Talk about lofty expectations. Did they blunder their way through and made small, big or horrific mistakes? Yes, obviously. If everything went hunky-dory for them then ppl would’ve complained that they’re Mary Sues and have plot armor as big as the Wall itself. If they make mistakes then they’re bad and stupid. Ppl already say they have plot armor as it is. Eh…. What I find interesting is that they’re the ones that break the status quo: Dany with the slaves and Jon with the wildlings. In pretty rigid and set in their ways communities. Does it go bad in both of their cases? Well. Duh. If rational conversation and clear communication would work as ppl think it should I wonder how many bad things could’ve been avoided in the world. Hell, ppl in this century are hard to reason to can you imagine doing trying it in medieval times? I by no means argue right now that they are the best of the best of the best. But, damn, this whole dismissal is pretty unfair as I see it. The characters we see doing the governing, and plotting, and scheming are the older ones. You know, the ones who’d been in this for years and years. Let’s look at Petyr Baelish when he was 15: challenged Brandon Stark who offered Petyr multiple chances to yield, Petyr refused to give up and got beaten up so badly Catelyn thought he would die. Now does he sound anything like the cunning, Machiavellian, unpredictable, deceitful, and ruthless manipulator of court politics that we know and love?
  3. I agree, every detail of his rule can't be added in text but what are Bran's qualifications? Besides conveniently having a vast amount of knowledge downloaded in his brain? At least with Aragorn we can say he has first hand experience to help him in ruling. And what exactly is the message expressed by this? If you don't have magic to give you the necessary tools "at the swish of a wand" (more or less), then don't bother? Humans too stupid to rule themselves? I think this was already pointed out multiple times, so. Maybe I understood it wrong, but I always thought that the ppl, as flawed as they are, will be the ones to rise above by their own work. That the supernatural parts of the story are there to 'spice' things, not to be the answer to a human problem. Look, 'magic did it' is a perfectly good solution. For other novels. Not ASOIAF. A lot of ppl were confused, myself included, on how Bran ended up king practically out of nowhere since his character was basically ignored for a no. of seasons already. I see it as being the same thing but in novel format. 5 novels done and 2 more to go. That's 70% of the material done. I mean. What even.
  4. Moooorning! Well, at least it's morning where I am. That’s a fair question, considering how I framed my argument. I put it that way to shorten my response and I suppose I was misunderstood. GRRM: “In Return of the King, Aragorn comes back and becomes king, and then [we read that] "he ruled wisely for three hundred years." Okay, fine. It is easy to write that sentence, He ruled wisely. What does that mean, he ruled wisely? What were his tax policies? What did he do when two lords were making war on each other? Or barbarians were coming in from the North? What was his immigration policy? What about equal rights for Orcs? I mean did he just pursue a genocidal policy, "Lets kill all these fucking Orcs who are still left over"? Or did he try to redeem them? You never actually see the nitty-gritty of ruling.” I’ll amend my argument in this case. What I meant actually, is that GRRM wanted to see the minutiae of being a king, the nitty gritty stuff of ruling. In that case, isn’t GRRM guilty of doing the same thing by skipping years of the story and just make Bran king? Whether he’ll be a good or a bad one is irrelevant. There are 2 more novels in which he can do it and I don’t see it happening. We have 5 novels and only about 2.5 years or so have passed and look how much happened. If we have a time jump in Winds that’s a big chunk of a character’s development being missed, especially for Bran since he is still a child. The same thing if we have an epilogue in which he states the aftermath of the events in ASOIAF. I can ask the same thing as GRRM: "he ruled wisely/badly for X number of years." Okay, fine. It is easy to write that sentence, “He ruled wisely/badly.” What does that mean, “he ruled wisely/badly”? etc, etc, etc. You might say I’m exaggerating and giving too much attention to this but if someone makes a statement about something, and alludes to the fact that he’ll do ‘better’ at the same time, then I am expecting to see that. Or I just might start thinking I’ve been trolled. You know.
  5. I actually did entertain the idea. But then, wouldn't it be the same as Aragorn? Wasn't GRRM's argument that we weren't shown how Aragorn was a good king?
  6. Uff, I do think that there are too many things stacked against Bran ending king, and even if he does end up king by some miracle, it still opens up a whole new cans of worms. Some ppl on this site already discussed this much better than me. Those are, as I call them, in story reasons. But for me to speak about why story wise it does not fit, I should be conviced why it doesn't fit externally speaking, in the first place. Externally speaking, my brain always brings me back to that remark about Aragorn. And there is somehing else that gives me pause. Since the 1st novel was published - what, like 20yrs ago? - how many ppl put forth the theory of Bran as king? Look, I get it that the author is praised on and on about his twists and what not, but that was mainly after the Red Wedding, I think - nobody kind of expected that, and rightly so. But after that, when ppl started really analizing the text, and I mean practically every word, there is still nothing? GRRM already said he added hints about the ending (his "the butler did it" analogy), but nobody got it? I find that highly unlikely. There are a lot of readers out there who put a lot of effort into analazying everything, not to mention the input they received from other once they put it online - like on this site -, input that might've strengthen their argument or disprove it. Maybe I haven't read it and it is written somewhere this theory of Bran being king. But as far as I know, Bran's fate was either turning evil or merging with the weirwoods, ruling Winterfell etc. I honestly don't remember someone claiming he'll be king of Westeros. I don't know man, there are way too many things that smell fishy to me. I think that this was GRRM vision at the start, but that was when the story was supposed to be shorter, with not so many things added on top like now. A lot of things have changed if we are to believe the plots that were dropped in the meantime are true. Now I'm left to believe that an illiterate, crippled child, who spent 5 novels hugging a tree will end up king in the last 2 novels. If the author 'turns his nose up' that it wasn't shown how Aragorn ruled then I expect the author to come up wih something to back up his remark.I'm sorry but if I wanted the answer to be "magic did it" I'll reread Harry Potter, you know. At least with Aragorn we have in text reasons to surmanise he'll manage pretty well at this whole 'king' bit.
  7. Ahh, it seems both of us are still scratching our heads trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. And let's say a somewhat believable explanation does come out, I would still try to understand how this is a good idea. The author took the time to ponder how Aragorn was a good king and he came out with this poo poo. Good lord.
  8. I agree, but that's exactly why she'll end up getting a crown. Now that I know that in his initial draft Sansa was supposed to betray the Starks again - with eyes wide open, none of that "oh, she was just a naive little girl, how could she side against her future husband" bull -, makes it even harder to swallow her character.
  9. Actually, no. Robert Baratheon had a claim for the IT by right of conquest which was strengthen politically ("legally" so to speak) by him having blood ties with the Targs by way of his grandmother (Rhaella Targaryen). Bran has neither.
  10. The fact that ppl are ok with Bran on the throne is frankly outstanding to me. I'm a fairly lazy, go with the flow, not care much about things in general but even I balk at the idea of a non human like Bran having authority over a nation. Ppl call Dany the mad queen and condemn her for what she did (understandibly and critique deserved) and yet call Bran good? At least you can say about Dany that she was a victim of her genetics and circumstances that made her snap at the end. Bran/3ER, on the other hand, knowingly and deliberately allowed to happen what happened - after all, he sees the future. And even worse, as how things are played on the screen, he intentionally manipulated some events to lead to it. Any omniscient 'deity' that would allow that amount of suffering is either impotent or doesn't care sufficiently about the suffering of other ppl. For Bran I tend to lean on the 2nd option.
  11. "You creep" OMG :)))))) The even funnier thing is I actually see him doing something like this. Like show canon doing this.
  12. I agree with the above. For me the main issue I have with Bran is the idea of a supernatural/god being ruling over humans. I don’t care how well it is written, the message itself is the problem. Humanity needs to get over its compulsion to hand power over to a messiah to clean up the mess they made. Even if the messiah is truly good, the resulting power structure is going to screw things up even more. Much better to rely on your own judgment, and your own mistakes. This whole idea of the infallible leader, especially one who does not share the humanity of his people, is faulty from the start because my view of history says that mistakes made by a leader (or made in a leader's name) are amplified by the numbers who follow without question. Look how Dany was seen at the end – a mad queen for burning innocent ppl and planning to go on a righteous war across the land;at the end in her mind what she said was good for the simple fact that she said it was good. And that is precisely the concern I have with Bran - the only difference is that one is human and the other is not. Any god who allows thousands of people to suffer in this way and doesn’t care to help is evil in my opinion. And the idea that it was the best path that Bran could see, how do we know? Was it specified? No. Even more, as shown on screen it seems that Bran actually orchestrated the events in such a way that led to Dany going crazy. I would rather have a flawed human rather than a perfect deity. A deity is not bound to human morality, therefore it can easily justify the slaughter of thousands of souls without batting an eye. You can protest against the actions of a human (Dany) but not so much against a god (Bran).
  13. I never cared for the prophecy much and the only thing interesting me about his heritage is how Jon would feel about it. I like Jon as a character. I understand why some ppl would find him boring since his arc is isolated from the rest and it's not as sensational as battling slavers and birthing dragons. He's also too much of a good guy compared with the other characters which apparently makes not edgy enough. But for me, that is exactly why I like him - he starts as him trying to emulate Ned Stark (not a fan btw) but slowly realizes that holding on to honor so tightly is not feasible. I don't understand ppl who asert the fact that his ending in the show is OK because he always wanted to be a ranger. He was a kid dazzled by his uncle's inflated stories about the NW, and he also thought he never had any other option to choose from. Jon dreamt about having a family and kids but thought that wasn't something he can have so no, him ending back in the NW at the end is bull. Anyway, I've read the books some time ago so the details might be a little fuzzy in my head now. It just feels like GRRM went with the secret prince just so he can have the opportunity to go in the opposite direction with it. So many king references added to his arc which now we know mean diddly squat. Meh.
  14. Yep, I still think he's the worst portrayed character in the show - at least the others were allowed to have a personality till the end. Since s6 he was slowly drained of any character development he had in the previous seasons. Good lord, I don't know where D&D got the idea that Jon has no personal ambition, why ppl assert that he doesn't want things. Can we get some perspective, pls. I was this close to facepalm myself into oblivion everytime I heard show!Jon say he "doesn't want it". For the love of...he's a bastard in the books. The only options he has, as far as he knows, are either stay at Winterfell under his brother's rule or leave to the Wall. The first option is neatly closed to him the moment Catelyn threatens to kick him out the moment Ned leaves. The guy has ambition enough to want to make a name for himself at the Wall - the only place where he thinks his birth won't matter. It's not that he wouldn't want to be a lord or king it's that these are so far out of his reach that it's laughable to even contemplate. He wants more out of his life but I do think any lofty dream he might've had as a kid were slowly beat out of him the more he grew up and learn what a bastard is. We can see him being bitter sometimes about this. In the show he's like a robot implanted with the program "Protect the North" / "Shield that protects the realm of men". It's like he's not even a real person anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...