Jump to content

Ruki88

Members
  • Content count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ruki88

  • Rank
    Freerider
  1. Ruki88

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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?
  2. Ruki88

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  3. Ruki88

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  4. Ruki88

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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?
  5. Ruki88

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  6. Ruki88

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  7. Ruki88

    Poll. Is Bran ever leaving the cave?

    Hmmm, I like the optimism of some ppl even after the abysmal ending. Not being sarcastic, genuinely would like to be positive myself. Some ppl theorised that D&D misconstrued what GRRM meant but seriously, I don't see the author giving dubious info without explaining what he meant on something so important. He's also the one insisting he won't change the endgame... I'll keep my expectations low - that was one of the things I learn from the show. And from GRRM as well considering his penchant of giving deadlines that he misses. Like reeeeeally misses.
  8. Ruki88

    Poll. Is Bran ever leaving the cave?

    Ah, I wish! But the actor who played Bran said that GRRM had 2 things planned for this character: the Hodor revelation and him ending up king. Based on this info this I don't know if I should feel happy or not that GRRM might not finish the series.
  9. Ruki88

    Poll. Is Bran ever leaving the cave?

    According to That Which Shall Not Be Named ending, he does more than leave the cave apparently...
  10. Ruki88

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    Hmmm, you definitely don't like this character. It's cool, I get it. I have my own despised character in this series **cough**Sansa Stark**cough**. I feel like you see Jon either a Gary Sue because he doesn't have it hard enough, or an idiot because he's not making the 'right' decisions. Whichever suits you in the given situation. As for me, his actions reflect in a way his upbringing. He was educated along his true born siblings true, but I don't think he had the level of education as Robb. He was the future Warden of the North so I reckon he should've had separate lessons in ruling that Jon as a bastard or Bran and Rickon as 2nd and 3rd sons would not have. I would find it rather strange if he didn't, really. So I always found it unfair that some ppl criticise Jon in comparision with Robb. Jon wasn't educated to lead but to follow. Moreover, as a bastard he wasn't really allowed to have ambition in a way...he more often than not caried shame on his shoulders for his birth, something for which he had no control over. A bit unhealthy if you ask me. I think Jon was used to being a loner and doing things on his own. Now I don't know if this is because he is an introvert by nature or as a result of his bastardry. Also, being himself judged for something not of his doing it might explain why Jon has an easier way of changing his mind if the evidence is good enough. As an introvert myself (personal testimony is not that valid I suppose but it's the one I've got), I do tend to isolate myself, think a lot and say very little. I also don't waste my time trying to make my intentions clear to others. I suppose in a way I understand where Jon is coming from. I don't understand ppl who say he made stupid decisions and that's why he ended up being stabbed. Again, if Jon always made the right choice he's a Gary Sue, if he makes dumb decisions he's an idiot. It feels like either way it goes it's never OK. I'm not here saying he's perfect and everything he did was just right but a little bit of perspective would be appreciated. Saying that he didn't explain himself enough to the ones who stabbed him is a little bit weak as I see it. I feel that he could've tried until he was blue in the face but sometimes biased, ignorant viewpoints are not corrected just by talking. If only it was that easy history as we know it would be very different. You also mentioned the duty/love bit. When he chose duty (NW over Ygritte) then that was not good. When he arguably chose love (saving Arya) then he is a traitor and deserved to be stabbed. Again, it feels like no matter what decision he makes it's never the good one. It's either white or black. Ppl tend to forget about the shades of grey when it comes to him. Ppl praise GRRM as if he's the 2nd coming of Shakespeare, how he writes ambiguous, gray characters etc etc BUT not THIS guy. No, this guy is definitely a white knight, Gary Sue, generic character.....
  11. Ruki88

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    Yes, I saw that too. I think it's because of the stories that Bran the Builder made the Wall - therefore done in a lifetime. As I see it, you can compare it for example, to the Great Wall of China, which took a long time and was constructed in stages. This one is the Great Wall on steroids, lol.
  12. Ruki88

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    Oh, yes definitely. Sorry, my wording was not well done. Of course something so massive was done over a long period of time. I'm not imagining this was done easy and fast. But like I said, some went south of the wall some stayed north of the wall. Years passed, differences between those factions grew etc etc.
  13. Ruki88

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    Here is how I see things. Before the Wall was constructed, the North was one. The Others came, ppl fought together and drove them back. Afterwards, the Wall was added as a protection measure in case of another invasion by the Others. Most ppl crossed the Wall afterwards I’m sure, but some of them stayed north of the Wall – we’ve seen ppl refusing to leave their home even when disaster is coming their way. And we do know that northerners are a stubborn bunch. I do think in the beginning crossing the Wall south was not forbidden, maybe some ‘Free folk’ even camped close to the Wall and had trades with those in the south. The no. of ppl who stayed beyond the Wall must’ve been pretty small and small pockets of ppl ended up isolated from each other – which in turn might explain why the Free Folk are not united in general and tend to bicker between themselves. But here’s the thing though. Time passed. A lot of it. Enough that the NW started to forget why they manned the Wall. Enough for the Free Folk to forget why they’re born north of the Wall. In time, those south had a social system created with a set of rigid rules whereas those north did…well, basically what they wanted more or less. And that created problems. Simplified, if someone comes to your country and don’t adhere to the rules they get punished according to the rules. On the other hand, that someone doesn’t like your rules and gets resentful. And on and on. Think about it. The Long Night was 8000yrs ago. That’s a lot of time for things to get lost or forgotten. As far as I’m concerned, it’s easy to point a finger and say with absolute conviction that those set of ppl are guilty but that doesn’t make it true. Neither party is innocent. As for Jon, the only shame he has to feel is on what he did or his current brothers did as he is part of the NW and therefore, in tacit accord with its actions. At the beginning his thoughts on the Wildlings were the ones taught to him. But it doesn’t take him long to realize that they’re ppl like any other south of the Wall – some good, some bad. He doesn’t warp the reality to fit his prejudices, doesn’t find shallow reasons and makes fallacious arguments just to keep his previous taught view of the world. Just thinking that the NW are the baddies because they kill Wildlings is easy, but I think not the right way of seeing things. As far as they’re concerned, that is their sworn duty – to protect the south from those north of the Wall. And Free Folk are not some little innocent lambs after all – they raid, they steal, they rape and they kill. Not all of them as a whole mind you that’s not what I’m saying, but like the Greyjoys or the slavers, it’s their way of life. Think about the Vikings – they raided, stole, raped and killed. But they were also farmers. When Jon did have the power to do something once he ended up LC, he did what I think was the right choice, however shocking and contentious it was. Oh, it wasn’t for pure humanitarian reasons, let’s not confuse the show (ugh) with the books. He was quite pragmatic about it – Others kill and revive ppl therefore he needs to make sure to thin out the numbers; he needs ppl to man the Wall in order to fight the Others. As for Jon feeling guilty that the NW and the North somehow mistreated the Free Folk? I don’t believe that “the son bears responsibility for the sins of the father”. Nobody should feel guilt or shame for what other ppl of the same race, gender, religion, country did. Acknowledge it, yes. Feel personal responsibility as if he did it himself, no. As for the North being seen as this moral and just kingdom compared to others – I see your point. In a way it is biased – the Starks were raised by Ned Stark and well, I think the guy was a bit deluded as far as I’m concerned. Ppl tend to measure the North based on Ned Stark which is a pretty big error me thinks – he definitely wasn’t what you call a Stark of the old. He was raised and educated by a southern lord and any ethics he formed were an amalgam of northern ways (whatever he did learn) and southern ways. I always saw him as a beta wolf – and a passive one at that. Never really liked him much, either as a father or as a Warden, but that is not the point here. Unfortunately, GRRM has not written a book solely on the Starks and the North as he did with the Targaryens therefore we don’t have a glaring point on their shortcomings. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there – because, believe you me, they’re not some saints who ruled the North for thousands of years solely on being good and moral and just. Every country has national pride and tend to sweep under the rug some of their shortcomings after all. The Stark children are not going to suddenly realize them – especially now, when all they hold dear was stripped from them. They most definitely are going to see things through rose colored glasses – that happens.
  14. Ruki88

    Jon Snow and Julius Caesar

    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.
  15. Ruki88

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    I think they kinda forgot....
×