Jump to content

It_spelt_Magalhaes

Members
  • Content count

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About It_spelt_Magalhaes

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

1,300 profile views
  1. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    The Red Wedding Was Justified.

    Which economical behemoths and resource wealthy countries do all the time. It's all a matter of power and means to the point of unacountability in the end. No way am I on board with the RW. It was the height of betrayal and disgusting 'tactics', but Frey and Bolton felt safe enough in the backing of their powerful allies that consequences would be well worth their while.
  2. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    Targaryen Illness

    Not to re-stoke the fire here and I apologise if I get ling winded but... Using the Targs to showcase the idiocy of progressing from different to special to better is, quite frankly, a bit overdone?If their 'difference', genetic, magical, whathaveyou, did not afford them power over others, would dragonlords have risen from the primordial ooze of Planetos? Nope, they'd probably be subjugated to whomever got the special sparklies like they did to others in Essos and the Targs in particular did as they installed themselves as topdog of Westeros. They are just 'more' of the same. The possibility of power over other people on the scale the author repeatedly gives us ever not going wrong is simply absurd. Once you get to the present era in the stories? A single indoctrinated child faced with repeated choices between insignificance and ever growing power? Destructive power at that? Sure, that'll work. Could a weapons' system superior to anything in living memory ever be used as anything more than a threat at the least, or a mechanism of more effective destruction than anything in the known world at the worst? The thing for me, and you're welcome to tell me if I'm not seeing it as intended, is that using the Targs as kings, and as such 'more' of the assholes nobility are or, at the very least, are entitled to be, went a bit overboard. To the point where the centuries of Targaryen reign seem to have clouded many readers' perception of how shitty feudalism is and made them give a pass to other noble houses on account of the Targs' Fire and Blood ways. Targaryen idiocy or ideology, call it what you will, does not wipe the board on how the other noble houses are still feudal lords with all it implies and enables them to be at will. Keeping power in the hands of the right people through classism might not be enough, since the medieval like setting would simply muddy the waters as 'the way things are done in these here parts'. Enter the dragonlords with their inbreeding pushed straight to incest made law through exceptionalism and magical traits more obvious than the olden days' tales of greenseeing and warging that the Andal Faith made unseemly for nobility as the First Men culture fell into ill repute, making them 'special'. Then, the coffin nail. Their special trait lends itself to war and destruction, little else. So what the author did, or what I saw it as, was create a particular kind of pig to rule over the pigs and other animals, to follow the comparison with Orwell above. They are still pigs, just with special spots or some such. He simply made them so repelant to some sensibilities that it masks how other pigs are still justifying their position over the other animals with all it entails and leads to. If the idea is to make different simply different and not 'better', all noble houses are in the same boat, perpetuating a system that puts them above others for their own benefit and the detriment of others. Targ idiocy and delusions of superiority are merely a refinement that seems to have eclipsed 'blue blood' good old boys clubism from many of the readers' awareness as far as I see it in reocurring discussions. Now, as to the OP, I'm not at all saying Targs are special snowflakes unlikely to be affected by plebeian things like diseases that kill other people by droves. No way. At best some genetic trait from the original Essosi ancestors might make them resistant to some, which added to better living and nutrition to increase their general wellbeing could statistically create an artificial impression translated into propaganda over time. But there are deaths. There are tales of illness. And no amount of ignorance of her own line or indoctrination in Daenerys' upbringing can change what we know. What the author has given us. As far as what she was told? As far as I understood, we are not to believe she would ever get the truth from of 'steadily loosing his marbles' Viserys if he even knew anything of actual truth about his own line and not what was sanctioned by 'already lost his marbles' Daddy. If she is indeed becoming sick, it has nothing to do with her belief being faulty and simply with an immunity or resistance to a specific pathogen which she simply does not have. If she is not sick, same, either she has the above mentioned genetic difference in respect to the specific illness or she hasn't been sufficiently exposed or whatever. No amount of 'blood of the dragon' self coaching can factually negate a pathogen's presence in her system.
  3. Ah. Just had shivers of revulsion, picturing the Lybria-like ideal world of D&D. Take your daily dose of emotion numbing drugs, so you don't need to care and simply obey the status quo? Yuck. Also, even if Daenerys does turn into the 'you're just like your father' cartoon simply because, again quote 'bombing for peace, etc'? I would take the lesson that warring for reform is bad and run with it, not that warring for reform is bad so don't reform, just comply. That's not being against war. That's defending the system.
  4. I know it's been repeated to death here and in other parts of the forum. But the way GRRM's pet peeve of the 'what happens after the heroics are done', specifically his soundbyte on the tax policy that wasn't, was brushed aside and substituted with that disgusting little convo about brothels being the future? That's their answer? The Crown is going to simply whore out the impoverished and fatten their coffers off the backs of the unfortunate, or by putting the unfortunate to work on their backs? Talk about nihilism and 'the more things change' mentality. I mean, I could see the author ending the stories as such. Hope is for children and realism means happy endings are just unfinished stories. After all, the medieval like setting doesn't quite lend itself to social utopia. Just deal with the overarching threats to humanity as a whole and then reposition the same good old boys club at the top. New deck, same cards, same rules. Change the players, same game. However, the little council meeting scene was so... empty. It feels like all our discussions, no matter the vitriol pouring out from having been slapped in the face with all of 'that'? Even here we end up tailoring our criticism into should've, could've, when the sad reality is simply that there was nothing more. Just surface flash and zero substance. Whores are funny. Tada. And a good investment. Don't forget about that.
  5. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    The truth of events, or at least the perspective of the characters themselves in their pov will absolutely count for sh*t once tongues start wagging. Like it's repeatedly been pointed out in various tones and with a multitude of intents? Dany was screwed once she got them dragons. Everyone wants her gone. Even the Red Priests and their following would have the individual gone and trade it for their symbol and icon. And whatever she does from that point onwards is only going to be twisted in the telling, despite however good, bad, or stupid it might be. Damn her intentions or ambitions. By the time she sets foot on Westeros, she could be handing out lollies and preaching world peace (let alone in a conquest campaign armed with dragons and dothraki), she'll be seen as the absolute worst of all that westerosi can throw at her. Squandering potential allies before she even meets them out of stupidity, inexperience or plain out because she is a Targaryen with Dragons TM? Arianne Martell was always going to be bffs with the 'pretty new girl' who cost her a shot at the throne. Or Dorne. More than once. Right. Meanwhile, Tyrion 'Don't Look at Me I'm Just Here for the Game' Lannister will joyously cast his shadow spinning the runour mill.
  6. Tyrion's a villain. He has to be. The 'bad person best ruler' is at hand. So to spea. There is no 'single bad guy' everyone bands together to fight. There is no single Oz behind the curtain. This story isn't D&D's uplifting morale of 'rape empowers you and you must thank your abusers for the strong character you've become'. Insert vomit break here. Trauma ia trauma because it damages, warps even the kindest into deformed versions of who was before. There is no upside to abuse. Tyrion, who was a mostly harmless whoremonger (if there is such a thing) is headed straight to become a real piece of work. If indeed we get to see the greater good factually favoring the undeserving and objectively unkind, immoral and violent Lannister? If he even proves to be a competent administrator and counsel? The most Lannister of Tywin's progeny, the one he hated so. Well why the hell not?! We'll love to hate him, cheer as he underhandedly scrapes by, spreading chaos and misery in his wake. Instead of sanctifying a moron who got everything wrong and blabbed a bunch of facts and lies interspaced enough to have the generic ken doll kill dragon barbie. Ugh.
  7. So... the whole 'very disputed and close bidding war until Netflix did their thing' was BS? Lovely. Also, I guess that derrails the unholy trinity of prophecised destruction: HBO, Disney and Netflix? The Mouse House already sampled fan backlash due to Star Wars. And even the one movie they are reduced to sounds more like a contract obligation for Disney than a 'we absolutely wants these guys?'. Whoever said the 'now they're contained to Netflix, yay!', wins a cookie.
  8. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    And the thing about the world changing but staying the same is so terribly on point, isn't it? GRRM gives us an allegory inside a metaphor dressed up as fantasy, but the social critique is as valid now as it was when the stories had just started being written. Maybe more even.
  9. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Exactly. The system works for the ruling class. So something has to give. Badly. If the level of destruction caused by the Winter to come could, say, be on par or above the devastation of the plague? That was a key moment to force RL feudalism to end. Peasants became important because they were so few and feudal lords depended on their work force to maintain their property and wealth. Some superduper MagicTM boywonder being made King would simply butcher the chance to finally end the Dark Ages Westeros has stagnated into.
  10. The tragedy and comedy lines aren't going to blur. They'll be a hop skip jump straight into oblivion.
  11. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Thank you. And it would tie in, personally, to a very 'fantasy fan' view on the bittersweet ending soundbyte from GRRM. World saved, world diminished, but world saved. Bran as a 'reigning' figure, probably on the Isle of Faces?, hidden and eventually forgotten, I can take. It would plainly show the slightest bit of slowly fading magic, loosing importance until it's irrelevant. And yes, prophecy and magic have caused so much harm and death it nearly overshadows what has been brought about by pure human greed and stupidity.
  12. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    So no. Bran might become the leader of what little remains of magic in Westeros, much like the King of Greenwood remains a king, but in Middle Earth Elves no longer matter to the grander scheme of things as in Westeros magic must fade to end the enduring Medieval Age that has lasted since the last Long Night, but he will not be King of the Six Kingdoms or whatever that idiocy was. I truly believe Bran will be important in the conflict ahead, but a King? King of the However Many Kingdoms and elected to be so as much as a Targaryen in all but name? Nah.
  13. No wonder GRRM seems nostalgic? If indeed ASOIAF was written initially as a reaction to the endless 'corrections' to his writting to make it 'more viewer and industry friendly'? As a dare, to himself, to write something unfilmable? Deciding to allow someone (or someones) with the cash and clout to go at it with a will must've been the ultimate trial by fire. Tada! Prueva no superada. And point bloody made. I can only imagine the 'alterations' he directly had to argue down and back from that first, disastrous pilot to the late days of his direct involvement. From then on my best guess is there was only the Pilate route. The experiment was done and the lesson learned.
  14. It_spelt_Magalhaes

    The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

    Exactly. Hence the amount of onlyifs and eventhens in the whole post. The world would be upside down and sideways to the point where the only lesson would be, again, beware of following people or a person of proven power or even a ceeed or system on the basis of 'it's our only way out, all hail our savior' mob mentality. There's something sketchy about the CotF and the whole ThreeEyedRaven concept. That's way too much power set upon one entity. The other idiot was running around straddling a damn nuke, people bowing and scraping at her feet and she went coocoo ffs. As you say, so rightly? A twelve year old crippled boy, with all his dreams crushed in one traumatic event? Knowing everything or thereabouts? Not scary. Like, at all.
×