SeanF

I'm sure Ding & Dong thought they were better writers than Martin.

Unfortunately, you’re right. Martin has confirmed, in James Hibberd’s oral history , that Stannis will burn his daughter. That also shows that the pink letter is a lie, and he’s still alive, as at the end of ADWD. Bran’s treatment of Hodor is described as “an obscenity”. That might suggest Bran’s becoming king is a nightmare, like Leto II. Apparently, Hodor dies, wielding a sword, as Bran wargs his mind. Other than that, he says the main characters have “different endings.” The “Holy Shit” moments are the death of Hodor, Bran’s kingship, and Stannis burning Shireen.

I like Richard III too. One part of me is rooting for him, but it would still have been an unsatisfactory ending to the play had her really got away with it.

The opinions of Michael Moorcock are not the Law of the Medes and the Persians.

Since Moorcock hadn't actually read LOTR when he wrote that essay, it is of limited value. And, who reads or criticises Moorcock today?

The Fall of Constantinople/Sarantium in GGK's world seems to have been much swifter than in ours. In Children of Earth and Sky, the Empress was described as having the East at her feet, as a young woman, and Sarantium was still a city of a million people. At the time of the Fall, Trakesia/Greece was still described as under imperial rule.

I would be 99% certain that the climax to the tale is the fight against the Others, not the fight for Kings Landing, and that the six main POV characters survive up to that point, even if they don't all survive past it.

Too many moving parts are different to offer any confident predictions.

There are huge differences between the show, and what we've already read in the books. I think the biggest overall will be that the climax of the books will be the War for the Dawn, rather than the fight for Kings Landing. I think the likeliest outcome is that Kings Landing burns when Daenerys takes it by storm, but there are other possibilities.

What we would regard as dictatorship has been pretty much the norm throughout history. Even highly capable rulers ranged from the pretty ruthless, like Alfred the Great, Saladdin, Mehmet II, Cyrus the Great, to sociopathic butchers like Nadir Shah, Peter the Great, and Babur. And, the uncomfortable truth is that in fact, many of these people achieved a great deal, rather than being wholly destructive. They built empires, cities, civilisations that lasted for centuries. No ruler in a medieval-type world, such as Martin's, would last five minutes if they shrank from bringing fire and sword to their enemies. He would not be telling an honest story if he suggested otherwise.

Not in real life. Dictators tend to be quite rational, if horrible. Those who twirl their moustaches and wipe out people to show how evilly evil they are are cartoon characters like Ming the Merciless. Burning your own capital city makes sense if you are losing, but not if you are winning.

Many thanks. I'll take a look.

I liked the shout out to Blackadder II in Children of Earth and Sky. Just like the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Seressan envoy gets presented with painting detailing his sexual exploits, (in his case, being flogged by a courtesan, with a root vegetable stuck up his rear end).

Sarantine Mosaic would be my favourite, but then, I love reading about the Romans of the East.

Oh, I was just agreeing with you. It's a good example of the way that D & D just don't understand military matters - along with all the daft strategies and tactics they came up. The best battle scene was the one scripted by George Martin, the Blackwater, because he took the trouble to study these things, and had considerable assistance from Bernard Cornwell in writing his own battle scenes.

@BlackLightningBurning cities in war happens for a reason. It might be a horrible reason, but there's still a reason. The burning of Hamburg, Tokyo, the Ruhr etc. in WWII was done to break resistance and punish the enemy. Genghis Khan burned cities that resisted, so that others would surrender without a fight. The problem with the burning of Kings Landing is it was done for no reason. Dany had reason to burn the Red Keep (to kill Cersei and her followers). She had reason to kill Lannister soldiers. It might be unpleasant, but it makes sense, militarily, and emotionally. But she had no reason to swerve away from the Red Keep and burn random civilians (and risk her own soldiers). And D & D know this, because they've come up with a string of alternative explanations, none of which fit (it was like Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it was not, those bombings were done to finish off resistance; she was cold when she saw her brother being killed; she was triggered by the bells; she wanted to conquer the world; it was the same thing as killing slavers and rapists in Essos etc.) All the debate, prior to this, between Dany and the rest, was about the level of civilian casualties to be incurred when she burned the Red Keep. No one was discussing burning their own capital city, the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. Burning a capital is the act of a loser, not a winner. If Dany burns Kings Landing in the books, there will be a reason. For example, her soldiers might be bogged down in street fighting, and taking huge casualties; or the surrender of the city might be botched (eg someone lets off a bolt that injures her or Drogon, leading her to believe it's a sham); or the fire runs out of control as caches of wildfire get ignited in a wooden city. The Sack on the ground would have made enough sense on its own. The Northern soldiers in particular would all have friends and relatives who died at the Red Wedding, and they would be itching for revenge for that, and the deaths of Ned Stark and his men.

It's one thing I enjoy in the novels, matching the fictional characters to their historical counterparts, although, often, it's not quite 1 to 1. Leontius is really a combination of Belisarius, Heraclius, Leo the Iconoclast, IMHO. Styliane doesn't really match Antonia, but is typical of quite a few female power brokers in the Eastern Empire.

Overall, I think Lord of Emperors is my favourite.

Daenerys might very well be a tragic heroine in the books (and the character arcs of tragic hero/heroine and villain are very different ones). I don't see her final chapter in ADWD as the turning point that Adam Feldman does, because I think a good Queen must be both Mhysa and Dragon. She must care about her people, but she must also be willing to kill those who threaten them, and threaten her rule. She simply went too far in ADWD in trying to compromise with people who make unreasonable demands. I think the peace with the Masters was built on sand for two reasons: 1. Many of them are just waiting for the Volantenes to turn up and flatten free Meereen. Adam Feldman has never addressed that issue convincingly. The Old Blood of Volantis realise, correctly, that a free state is an existential threat to them. Sooner or later, revolution will break out in their city. They have to bring Daenerys and her followers in chains back home, and execute them brutally in front of their slaves, to destroy their hopes. A feature of any slave society, where the slaves are 85% of the population, is that you must keep the slaves in a state of abject terror in order to keep them in their place. Forget D & D's efforts to show that slavery isn't all that bad. Feldman suggests that Dany could negotiate a peace with the Volantenes when they turn up. If you think that, well, I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. Of course, the Masters would swing behind the Volantenes. 2. The peace is shameful. Allowing people to bring slaves into a free city, to operate a slave market outside the walls of that city, and presumably, to return fugitive slaves is just not going to work. It didn't work in the USA and led to a civil war. In that sense, the Old Blood are right. Slave and free cannot coexist. One or other must prevail. WRT the show, I don't think D & D were able to work out whether Daenerys was villain or tragic heroine. So, they gave us a mess. If Daenerys is brought down by some fatal flaw, it's not excessive ambition, but rather excessive self-doubt. In the books, if not the show, she beats herself up endlessly, blaming herself, second-guessing her decisions, condemning herself for all the lives she failed to save, while overlooking the lives she did save.

I don't think it's tinfoily at all. The show dropped hints of resentment on the part of Tyrion towards Jon and Daenerys. Book Tyrion is vicious towards women who reject him. If the tale ends with Tyrion persuading Jon, or someone else, to kill Daenerys, it will likely be out of jealousy.

I don't think Arianne is just a prize for Aegon. I think the price for Dorne's support for Aegon will be co-rulership.

Yes, Tyrion does have a real problem with women who turn him down.

@Lord VarysThe more I think about it, the more I suspectTyrion is Iago to Jon and Dany.

Dany's dream at Astapor suggests that the final defeat of the Others will be on the Trident.

Jon Con is the obvious candidate for someone who burns KL.