DMC

Well, you're really in the exact wrong thread then. As for Martin killing her off, I do still think that's a distinct possibility, domestic difficulties be damned. But, if he doesn't, I think the show ending is just as reasonable and likely as anything else - and certainly more likely than marrying her off to, say, Gendry, which has always been what my heart wants.

As the show depicted, it's entirely possible she both reclaims her Stark identity, helps her pack survive, and then wonders "what now?" at the conclusion, as she has nothing else to do and no one (sorry) else to fight. Arya Stark has made abundantly clear she does not wish to be a lady. And if events end up in a similar fashion to the show, nobody will be in a position to force her to do so (or at least would want to try). In such case, it makes plenty of sense that she goes off exploring. Where? Like I said, the unknown west is just as likely as anywhere else. It is in-character that'd she go somewhere rare, exotic, and at least she's never seen before. It's not the story of another person, it's foreshadowing her ending. No matter what she does at the endgame, it's almost certain we can find an example of someone doing the exact same thing a priori. That's just the consequence of creating such a vast menagerie of characters and history. As @divica mentioned, I disagree with this interpretation. Obviously, she was in more immediate danger in the Riverlands. But that does not mean she didn't "enjoy" it any less than her time in Braavos. She certainly made more meaningful relationships in the Riverlands, and that experience helped make her the person she is. Nostalgia is a weird thing, it's quite possible Arya looks back on those times in the Riverlands with more fondness than her time in Braavos. While I definitely agree with the rest, I actually liked that part. I think Sandor is one of the very few people in the world Arya would actually listen to and respects. Anyway, out of curiosity, what DO you think her ending will be?

I don't see why her story is inherently more personal than, say, Dany's or Jon's or Tyrion's or Bran's. You could say it's more individualistic, in that Arya doesn't really care about the game whereas all those other four do at least in some way. Which is precisely why her peacing out and sailing west makes good sense. Y'all get really hung up on ages. Lots more than the characters in the books do. She got to Braavos with a coin. She's a very rich woman, relatively speaking. She can pay for a crew to do whatever she wants, unless House Stark ceases to exist. Why would Martin recently publishing Elissa Farman's story make Arya sailing west less likely? I don't think there's any relationship there, but one could easily make the argument Farman's tale is foreshadowing Arya's. Meh, she could do that anywhere outside the North.

I wonder about Arya. We still have "When the spring thaw comes, they will find your body with a needle still locked tight between your frozen fingers." And we know she's not going to kill the "night king" in the books. Which makes one wonder what she is going to do, because I do expect her to do something of significance. While I think Jaime will kill Cersei, I suppose she's still a candidate there. But if she does survive, what motivation doesn't she have to sail west? Or rather, what motivation would she have to go back to Braavos, or to Essos in general? I don't see how those are innately more likely options. Sure, she liked hanging out in Braavos, but she's also an explorer at heart.

Well, sure. Reverting back to their original states is a plausible ending - and that would indeed be a seminal moment rather than "just a snapshot," which is what I was disagreeing with there. I will not argue that's a strong possibility, I just think it's kind of lame. As someone who studies institutions for a living, very rarely do you see those that are well-established simply be abandoned in such a way. There are ebbs and flows of course, but most work off of their "progress" - if you want to call it that - in one way or another to feed into something bigger. I suppose the counter-example to that would be the Balkans, but I don't think that's what Martin's going for. The pope also controlled the papal states for a very considerable period.

Strongly disagree there. This is undoubtedly a seminal moment in Westerosi history. If it wasn't why would Martin stage the conflict during such an era? It makes more sense that things will change in the denouement than if things didn't.

The divine right of kings is indeed the very concept that enabled monarchies to sustain themselves for centuries. I'm a college instructor, and have prepped many classes in my discipline - political science. First class I ever prepped was American Government 101 (it's called a lot of different things depending where you are). In the first lecture of that class, naturally I talk about The Founding. And the basis of that founding philosophically starts with Hobbes and Locke, and the latter rejecting the divine right of the monarch. That is the birth of modern western democracy. I don't think nor anticipate Martin will comment on that in his crescendo, but I also would be quite disappointed if he leaned into the "divine right" concept as it was justification for centuries of subjugation. I expect the High Sparrow's designs will be thwarted by the time of the endgame, and the faith's influence once again relegated to nominal power at best - which it was at the onset of the story. I think Martin's exploration there was really nothing more than a kind of dalliance that is a result of him being a gardener rather than an architect. Generally, Martin's realpolitik depiction is fairly bereft of religious influence - especially compared to how much influence Rome did have on the international relations of Europe during the actual middle ages. Based on that, I don't expect the gods or god or whatever to be much of a sticking point with him.

Heh, well yeah sure. Kinda trying to keep religion out of the discussion - think there's sufficient controversy already.

The great lords of Westeros obviously ceded considerable influence upon Aegon's conquering. That power has been centralized for 300 years in King's Landing, and they have had little to no say in who is running this new centralized system. It makes a lot of sense that those lords, when probably there's very little left of them standing after a years of consistent and absolute bloodshed, would insist "hey, we're choosing from now on." The system I'm suggesting IS very similar to a kingsmoot, even more so than the way you describe it. A kingsmoot is not solely derived from descendants of the predecessor. They will be favored in such a society, of course, but we literally saw non-Greyjoys make claims in the only canon kingsmoot that's been depicted. @Bernie Mac, you really like arguing about arguing, and it's actually kind of fascinating how easily I got under your skin. I wasn't even trying. I'm going to stop now because this is not productive to the thread.

No, again, I called an argument you were making either ignorant or disingenuous. Perhaps you can't understand the difference? No, it's not. There were many quasi-legislative bodies in both actual medieval history and in Martin's world. That they'd intentionally pick a King that cannot have a successor is a natural progression of this that is indeed quite logical, and I've outlined why repeatedly. It is wrong to say there's no backing in medieval history for such an ending, which is explicitly what you were arguing a few posts back. I don't need to explain why that's wrong, it just is wrong. Huh? Who said that? WTF is wrong with your debate style? You just whip out random things when you have nothing else to say? You have, repeatedly, suggested anyone that thinks Bran will become King is stupid, in myriad ways. To be clear, in that context I'm referring to lords asserting more influence on the crown. In which there's plenty of historical precedent. But no, I don't know of any historical precedent of a council or legislative body intentionally choosing a monarch that they know will not produce heirs. That's what the argument is about. That's kinda the point, though, right? Even with agnatic primogeniture, every time a king dies it seems a war starts lately. In fact, the king doesn't even have to die. There became competing claims on top of competing claims and cruelly incompetent rulers on top of benignly incompetent rulers. A reconvening council is a new try in attempting to cease such crises that will likely seem neverending to those that survive the second Dance. It's like creating the League of Nations after WWI. Obviously, that didn't work out too well, but it did give a framework for the future.

Right. Could he get physically better? I suppose it's conceivable. Could he recover from all the trauma of his rearing - from Lysa to "make the bad man fly" to LF killing his mother to Alayne, and all that's in between? It is very hard to think a kid could come back from all that, especially when he was described as so weak from the moment we met him.

I was just giving you the courtesy of telling you I'm going to cease replying on the matter. Sorry for giving you such courtesy? First, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of ad hominem if you think that's one of them. That wasn't an attack on any person, it was an attack on a position. If you disagree that Bran will be King, fine. But don't tell me there's "no logic" to it, because there is. That's what I was originally responding to. And in this specific case, don't tell me it's anathema to the medieval backdrop Martin has developed and is somehow a violation of that precept by quoting one of his interviews. You're the one that's being disparaging there, and doing so with an argument that's simply wrong. Nothing annoys me more than the guy who's like "well, actually, that's historically inaccurate" when, no, actually, that's just because you have a vapid understanding of history and politics. So, yes, I will continue to say that as long as people pose that their interpretations are somehow innately superior to others. Particularly when you denigrate the opposition in such a douchy way like you do.

Toughen up Robin how? The boy needs a staff to get him out of bed.

Alright, think I'm done with this discussion. You're just reiterating the same denigrative logic over and over again. There's no reason to continue us talking over each other. ETA: Ok, I will respond to this, because it's a bunch of bullshit. Suggesting the Lords get together and choose Bran the cripple is not Martin being ahistorical. A council demanding permanent power - which would be the idea in appointing a monarch not only without but that cannot have a successor - is very much in line with middle-age history. Acting like this is some huge paradigm shift is either ignorant or disingenuous.

I suspect it will demonstrate Bran holds wisdom no one else living possesses. So, yeah, that's a pretty compelling argument to choose him in a council with no obvious candidates. 1. Because they want him to rule all of Westeros instead of just the North. 2. This is a good question. If the North gains independence - which I think is possible - I'm inclined to think Dorne and the II will demand it as well -- and perhaps even the Vale. It's the other 5 regions - Westerlands, Reach, Riverlands, Stormlands, Crownlands - that makeup the heart of Westeros. And these are likely to be more in need of rebuilding than the those 3 other regions (omitting the North, of course, which already needs rebuilding). 3. Maybe? I don't know how he learns. Perhaps he's the "last greenseer" because he has the Martin-world equivalent of an eidetic memory. He has already led a rag-tag group of followers out of the ashes of Winterfell to the wall, then well beyond to find a magical tree. While certainly not in breadth and scope that Dany or Jon (or even Tyrion) has, the books have been showing Bran developing leadership abilities. Have many people seen that? No. But will many living Westerosi lords have seen Jon's efforts at the Wall? Or Dany's in Meereen.

I believe Robb was 15 when he was named KitN. But again, these are such small differences I don't see why anyone would care that much. That's just me though. Well, I'm not going to even start to hypothesize on how he will prove invaluable - don't really want to, that's the fun in reading. But I do expect it to be more than simply warging abilities, I agree those are generally viewed as suspect by most of Westeros. If I were to venture any type of general guess, it may be something like "if Bran didn't figure ________ out, every one of us would be dead." As for experience - being a greenseer is, like, the most intense crash course in experience conceivably possible. And as for backing he'll have the North, with presumably Sansa, who likely will have the Vale, and presumably the Riverlands. After the second Dance it's entirely plausible that's the most powerful bloc in the realm.

I'm not a timeline fanatic but yeah I believe he's about 10 by the end of dance. I think that makes it entirely plausible he's around 14-15 by the end of ADOS. Even if he's 12-13, I don't see that being much of a substantive difference if he proves himself essential to saving existence from the Others.

I simply don't see it that way. We have different evaluations of Bran - particularly Bran in the books - I suppose. So magically-derived knowledge is now unearned or something? As opposed to what the maesters have been meandering about for hundreds of years? Uh, he would if the most available Targaryen heir is a choice between Edric Storm and Arianne Martell. Or, hell, maybe Brienne in the middle there. Yeah that worked out great. We can argue about when exactly the War of the Roses started and ended all day. I don't think it matters much. They started what was presumably a long conversation in the second episode when everyone was getting drunk before the battle. It's not outlandish to think Tyrion developed a respect for him after that conversation. Um.. First, their families would retain their power, no idea what you're saying there. Maybe you just don't get it. Second, says you. That is - resolutely - like, your opinion man.

Allow me to clarify my perspective on that. I definitely do not think dynastic marriage will be "ended" in any broad way. I'm saying a council of lords - who observe agnatic primogeniture - will choose Bran because it's in their interest. And it's in their interest to establish that council as a reconvening body. I don't think that's, like, an insane amount of progress from the status quo. And it has historical precedent, both within and without Martin's world. It's not like Volantis, or even the Roman Republic. Further, I fully hope Martin steers clear of a divine right on kingship. An anointing, whatever, but not the way you're describing.

Well, I suppose you deserve my thought process at this point. My thinking is Bran will prove himself integral in the defeat of the Others. Therefore gaining considerable respect and/or acknowledgement of his gifts. I think this is why the remaining Lords will elect him - perhaps even in part because they're scared of him. His connection to magic is also a connection to knowledge. Maybe even tax policies. Yeah I think this is just silly, to each his own. Um, I'm not saying the show has much relevance here - or any in terms of how they depicted that scene - but since you brought it up: yes. Why do you think Tyrion nominates him as King? Then he got a unanimous vote. Hard not to assume most figured he had some type of special powers. The point is those political marriages have been abject, often devastating, political failures for most of the houses involved. I think that's pretty damn clear. And, therefore, it's not a stretch for such families to be like, hey, maybe we should try something else. Sorry, that wasn't addressing you.

I think this is likely to happen for sometime - either him or Harry - but by the endgame. Nah, I expect Sansa to be single by then.

Well sure, it's definitely a possible scenario. I think Sansa will be in a position to refuse it and frankly I anticipate Tyrion will be happy to annul it. And as I've stated, I think it's hilarious you guys are like "Bran? Man that's crazy!" While in the same breath are willing to entertain Robin as someone that could hold any influence.

Well, I just strongly disagree with this premise that it "does not matter who is monarch on the last page." It matters to me Seems our qualms are as simple as that. So, you mean the guy who persistently brings up Aragorn's tax policy as a criticism of Tolkien? You don't think he's going to take an avid interest in depicting how the government will function upon the conclusion of his life's work? I suppose, yes, Edric could come back in ADOS and all of a sudden become Henry VII. I won't completely rule that out. But you seem to not realize how damaged Robin is. Says who? The Last Hero vs. the guy Arya hung out for awhile with and now is just another minion of Stoneheart? Obviously disagree. In fact, that should be the start rather than the end. Ending dynastic marriages is, empirically, something the realm should do if they had any sense. Let's look at major family unions via marriage since around Robert's Rebellion: Targaryen/Martell Stark/Tully Arryn/Tully Baratheon/Lannister [..next generation] Baratheon/Florent Baratheon/Tyrell Stark/Westerling Baratheon (Lannister)/Tyrell [repeat] How many of those worked well, for any parties involved? None, I'd say, although I guess the Westerlings and Tyrells are alright at the moment. The reticence to the concept that the Lords might be like, "hey, let's stop doing this shit considering it keeps on starting wars" is baffling to me. If the "logic" of Martin's works have shown anything, it's that dynastic marriages breed conflict. Jeebus get the fuck over this morally superior bullshit. It was a comment referring to his newfound internet popularity. So you think Tyrion and Sansa will actually end up together?

Nope you have yet to refute any of my response to your "logic" argument that I posted here.

I've articulated the logic. You have neglected to respond.