Jump to content

Bernie Mac

Members
  • Posts

    2,603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

6,935 profile views

Bernie Mac's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. The last two books have not been published yet, it is far too early to call reading them a waste of time. I personally see Bran becoming King as unrealistic in the setting that GRRM has established in the previous five books and all the accompanying material but I don't know how it happens (or even if it does).
  2. I don't think Isaac is lying, I don' think the producers are lying. I think it may be possible that the Bran becoming King was part of the original outline of the book series, the same outline that had Jaime be king at some point. We really have no idea if that information came from the 2006 meetings between them and GRRM or a much later date or if it set in stone. I don't think its true that they disliked his storyline, they just did not know what to do with it. It is possible that Bran's storyline is much, much bigger in the TWOW, with its own large cast of characters and events separate from the show and the producers did not have the time or budget to properly film it. Unless Bran starts manipulating his way to become King I'm not sure how a random person being named in a Grand Council meeting in the (I'm guessing last or penultimate chapter) of a seven series saga is that important to the series as whole. The way the show framed it anyone at the Council meeting could have been picked and it would have made as much sense as Bran. Bran being picked or not being picked changes nothing from every minute of the show before that moment. The term Endgame is about everything that came before led to this moment, that is not the case of Bran becoming King, it was entirely inconsequential.
  3. Maybe we will be getting that 5 year gap at some point in the next two books. It would certainly explain the delay.
  4. They swore vows to Aerys, the broke those vows and swore vows to Robert. Lords and Houses break vows, that is what the Lords of the Riverlands have done. Who gave vows to Robb that they'd accept a bastard with no Tully blood as their King? In fact which Lords made Robb the King and which of those Lords are still alive and in power by the end of ADWD and which will break their new oath to the Crown? The Darry kid is dead, Edmure is out of power, the Freys are clearly no longer a fan of Robb as King, Lord Vypren and Lord Charlton aided the Freys at the Red Wedding, House Whent no longer exists, House Bracken was one of the first to jump ship and spent 6 months fighting for the Crown. Blackwood, Piper, (1) Vance and Mallister may be the only current Lords who swore Robb as their king. They did and then they renounced them when they made new vows to the Crown. Robb's been dead for a year in the books. Why has no one in the North or the Rivelands called Jon King? Jon may well be King, another Stark may well become King but it won't be because of Robb's will. There was two Houses still resisting. Blackfish at Riverrun, since captured and now flying the Baratheon sigil for Tommen and House Blackwood waiting for Jaime to get victory as they did not want the Blackwoods to claim it. No Lords in the Riverlands are under the Direwolf standard per the events of the Jaime chapters in AFFC and ADWD. Robb was their king for months. And after saving the nobles at Riverrun he abandoned them and did nothing to help them while the Northmen under Roose and the Karstark men raped and plundered from the local populace. The Riverlands were as sick of the Wolves as they were the Lions in the books. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=wolves+lions Robb's reign as King is not something that is going to be remembered fondly in the Riverlands.
  5. Given many of the Lords who agreed to crown Robb as their king are no longer Lords or have since sworn new oaths of fealty it does not make sense that they'd agree to follow Jon and reignite another war in the books. Robb made sense He was half Tully He was betrothed to a Riverlander He saved some of the Lords at Riverrun They needed him to stick around while they were at war with the Lannisters His army was with him Jon does not make sense to become their king. Aegon makes more sense as does Dany but unless Jon is riding a dragon I see no reason the Riverland lords are going to want him as King in the books.
  6. The Riverlands swore fealty to the Crown after Robb's death. Robb's heirs claim on the Riverlands is gone, it died with him at the Red Wedding.
  7. I've gone over a lot why Bran being elected does not make sense but one part I did not bring up is that in the books Bran is 10. He is still going to be a teenager by the time the books are over. The previous Kings in the books will be Joffrey; on being crowned the War of the Five Kings breaks out, Tommen during his reign the Golden Company attack, the Ironborn attack, war reignites in the North He is likely to be replaced by either Aegon or Dany, which in turn means another invasion via Essos While either Tommen, Aegon or Dany are on the Throne or fighting for the Throne the Others attack either the North or even further They are all basically children in the eyes of the Lords and Ladies of Westeros, two of them with mysterious backgrounds. Electing another child after the devastation that has happened to the realm after the last 5plus years of being ruled by children seems bizarre. They'd want stability, not revolution. Obviously from a literary viewpoint Bran being made King to rebuild the Realm is poetic, the saga begins and ends with a Bran the Builder, but its a little on the nose and makes little sense from the perspective of the characters who inhabit the world.
  8. eh? He is crippled and he is impotent and he lives in a time when their society was heavily prejudiced against such disabilities. Thankfully we live in far more enlightened time, but the people in the books don't and there is zero indication that these people are going to turn around at the end of the series and suddenly be okay with being ruled by such a person. I really don't understand what you mean here? This topic is about what the show means for the book. lol I'm now a bigot for stating the a disability of a fictional character? Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
  9. Depends who is still left alive at the end of the series. Sansa is a better choice, she's healthy, presumably fertile and if she marries another noble from a major House we have a repeat of the end of the War of the Roses were a union between Lancaster and Stark ended the war. Sansa may be the Westerosi Elizabeth of York and Edric Storm (with both a Baratheon and distant Targaryen claim) may be its Henry Tudor. Alternatively Arianne and Aegon may be Westeros' Elizabeth and Henry if they go that route. But with two books to go its impossible to say which nobles will still be alive and which Houses will have clout. By the end of the show the Reach had 'no one left in it' while the North kept on re-spawning their armies. This is not going to happen in the books, there are going to be many Houses at the end, not just the Starks and their closest allies. I have my doubts. The story is not about who wins the Throne. It might be a character who has largely been unimportant, it might be a character who only rises in prominence in the last book or two. The last two seasons of the show were less about development and more about twist. Jon and/or Dany were expected to win the throne. Bran was such an outsider that Brienne suggested it as the show was about shock and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau correctly pointed out it made zero sense. As will many nobles, many better options than Bran, the cripple, impotent Northern child.
  10. Unless GRRM is planning more books detailing the future then that is an impossible call to make. Regardless of who ends up on the Throne we the reader will have no idea how seminal it is. Some might, but GRRM's based these people on our own middle ages. Creating heirs was the single most important part of the job for a ruler, pushing out those heirs as quickly as possible is just a part of their mindset. Fertility is very important. I'm not sure how the events of this series are going to suggest that the Ironborn's elective process is a better scenario. Maybe Euron will be hugely admired by the end of the series and they will want another leader elected but I have my doubts. And if they did suddenly think of this as a feature how would this possibly work in future? Would noble Houses start castrating evert other son to have them be in with a chance to be King? How did that work out for the Ironborn? The children of elected kings still make a claim, often the Kings will be the ones who make make sure their chosen heirs have the support of the majority. Monarchies advanced from the Witenaġemot, elective monarchies are a step back, not a step forward. In the books they are no more respected than the likes of the Arryns, Martells, Hightowers, Lannisters etc. But there are Houses with distant claims to the Throne such as the Martells, Tarths and likely many others. However the idea that the North gets to go independent and the South still appoint an underage, impotent, cripple from House Stark beggars belief. The Faith has a problem with Stannis, who was brought up with the Seven because of his connection with the Red God. Why would they accept Bran? The King worshipping another God is not good for the Faith, it causes their flock to diminish or to be angry with the Faith for supporting such a man of a different Faith. There is a reason that Aegon and his heirs adopted the Faith, even with Dragons, they realized it was easier that way. He has a better education than the majority of the population, he has a lesser education than many of the nobility. The Lords of the Realm are not overly concerned with an education from a Maester, they are concerned with their educations in warfare. Being able to lead men, to inspire it. To the readers of the book a man like Robert is an oaf, but he is far, far closer to the ideal than Bran or Sam. Lords don't want this. Not after the regent wars of Aegon III. It's why Egg was appointed over his nephew and niece. Being easily controlled is bad in this society for the majority because others may use the monarch as their puppet. I can. Its a twist and the show long abandoned character development for shock. If it gets people talking they'd include it. Do you think Bronn inheriting the Reach is also down to GRRM?
  11. The Dothraki are not new to Westeros, we have seen Dothraki sellswords in Westeros from the beginning of the series. You may be overestimating how of little importance a thousand or so Dothraki will have on a population of 40 million. If they remain they are going to be quickly assimilated. That is not enough for a new 'culture'. Brienne is not the first female warrior in Westeros. Queen Alysanne had her own Queensguard who protected her, that Queensguard member fought against one of Manderly's household warriors, a female Wildling. There have been female warriors before Brienne and after Brienne, it seems unlikely that their society is going to leap huge strides in terms of progression where the year 303 (or whichever is the year the series ends) that it will be socially acceptable for women to do so. An elective monarchy is also not new to Westeros. The Ironborn practice it, no one in the South is in awe of this practice, they are not going to look at Euron being elected as the king of the Ironislands and think that's the way to go.
  12. Again, another attack on someone's intelligence. Why not debate my points rather than continually attack? Then copy and paste those replies. Please share such times Well yeah, you do. Simply telling people they are wrong is not going to end many conversations. Sufficiently explaining why I'm wrong will likely do. You did. Read what you just said. "Nothing annoys me more than the guy who's like "well, actually, that's historically inaccurate" I was clearly being flippant, I kind of understood that you were being a little hysterical when you claimed nothing annoys you more than x Can you quote these times because I'm pretty sure I have not. You might be a little sensitive to people disagreeing with you. To be clear, I do not think you are stupid, I think we have a different opinion on a fictional universe and given its not yet finished either of us can be right. But I disagree with your premise and rather converse with me about why I'm wrong you have continually belittled my position and now education.
  13. Yeah, in the same reply you called me ignorant and disingenuous. That is not courtesy, its the internet equivalent of pouting because someone is refusing to accept you are right about something. Here we go again, you are right, everyone else is wrong. There is no logic to it. He can't have children He's no blood claim to the throne He's a child himself and the realm vetoed the last child king because of the realm's history with regents He worships a minority faith, when we know that a King has to been anointed by the High Septon He's been presumed dead for quite a few years He's lived on the run and in a cave for a number of years, forfitting the traditional noble education He's a cripple in a realm where strength is seen as key to leadership. His own Karstark cousins pitied him in the first book and thought him better off dead He has no connections to the vast majority of the Houses in Westeros Him becoming King is illogical. But it is an anathema to the medieval world GRRM is writing about. How so.I've said multiple times we disagree on this. Its not a big deal, different opinions are allowed. You seem to not like the idea. Except its not and you've not bothered to even try to explain why its wrong. That annoys you more than racism? Than sexism? Than genoicide? Wow, that's a pretty brave thing to admit. lol sure. Based on a few posts on a fictional universe you are able to figure out that I have a vapid understanding of history and politics. Pretty good detective work. What star sign am I? What did I have for breakfast today? I don't think mine are superior to yours, I think we have a difference of opinion. Not once have I said or suggested you lack an understanding of certain things because of a few posts on an internet forum. you are clearly taking this conversation too seriously. Yes, I'm the rude person in the back and forth.
  14. Politics is the subtext, political revolution is not. In interviews GRRM has gone to lengths pointing out the flaws in other fantasy writers of not understanding what these societies were like. Change takes decades, maybe longer. The series so far has taken place over three years, there is not likely to be more than 5 years in the last two books. The nobles of Westeros are not going to change their stance on their society in that time. GRRM has already shown just this in Essos with Astapor reverting back to a slave city shortly after Dany has left. Obviously GRRM does not think slavery is acceptable, but he's also not whitewashing the problem by having it solved so quickly. Westeros is not changing its culture and values in the space of the series. No one is forcing you to reply. A cripple who can't have children, a cripple who is still likely to be under 15 by the end of the series, thus in need of a regent and a cripple from a different religion to the vast majority of Westeros is not going to happen. Dude, don't be that guy, making ad hominem attacks because others don't agree with you. We are allowed to disagree, no need to call people ignorant or disingenuous over it.
×
×
  • Create New...