Jump to content

Bernie Mac

Members
  • Content count

    1,967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bernie Mac

  1. Bernie Mac

    My defense of Bran as King.

    In fairness his vision once was that Jaime would be King after killing everyone in the succession line. We don't know when this revelation of Bran being king came about, was it in the original 2006 meetings between GRRM and the producers, in the year after AFFC was published, was it in the years after ADWD was published or a more recent revelation. Reading the original outline of the trilogy Bran seems to take a more central part in the series, is this the outline that was revealed to the producers. What we do know is that the books did change considerably in scope from the original outline to the published novel, nothing is yet set in stone. (I'm definitely grasping at straws here )
  2. Bernie Mac

    My defense of Bran as King.

    When or if it happens in the books I hope it makes a lot more sense than this. I'd hope Bran takes a far more active role in the downfall of the Nights King, a role that others understand and can actually see. What he does in the show, act all mysterious and say he knows shit without ever really alluding to it, is not going to impress the Lords of the realm enough to make him King. Unless these ambitious, back stabbing Lords and Ladies have all of a sudden abandoned their ways. Hopefully Bran shows a true demonstration of his powers to a much larger audience, this would work, if he seems to be the most powerful person alive no one can compete with him for choice of king. And that whole 'Bran the Broken' spiel is idiotic. New Kings of new dynasties don't advertise how weak they are. Contrary to popular belief the people of the middle ages understood PR. Calling the new King the 'broken' is going to kick off a multitude of rebellions. Making it a law that anyone can be king is going to kick of a multitude of rebellions. This just seems short-sighted. I'm willing to believe that in two books GRRM can make it work, but I do genuinely have my doubts. As there are many, many other characters who make more sense. My worry is that its all being done to have this weird history repeating itself motif with another Bran the Builder starting off another chain of events that will eventually lead, in thousands of years time, to another Others invasion. It sounds like BSG finale. edit: and now I now hate myself a little as I'm complaining like the hardcore Stannis fans about an event not yet published not making sense before I've even read it. It seemed so amusing when they were losing their shit over this.
  3. Bernie Mac

    Riverlands house and military

    IIRC in Fire and Blood it is mentioned during the aftermath of the Dance of the Dragons that the Blackwoods, Brackens, Freys and Vances were all more powerful than the Tullys. Obviously that may have changed in the last 150 years. I'd put Vances ahead of the Blackwoods and Brackens as they and the Freys are the only Houses with a Lordly vassal (Charlton and Smallwood).
  4. Bernie Mac

    Frey branch

    Walder is still alive, all his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are under his branch. Once he dies there will be many branches from his sons, but not until then, There are actually other Frey branches though as Walder's fourth son married an Alys Frey, who is not from Walder's branch while his sixteenth son Benfrey married Jyanna Frey from a nonWalder branch.
  5. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  6. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  7. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  8. May explain how the Freys got so powerful. With their second revenue stream from the bridge they'd have an excess funds in winter time and may have been able to purchase neighbouring lands when other Houses were struggling with the lack of harvests.
  9. Bernie Mac

    The Ending Was very conventional

    I'm not being defensive. What is the proportionate number? Please let people know what authors writing about fantasy in the 19th century and the 20th century should have done? Give numbers otherwise it sounds like you are bitching for the sake of bitching, First of all not once have I said 'only'. I have no idea why you keep on trying to frame it like I did say that, well no, that's a lie I know exactly why you are. In western society, the English speaking world they were largely consumed by white men just like in the 20th century the super hero genre was largely white men. It is excellent that YA novels like Harry Potter and Twilight have changed the demography in the 21st century, but the 20th century the majority of the consumers were white men. Why would you not want to continue the topic any further? It's central to your complaints. If the majority of readers of fantasy fiction in the 20th century were single white men then that is going to have an impact on both which novels became more successful who authors catered for Just look at the 21st century YA primary audience, it is largely female and its reflected in which books have became more successful and who the authors are catering for. It is just how capitalism works, understanding who the audience are is just as important to success as being a good writer. Terry Pratchett is a great example of this, he has always understood who the market was that is why he began to change focus as the years went on and the growth of the YA market he started to focus on the Tiffany Aching character to appeal to this new fanbase of fantasy readers. Publishers and authors in the 20th century are not stupid, they would do market research to see who the audience was, what they thought they wanted to read and what they actually read (the two are not always the same). They don't leave this to chance, they are not some kind of illuminati all banding together to stop representation. If there is money to be made they'd take it. But such books have already been written. Shows and films are constantly adapting works from the 20th century and before. But you are. You might not realize this, but your whole spiel is very accusatory. Maybe its not intentional, but that is certainly how it reads. Both Game of Thrones and ASOIAF have been pretty equal when it comes to gender characters, there have and are Queens in Westeros yet your big complaint is a boy in a wheel chair becoming King for 5 minutes. It reads that your less concerned about the plot of the story and female empowerment and that female empowerment can only be achieved if the final monarch of Westeros is a woman. ignoring the fact that Sansa, Brienne, Cersei and Dany all achieved titles and positons of power that no other female has done in the history of Westeros. Dude, you are not doing your argument any favours. Darth Vader, the most famous villain in the genre, becomes a villain because he can not handle his emotions. If you are truly interested in equality you'd accept the same for a woman. Dany's two episode dissent into darkness is pretty much the same as Anakin's. The difference is that George Lucas spent more time on building up to Anakin's switch than D&B did, but that is not a problem of gender. Have you considered it is the message that you are writing rather than others misunderstanding? Dany was a good queen for much of her Queenhood. She stopped slavery in Essos, her dragons and her army were instrumental in saving Westeros. Overall she was far more good than she was bad. But in this genre the likes of Vader, Magneto and Saruman going from the light to the dark is a pretty well established trope. No one is arguing that Cersei was good. She was not, she was the central villain of the entire show. Is that not pretty ground breaking? The central villain of a long running epic to be a woman? For the three weeks he's been king. That's it. If you want to interpret that the world of Westeros is now a fairly tale with no further conflict that is on you, not D&B or GRRM. Plenty of other fans are predicting the changes that would come from this, the world is open. We have no idea how long there will be peace, how successful his reign will be. Please don't confuse your own assumptions of the 'future' for the authors. Dany was a good queen who turned bad Robert was a good man who turned into a mediocre king. We have no idea what kind of king Bran will be. Do you not see what you are doing? You are imagining that Bran will be a good king and are now blaming the writers for it. They've done no such thing, you are creating problems that are not there. And I guess this is were I'm done on this debate, its become clear that you are just going to invent things to be outraged about.
  10. Bernie Mac

    Reasons for Dorne and Iron Islands' loyalty to Bran

    I've not watched season 6 since it aired, but I don't recall Yara being too happy about the events of the Kingsmoot.
  11. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  12. Bernie Mac

    The Ending Was very conventional

    Sure. But the past is the past and pretending that the motives of 19th and 20th century authors was racism kind of misses the point. They lived in societies that were simply not as multi cultural as they are now, and they wrote of analogues of history that were based in times were it was even less so. I have no problem with adding other races to the Camelot story, but please don't paint authors in the past (or even present) racist for making character of such books predominantly white if they are trying to make it fairly realistic to the time it was set in. But it has been changed. There is far, far more representation in the 'modern' day fantasy than there was in generations past. For large parts it has been predominantly white men, or at least that is how its been portrayed. White geeks who are socially awkward seem to be the most commonly associated audience of fantasy in the 20th century. Obviously that has changed in the last 20 years, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and the avalanche of YA novels and movies has changed the association. Similarly the superhero genre was pretty much the same as the fantasy genre, its customers largely white males, but that has also changed in the last 20 years. At no point did I claim that it was only white men reading/watching the genre in the western world in the 20th century, but it was the vast majority. What about them? The Narnia chronicles were children books but adults who continued to read them and obsess over them were predominately white guys. The people who would buy board games, write fantasy fiction and form clubs to talk stuff like that in western society were largely white guys. Who has claimed they should stay 'that way'? You are making a stand for something no one is against. No one is claiming there should be less representation in fantasy. You are standing on your soap box and making a point no one disagrees with. Many male characters in the series are seen as evil for their ambition. If you want there to be more representation then complaining about Cersei, following in the foosteps of her father, or Dany, following in the footsteps of her father, seems to be hypocritical. Not all females are represented as evil for being ambitious. Sansa becomes a Queen and she is not evil. Or when it comes to male characters Stannis' ambition makes him sacrifice his own daughter. If a male character can do evil due to their ambition then why can't a female character? Why are you against equality? Who was an ineffective leader? Certainly not Dany, nor Cersei in the show (obviously not the books) or Sansa. Though once again there seems to be a double standard. Robb loses everything because of love, his emotions were his downfall. It is the Game of Thones, it is a story about ambition. 99% of the characters in the show are ambitious. Ambition and Emotion are not evil characteristics. You are projecting here. Who is the perfect King? We've not seen Bran rule, we've not seen how his reign turns out a month after he is king, never mind its entire term. The show lasted 8 seasons, Bran is king for less than 5 minutes. And lets be real, Bran is the king in name, the show had Tyrion, the single most emotional character of the series, end up ruling the realm. Its not sexist, you are projecting. Dany, for the vast majority of the show, is one of two central characters, one of the two main heroes. Is it? Go on then, share with me all the other stories that focus on a Dany character as the hero for the vast majority of the story only to make her the villain in the last chapter. If its that cliché I'd love to hear the many examples you'll be able to list. Of course you are not, you are only focussed on finding fault. No, we saw Walter White through the eyes of his wife and son who thought of him as a monster, a man who ruined their lives, through the eyes of sister in law, who hated him for being responsible for the murder of Hank and the destruction of her family, through the eyes of his former girlfriend and college friend who were terrified of what he became, of Jessie who once admired him but realized that he was a manipulative monster who would do whatever he wanted to win. That last season showed Walter for what he was. Why does an author have to cater to everything that has came before? An author should focus on the character and the plot of its own story, it should not be trying to appease people who find fault in the past of other stories. Every story should exist in a vacuum. Did I say it did? But yeah, the people in power were predominantly white men. There are far more women in power in Westeros in the timeline of this series than in any period in the middle ages of Europe. They had a guy in a wheel chair become king. Is that not diverse? Or is ableism not as important as sexism and racism? No, they are not. Bran co rules with his Hand and Small council. Sansa does it all by herself, she does not have to consult with others to act. Sansa is the one calling the shots at the Great Council meeting. Had she wanted to she could have became Queen of Westeros, they way she bullied her uncle into submission, had the respect of the Vale lords and control of the North she could have ended up with anything she wanted and she did. Bran, as Sansa pointed out, can't have kids, he's a puppet king who will have no legacy. Sansa and her heirs will rule the North and the North, in the show, was what the viewer identified with. Not everyone was fighting for Westeros. Robb was not, Jon was not, Sansa was not, Arya was not. They were fighting for their home, justice and preservation, not Westeros. When people watch Braveheart they are rooting for Scotland to become independent, not to become Kings of England (and I guess conquer Rome in Braveheart II). The show was hugely focused on Northern independence (much more so than the books), Sansa got the prize that the heroes of the show had been fighting for. Sansa hated kings Landing. Ending up in Kings Landing having to play the Game of Thrones for the rest of her life is not a victory. What agenda do you think I'm pushing? Not for every character. Certainly not Sansa and Arya, I'd argue not Jon either or Bran. Or the likes of Jaime, Robb, Cat and Ned. The series starts with Robert being absolutely miserable being the King of Westeros, while the Starks are hugely happy in Winterfell. Going to Kings Landing destroyed their family Cersei, with no claim to the Throne, made herself Queen despite huge opposition. Clearly not much of a struggle. No, its Tyrion. Bran got wheeled in and wheeled out. Bran's agency is no more, he's now a ceremonial figure in a land with far fewer weirwood trees. If you were to actually analyse their characters and their progression Bran's seems the most pointless of all. There is no happy ending were he regains his humanity like Arya does, or reunites with Meera and redevelops feelings for her. He does not get to be a knight or adventurer like he wanted to do. He's stuck in Kings Landing as King, when all he ever dreamed about being was a knight going on adventures in service to the King. eh?
  13. Bernie Mac

    Alternative ending: Jorah wasn't supposed to die!

    But Jorah's not a good man, he's a devoted man, a man who is ready to kill and serve others into slavery if it means his loved ones get what they want. He'd not be cheering like the Dothraki over the destruction of Kings landing, but he'd also not be in the same thought process as Jon and Tyrion. If Dany had made the same speech about bringing 'peace' to the rest of the World as she did to Jon before he killed her Jorah would be on board with that, the chance to serve by her side would be more than enough for him. Jon has the spent the entire series making decisions between right and love and right has been the winner every time. It was entirely in his character to kill Dany, it would be bizarre for Jorah to do it.
  14. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  15. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  16. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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?
  17. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  18. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  19. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  20. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    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.
  21. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    There are only two books left, if there were more or if GRRM was capable of doing time jumps I'd agree with this premise. The first 5 books timeline is over the course of just under 3 years, its difficult to imagine that the next two will be significantly more than that. I can't see an entire continent changing religion that quickly, not unless the Old Gods manifest themselves and speak directly to the people. The Faith, like the Red God, will be claiming their gods are behind this, the average peasant will listen to their Septon. I really don't get this train of thought. The story is the story, its not about breaking the wheel, its about an apocalyptic once in a millennia invasion. In the books there are plenty of Arryns. I'd imagine there are also other branches of Tully's and Baratheons, those two Houses have had their Houses forfeit. Yes. Bran in the final book being able to conjure up the best form of government via magic is unearned. The realm being fixed because a magical guy is in charge is much sillier than Tolkien not talking about Aragon's tax policies. And the realm has already had a magical guy in a positon of power, the realm was in chaos under Bloodraven with him ignoring the civil wars in the West and the North between the Ionrborn and those regions. All three are better options than a cripple who can sire children. It does matter, it offers a mindset to the society GRRM has been writing about. He's continually pointed out that his world is based on the middle ages and criticized other authors for not representing how the people thought in these times, how simplistic many authors are in fantasy. GRRM; "I was also reading a lot of historical fiction. And the contrast between that and a lot of the fantasy at the time was dramatic because a lot of the fantasy of Tolkien imitators has a quasi-medieval setting, but it’s like the Disneyland Middle Ages. You know, they’ve got tassels and they’ve got lords and stuff like that, but they don’t really seem to grasp what it was like in the Middle Ages. And then you’d read the historical fiction which was much grittier and more realistic and really give you a sense of what it was like to live in castles or to be in a battle with swords and things like that. And I said what I want to do is combine some of the realism of historical fiction with some of the appeal of fantasy, the magic and the wonder that the best fantasy has." The Starks ending up ruling both the South and the North is a Disney ending, the cripple boy becoming King and everyone accepting that is the Disney ending. If Bran's a success then why would it only be Kings who were elected? Why not Overlords, Lords and landed knights?
  22. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    So GRRM's complaints about Aragon's tax policy looks pretty hypocritical as GRRM is just making his version of Gandalf king. Not that we've seen in either the books or the show. He's happy to have Bronn manage the taxes of the kingdom. But, again, if it is its another case of none government, the magical tax fairy solves the problems of running the realm. No work, no government just magic. One can't have children, one is believed to be able to create heirs. Monarchies are preoccupied with heirs. Medieval realms are deeply concerned with Kings having an heir. It seems very unlikely that GRRM would have his nobility have a collective brainfart and ignore this, especially as his Targaryen history is full of Kings marrying early to secure heirs. The true War of the Roses was not really resolved while Henry VII was king, it was not until his death and the ascension of Henry VIII, the true union of the Lancasters and Yorks, was the realm at peace. I actually have zero idea why Tyrion nominated him. They barely interacted all season, there was little in the show to indicate that Tyrion thought him worthy of ruling the realm. But Tyrion is a fan of broken things, the misfits of the world everyone else despises. Bran certainly qualifies under that umbrella in the backwards world of the middle ages. Tyrion nominating Bran is one thing, the rest of the realm (which is much larger than in the show) following suit is quite another. The only reason the Lords have power is because they have not tried something else. What you are suggesting is Turkey's voting fro Christmas. The idea that their families will not keep power and someone can be elected to it is not a change that is going to happen for decades, maybe centuries in Westeros' society. I know, but I thought I'd share my opinion on it. Tyrion becoming King at the end seems unlikely to me, even with Sansa as a bride but I still see a Tyrion-Sansa Monarchy as a more likely scenario than Bran ending up king based on the 5 books and other accompanying canon material in this series.
  23. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    Fair enough, no point beating a dead horse over that difference of opinion. I actually do, that is why making Bran seems an illogical choice for the world GRRM has built. Its long been established that the average Westerosi Lord is closer to the Robert/Randyll viewpoint on what is needed for a leader than the Sam/Tyrion viewpoint. The idea that a (not so) Great Council would nominate him kind of goes against much of what he's written. Simply making an impotent cripple King because he's magic makes a mockery of GRRM's thoughts on Aragon's tax policies. That is all Bran has got going for him, his connection to magic. He's being drugged by Littlefinger and badly brought up. Should Littleinfinger be removed in the next book and Royce become guardian he'll grow up fine, not Jaime Lannister fine but a more likely choice than Bran. How many people in the South are going to believe that he's the last hero? How many people in the North? I watched the show, I'm not even sure how he was thought of the last hero there either. His siblings believed him, did anyone else? Not sure your point here. In GRRM's world few care about happy marriages, they are all political and its the basis that the politics of the land is built on. It seems a stretch that the nobles of the land are going to abandon this in the final book. No, but I'd say its more likely than Bran ending up as king.
  24. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    Arianne has a far better chance than Bran. Healthy, distant royal blood, worships the right religion and a marriage to another prominent noble can secure heirs to truly unite the realm. Davos quite obviously is not, one of the few characters in a worse position than Bran. Edric squirrelled away in Essos mirrors young Henry VII out of the picture in Europe. Why would it matter if its a major character? The series would be over. Dany seems likely to become Queen before the end of the series, it does not matter who is monarch on the last page because the books would be finished. This need for a happy ever after with a goodie as King is hugely popular in fantasy, so I can see why many expect it, but, to me at least, it does not seem the direction GRRM is heading in. And Edric, Robin or anyone who ends up on the Throne can be in the last book of ASOIF. Its not written yet, so you ruling characters out on that basis seems odd. I think he likely will, if its only briefly. Yes. If its a choice between Bran and Edric its obviously going to be Edric. He's healthy, he can have children, he's an Andal and worships the most popular religion, thus support of the Faith and given he's not talking about magic the Citadel as well. Not only does Edric make more sense than Bran but in the show even Gendry made more sense than Bran, Gendry's 'story' of pauper to prince is far more popular and powerful than cripple in a cave. Not really true given in the books the North is far, far more spent than the Vale. Bran not being able to have kids should be the end of the conversation. The most important act of a king is creating heirs, Bran's inability to do this should automatically make him the bottom of the list for potential monarchs. All are superior to the impotent cripple who spent the last few years living in a cave. Glad you've researched the subject. As long as they are 18 I guess you are free to imagine what you want.
  25. Bernie Mac

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    Then there is not going to be a Throne. Population loss on that scale will mean there will likely not even by seven kingdoms, but a bunch of much smaller competing kingdoms with hundreds of warlords. No. Not to be rude but I gave quite few options, Jon being the last. But yes, Jon is a better option than Bran. Why does that matter? The current king, Tommen, is an ancillary character, Aegon IV is pretty much an ancillary character to the series. You may be a little hung up on the idea of whoever becomes King has to be a primary character. They don't. Edric not being a POV does not rule him out, that is just a weak argument. If the War of the Roses was a novel Henry VII, the eventual victor, would be an secondary/tertiary character, someone who only comes in the running after many, many others are dealt with. It may well seem like that, does not mean its not going to happen. GRRM seems more likely to do something that makes sense in the world he's created and be anti climatic than go for the unrealistic but satisfying. No offense, but did you not read what I wrote. I was very clear, if he survives childhood he would be a better option than Bran. Ugh, do we really need to talk about minors having sex? Is this really the board for that type of conversation?
×