Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Tyrion1991

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,262 profile views
  1. Tyrion1991

    Will ADOS Be Entirely Dedicated To The Others?

    Yes. I also don’t understand how George can still think he can wrap the series in two books. Look at the Wheel of Time. Even with a much simpler set of character and arguably much more condensed geographically it was a mammoth undertaking. An entire book was dedicated to just the battle(s) and it had almost no epilogue. When you write a massive book series like that and have built up his great threat you really are obliged to make it as a grand and sweeping a conflict as possible. For example. If the Others just breech the Wall and there’s a little battle outside Winterfell. To me, that would be ridiculously underwhelming. It would make the Others look like a joke. I am firmly of the view that they’re at least going to get the Gods Eye and probably to the Gates of Kings Landing. You should, like in Wheel of Time have diverse POVs in different battlefield locations. For example: Sansa in the Vale at the Bloody Gate Jon at Winterfell Dany/Tyrion in the Riverlands at Harrenhal JonCon at Kings Landing Cersei/Jamie at Casterly Rock All of westeros should be invaded and be fighting this threat. I don’t see any reason George shouldn’t set the stakes and the scale of the conflict similar to Wheel of Time. But the huge issue is that Dany isn’t in Westeros and won’t even arrive until the end of Winds in all likelihood. I would have said he needs at least a set up book and round 1 for the Others first.
  2. Tyrion1991

    George hates hero worship

    George kind of doesn’t kill off that many characters. Relative to the size of the book and who the core POV are it’s about what you might expect. It’s just that he creates doubt and tension. Jons not a grey character. He swaps a baby because for some reason he’s worried that Melisandre shedding Kings Blood will bring the Doom or some random nonsense. Apart from that he’s Uber Man who has everything handed to him on a platter and is presented with very clear situations. Put him in Theons or Jamie’s shoes and the boy would have cracked. As for the point about Hero Worship. I think what George admires, Jon is a perfect example of this, is humility. He makes a huge deal about Jon learning to tone down his ego and work with his fellow watchman in book 1. That later on everybody thinks he’s Uberman doesn’t matter. So he’s not really against Hero Worship. It’s the whole idea of hubris and how that can cloud your judgement. Personally I think it’s a worthless character trait and George doesn’t seriously consider the flip side of how lacking that self confidence could be crippling for a potential leader. If you’re plagued by self doubt and criticising yourself all the time it can be worse than just bull rushing into something because of your own hubris. There is a big difference between being thoughtful and indecisive.
  3. Tyrion1991

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    A few people. For one the text itself. Because the text depicts him as the solemn bastard son of Ned who’s secretly the true King who can set the worlds problems to rights. The text does try to present in a positive light. He’s very much intended to be the series Kaladin, Rand al Thor etc etc. So yeah you are expected to like him by the author. It’s not like Theon for example. Then there’s people on this forum who worship the ground he walks on and are all but waiting for the boy wonder to deliver the realm from evil. This ranges from the likes of Order of the Greenhand thinking he’s the next Sword of the Morning in a very well thought out theory to the people sniping Dany. Its came up a few times with my friends and at work. One colleague assumed Jon was my favourite character when she asked about the show. My brother is quite fond of him and expected him to become King. A close friend of mine brought him up and was quite surprised when he learnt I wasnt chewed about him compared to say Kaladin or Dalinar. TBH we don’t really talk that much about Ice and Fire beyond the occasional titter that he hasn’t finished the books. Broader interests and all that. But yeah, he is almost certainly among the favourites in my immediate circle of friends. So that is an expectation. So yeah, if the text, you guys and the people I talk to on a day to day basis expect me to like the guy then yeah; that is an expectation.
  4. Tyrion1991

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    3000 from what, 30,000? One giant from an entire species? That’s a pretty mediocre effort. Siding with the Nights Watch over the Wildlings. The NW aren’t even a roadbump for the Others and there’s no reason the Wildlings can’t bolt up the gate once they’re through. Do the Northern Lords ever talk how many wildling scalps they took or how many of their people were killed/tortured in raiding? What you’re describing is far too mild and reasonable; plus too one sided. You have basically Racist Uncle Kevin who nobody takes seriously. As for the horn that’s just a functional thing and pure common sense. The “old ways” should be centuries of NW and Northerners actively hunting and butchering the wildlings in a bloody border struggle. Instead it’s basically quaint and mild cultural prejudice. I very much am expected to like him.
  5. Tyrion1991

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    One incident from which no Northerner dies. It’s essentially an opportune mugging. Hardly a blood feud in which both sides are tearing into the other. No other character has seen a Wight. You’re framing that as if Jon always knew the true threat coz smarts when it’s only because he has undeniable proof dangled in front of them. So I never gave him brownie points for this. Chance has put him in a position of opposing this true threat. He let’s a few hundred Wildlings south. After they’ve all went to Hardholm and it’s too late to do anything about it. This is trying to salvage the dregs of a bad decision. What ways of old? This entire discussion has revolved around there not being a serious blood feud between the Wildlings and North/NW. Which means there kind aren’t any “old ways” at all. I am supposed to like him because of the unique character trait of showing affection for his sister? You’re supposed to do that. You don’t get brownie points for it. Many other POV characters have a similar acceptance of “cripples, bastards and broken things”. Almost all of the major POV have a much more modern and post enlightenment viewpoint to make them more palatable to a modern audience. So it’s not a particularly unique part of his arc. If they were all racists and hissing “different” I could understand but they aren’t. Also, it’s extremely on the nose. See, he’s standing up for the fat guy! He’s a swell man. Plus I’ve seen Full Metal Jacket and this completely ruins his first book story. There is a fine line between referencing and copying entire scenes. Whereas the other stories are really unique and well crafted you have a dull linear plot in one location which is beating you over the head with “He needs to learn to follow before he can learn to lead!”.
  6. Tyrion1991

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    So the High Lords don’t often get their hands dirty or get into these wars. But their bannermen might and the sort of border reaving should filter into the society. Also George controls a lot of this backstory. If the last time a Stark came to blows with a King Beyond the Wall was in living memory but the Targaryens were overthrown a century then those two situations would flip. So George made this conflict more distant from the North rather than a fresh wound like it is with the Stark/Targaryens. It’s not like a King Beyond the Wall killed Neds father or vice versa. So the conflict is very much ancient history. You don’t think Jon being Wildling Royalty and every Wildling being predisposed to like him is a little contrived? That does make things much easier for Jon. At that point he’s pushing on an open door. You say that as if there are lots of reasons too like him both in and out of the story. There’s no reason in either case. He’s not a particularly good fighter. He’s an idiot who has a habit of getting people killed. He has no credible or impressive wins under his belt. Being an idiot is a very boring character flaw for our hero to overcome. Compare that to Jamie overcoming his narcissism and past demons. Plus George seems to think it’s an admirable trait to chose duty over love and that’s ridiculous. Since Jon is a vehicle for this I find him distasteful by association. Plus he has the lamest and most painfully obvious secret heritage ever. I found it patronising that he’s depicted as being introspective and thoughtful as if it’s impressive and nobody in the world possesses the ability to do that. I am struck by the constant expectation that I should like the character. He’s the cringe default character. Plus, he got all of the Wildlings killed including Ygritte. Who are now Wights coming for all those long faced Northerners. These should be considered calamitous failures rather than chalked up as victories. Plus, the whole Lost Cause mentality annoys me.
  7. Tyrion1991

    So who is The Harpy?

    It’s the Green Grace. Hidzhar probably genuinely does want to use Dany to elevate Meereen to a place of prominence in the world (a Ghiscari with common sense!). Although I don’t think it matters because we’re going to get Order 66 on the Slaving families in the next book. Plus George has said he likes the show “I Claudius” and there’s a bit in that where all the conspirator families are happily celebrating and the Praetorians stomp in to arrest the plotters; panic ensuing. It would not surprise me if he does his take on that in Mereen. Slavers Bay is his take on Classical Rome after all.
  8. Tyrion1991

    Saddest chapters in ASOIAF

    Easy. Arya in the aftermath of the Red Wedding. Where she’s Nymeria and she pulls dead Cat out. When the Hound dies. When she’s in the village and this kids pestering her and she rips up her toy soldier. I think this may have been several chapters but definitely the last part just before she goes off to Braavos.
  9. Because Winter is Coming. The Starks should all be very aware that their country is incredibly poor and that any disruption to the harvest (much less a direct assault on the grain stores) would cause a calamitous winter famine. Mobilising 20k men and their horses on campaign would do the trick. Without this issue, maybe you could argue that fighting a war isn’t reckless and callous. But I just don’t see that. Rob has to have sat there and thought “there might be hardship in the north, but I have to save my father and sisters”. Now, I doubt he’s like Tywin and saying it’s a good thing to cull the surplus population. But he certainly made that decision, knowingly or not. Those circumstances are drastically different to the Middle Ages. No Russian Boyar had to contend with a ten year winter. Iam not even sure how the North is habitable to be perfectly honest. It shows just how much of a risk he took in going to war. Because if we were to pull moral relativism then we wouldn’t be able to judge Tywin, the Mountain or the Dothraki. If it just comes down to “men of their times” doing “what needs to be done” and I think the series very much encourages you to consider the morality of what most of the characters do. Just not House Stark because they’re perfect. So I think George choosing not to draw our attention to that and muddying the waters by having the North invaded and the war ending before winter really alters our perceptions of Rob. Had the war continued into winter and the inevitable famine had occurred with Rob refusing to make concessions then I don’t think people would be singing his praises as the martyred Wolf King. At what point does he become a stubborn fool who is throwing the lives of his people away? It’s funny you bring up Edward the Third because that’s exactly what happens during his reign. He has some great success initially. But then his wars bankrupt the realm, he loses all his gains, there’s famine and plague. So he probably shouldn’t have been going to war and it certainly at least exacerbated these issues.
  10. I haven’t brought Tywin into this and why should I exactly. Does Rob become a worse person if Tywin is Mr Reasonable and his fathers son? The two aren’t related. Rob can still be criticised strongly enough without him being “as bad” as Tywin Lannister. If you want to compare Hitler to Mussolini then fair enough but Iam not really doing that. Explain how it is a marginal infraction to drag an entire nation into a war to avenge the death of one man? This is an aristocratic blood feud. Hundreds of thousands die as a consequence of this, with the only object being Rob getting revenge, a crown and a few hostages exchanged. How can he reasonably imperil thousands of his subjects lives for the sake of his own family? In any other story, if a bunch of aristocrats did that it would be subject of immense criticism and condemnation. That’s like Blackadder where the people are dragged into a pointless war to die for the vanity and vain glory of a privileged class. It is morally repugnant to depict that as a romantic struggle between good and evil. Those are Machiavellian criticisms of what Rob is doing wrong and how he could have won. They aren’t moral criticisms. You can make Machiavellian criticisms of Dany as well, but the text is far more weighted towards moral condemnation. It’s not “a mistake” to trust Mirri, it’s a moral tale in which one of the little people gets back at her. A war to carve out an independent realm and conquer the Riverlands is a fundamental change to Westeros. It’s the biggest attempt to change the borders of Westeros since Aegons Conquest. Far more important than ending slavery in three cities at the edge of the world. We don’t have his POV but we see his story through Cat. So there was plenty of opportunity and chances to bring up criticisms of “just war” and for him to meet a Mirri character. We don’t see this. The moral criticism of Dany begins almost from the first chapter, well before she gets to Slavers Bay. In Clash there’s a very revealing section where she reflects that she wants her realm to be a happy place filled with jolly people; “but first I must conquer”. To which we then see her later thinking that all she brings is dust and death in Storm of Swords. So the criticism is very clear cut. Dany is being criticised for using power and violence to set things right; a greater good mentality. Whether thats ending slavery or retaking Westeros is immaterial as the same thread runs through her story. My issue is that Rob and the Starks actions are not depicted in this manner. Carving out the North and Riverlands is using power and violence to in theory make the world right. Taking the Wildlings down to Winterfell is using power and violence to set the world to rights. What you’re saying is that these questions aren’t applicable or relevant to the Stark story. But by sidestepping them or pulling punches it’s basically accepting that these are just wars. If I am only asked to question if Danys war is just but never asked that of a Stark character then that is the text singling her out. For the slavery point specifically George shows his hand in Tyrion’s POV when it’s revealed that, actually (despite all their actions contradicting this), the Slavers were interested in a peaceful political settlement and were bluffing about their military strength. They never believed they could beat Dany. Meaning Dany choosing war is being depicted as a grave mistake that will cost millions of needless lives. So in Winds we are going to have a situation where the Slavers get pulverised at Mereen and then Dany unleashes the Dothraki on them after they have been beaten and are probably going to be pleading mercy. Not to mention a massive escalation. There is almost certainly going to be heavy criticism of Dany in Winds for this. You are basically saying Rob can’t be doing anything wrong because he isn’t Tywin. This is equivalent of saying the allies couldn’t do anything wrong because they weren’t Nazis. If you think one hotheaded Northern Lord killing a few people is George adding shades of grey to the North then we have very different notions of morally grey. He’s depicted as a rogue element who defies Robs express command. When, implicitly, the very act of bringing 20k men into the Riverlands would kill far more people than one thick skulled Northern Lord. George sidesteps the real moral problem with Robs actions entirely. The North and Rob are whitewashed and criticism is not as pointed and direct as it is with Dany.
  11. Tyrion1991

    Dany and child murder

    @Lyanna<3Rhaegar There’s a lot to like about the books. Dany is one of the best fantasy characters ever. It’s a story about having a dark legacy and the problems with wielding power; but with this amazing mythology woven into it. Theon and Jamie have really nuanced and morally challenging character arcs. The whole plot of the Game of Thrones. The intrigue surrounding the nature of the magic and how far it goes. It’s a very solid world with great world building and character into it. Some of the Starks have good character moments in Arya and Sansa’s arcs. But, those are characters without any real power and their chief concern is survival rather than the Lost Cause. They don’t keep peasants and sending armies rampaging through the Riverlands. Arya’s reaction to the RW for example in its aftermath is a very strong few chapters. It’s a very, very slow burn getting there and IMO I don’t really care for rogue. So it’s good despite the Starks and the North. He made Ned and Rob martyrs. Cat isn’t dead. Bran is on his way to becoming the corpse emperor upon his weir wood throne. The news of Jon’s demise is premature. I doubt Jon is going to lose his chiselled good looks. Arya and Sansa are still live and kicking.
  12. Listen? Nobody is asking you to read. Ive already read the books. Stopping isn’t really an option here. I never said the story wasn’t his. He can do as he pleases. That doesn’t mean I should like it or keep my opinion to myself. Its a shame because so much of the story is great. Outside of the whitewashed Starks it has some amazing characters and real hard hitting exploration of the very real and very harsh consequences of some of the fantasy tropes. However, he undermines that entirely by having the sainted and beloved Starks who did no wrong and have a near perfect Germanic warrior society. Because if you don’t explore the consequences of Robs invasion then you are essentially hand waving the consequences of waging war. It’s a just war led by a just man who reigns his men in and he mobilises an army that can feasibly be supported by his people without causing undue hardship. This is absurd. What’s the point of having a serious conversation about the rights and wrong of what Dany is doing if I am constantly being reminded by people on this forum that “but the Starks never killed anyone. If Rob was freeing the slaves then he’d be merciful and smarts about it”. So the very presence of the Starks in the story colours your interpretation of Dany as a character. To take another example. In AFFC George has a priest make a big anti war speech. That’s entirely undermined if you don’t point blame at the Starks for having caused the war and brought that hardship upon their people. War is obviously just if the wise Kings of Winter and noble Northmen fight it; so he’s just being a cynical pacifist. So George is undermining quite a lot of the themes he brings up in other parts of the story by having the Starks and the North get a pass.
  13. Tyrion1991

    Dany and child murder

    So Dany decides to do something about slavery now. Which means she needed to get the Unsullied. Otherwise she would need to wait another few decades for her dragons to fully grow. You’re singling Dany out. Iam saying that’s because the text circumvents criticism of the other factions; specifically the Starks. So it is relevant to bring them into the discussion. How many kids must and should have died as a result of Robs war and the Stark wars to come? Do they have Smallfolk? Are they allowed to extort produce and money from them? Are they the arbitrators of the law? How is that system different from real world feudalism, a system rightly demonised in later centuries. This makes them parasites. You can’t condemn Dany for being kinda okay with slavery for some of the early books but have no issue with the Starks keeping peasants. Either these are people of their times or you apply modern morality. Slavery. Because you’re critiquing Dany when the text whitewashes the Starks. So it’s very relevant. Really? The text absolutely is weighted towards criticising Daenerys. If you have characters constantly telling Dany that pursuing her destiny is bad and that “the realm will bleed” if she lives then that’s not accidental. You don’t have her being constantly reproached in ADWD for no cause. George clearly wanted to create a satire of the heroic saviour archtype, specifically the one with an evil ancestry who must overcome it (Rand, Aragon etc). Dany absolutely is demonised by the readers. They act all smug and as if this is some secret that only they are aware of when really they are being beaten over the head by it in the text. Calling the Starks out is a colourful way of parodying the way people talk about Dany and I genuinely don’t like them. The whole lost cause mentality, ramming down my throat how they’re the sainted and beloved, having this untainted legacy; but at the same time having this wolf fetish that would make a Space Wolf blush and stressing that they’re all Uber Man warriors. Because what the writer chooses to show you influences how you perceive these characters. The first time we see Ned he’s the loving father and he then has to chop the head off a NW deserter. Harsh but fair. The good man who reluctantly does what’s necessary. If, however, he’s a feudal Lord, that means you aren’t being shown peasants starving to death because all their surplus gets taken by the Lord, you don’t see peasants being hanged or branded, you don’t see the integral violence that this sort of society requires. Not showing that means the reader sees the Starks very differently. So it’s not neutral that he avoids showing any nasty business with the Starks that might be inferred from the social rank. Most medieval campaigns only lasted through the summer. Robs in the Riverlands for a few years between Neds arrest and the Red wedding. You’re telling me he can raise 20k without raising taxes or extorting goods from his beloved people? When, as these doe eyed and long faced creeps constantly remind us that Winter is coming? George is pulling his punches on this point. Both. The Starks are not criticised for what would have happened if Rob raised 20k men from an impoverished nation and took them into a medieval war. This should have resulted in famine and disease in both regions. Slavers Bay is stupid. There’s never been an entire society built entirely around training slaves. It’s a form of labour in which people are held as property. That means they are needed for work, in fields, mines and as servants. George obviously knew that if this was like Roman Italy with the latifundia and mines that Dany wouldn’t have these problems. He deliberately created a ridiculous society where there was no other economy past slavery itself. That is the author rigging the situation. By showing the consequences of their actions. Have Arya see Northern soldiers robbing, raping, looting and cutting peasants to pieces because Rob orders them to raid Lords loyal to Tywin. Have one of them try to kill Arya. Have a peasant whose wife and daughter and village was slaughtered by Stark men ask for justice against them from Rob. Have Theon realise that the Ironborn invasion has benefited from the famine caused by Rob taking all the stored grain and leaving the peasants with nothing for the winter. Have malnourished peasants who poach and steal hanged or branded by the Starks minions. Have the Northern army militarily defeated in a straight fight because they arrogantly believe “the Kings if the North beat armies ten times that size”. These shouldn’t be Uber men with golden wolfsblood. Have Jon go on a raid to a Wildling village where the NW start butchering and hacking apart the women and children. They tell him to take part. Have him face an actual tough situation. George is never going to kill the Uber wolf lords who have snow in their veins and icicles running from their noses. Daenerys isn’t depicted as a golden character and I never said Dany was a golden character. Again, Jorah point blank tells Dany the people don’t care who is King; that applies to her as well. Robs never told people dont care that he’s King of the North. Yet I am asked to weep for the Lost Cause of the Starks. I despise hypocrisy in a book. The way I see it, you can’t really like Dany as written because you’re being constantly told that the Starks and North represent this idealised Germanic warrior civilisation uncorrupted by blood and the vile legacy of the Targaryens. That is heavily weighting any comparison.
  14. Tyrion1991

    An issue with the Nights Watch

    Yes generic Stark fanboy, I will reread the entire novel series like you told me to until I come to the same conclusion that the North is the greatest faction in the world. Although after reading it two or three times Iam not sure my views going to change anytime soon. It’s still the same crummy Northern supremacy being rammed down my throat every few pages. Crush them? Really? Well I hope the Others kill everyone in the North and knock you North fanboys down a peg. I hate the haughty arrogance of this warrior race that think they are better than everyone else. Which is hot air. Tormund is on his way to becoming Jon’s friend. If he really hated Starks and he got the son of Lord Stark he would have probably chopped the “man” into little pieces. Steppe tribes traded with China? This did not prevent war. It also has nothing to do with anything. One minor character hates wildlings? Yes, that is George pulling his punches. They are guarding a frontier against people they regard as barbarians. A penal colony filled with rapists and scum. Imagine if the US had sent convicts to police the Indian Reservations. It should be that violent. Why shouldn’t they be openly hostile? You just said that the North is being raided. That means people killed, women raped and all the ripple effects of that. The only reason the author has to make everybody understanding and rational is to make Jon uniting the North and the Wildlings easy. You’re basically saying there not any real bad blood between them just a bit of mild attitude. That’s not believable or realistic. So what? Wildlings hate other wildlings. That doesn’t mean it makes sense for them to be okay with the NW and just see this as a minor dispute. As opposed to a blood feud. You’re looking at this situation and seeing nuance. All I see is giving Jon and the North a pass. This is a much more easy conflict to settle than it should be and that is done to avoid sullying the North’s image in the minds of reader. Why shouldn’t this be a more dark situation where the North is pursuing a questionable policy? Where the NW is doing bad things to these “barbarians”? Instead we have them put in the victim pedestal whilst at the same time posturing as being the great Kings of Winter and fat with Wolfsblood.
  15. Tyrion1991

    Dany and child murder

    Three very small dragons. The Starks don’t dwell on the fact they’re parasites existing off the backs of their peasants. The fact Dany does start to click that this is wrong is a good thing and a point in her favour. Sure, George does not criticise the Starks for supporting feudalism and holding peasants as chattel. He doesn’t even call them peasants to cloak their status. Why is it “normal” to do that? Why does the author imply that “oh but with nice parental Lords the system works”? But the character who tries to change things is demonised as a fool, causing more harm than good and that things would be better if she did nothing? I am sorry I don’t buy that. Either George is ignoring the deep moral problems of partaking in that system (extreme violence and oppression) because it would make the Starks look bad or he genuinely doesn’t consider it that big a deal. George is ignoring the problem that maintaining the status quo can and often did require enormous violence. Lets make a hypothetical situation. A Stark faces a peasants revolt because they need to raise taxes to pay for that big war with 20,000 men. How do the noble Starks deal with that? Either they stop their selfish war, or they use violence to crush the revolt; with all the killing and violence that entails. This doesn’t happen because, magically, the Northern army has no upkeep apparently and can fight for years on end without problems. So George circumvents the issue of the economic consequences of Robs war entirely and the burdens that should have placed on his people. But with Dany, whole chapters are dedicated to why abolishing slavery is bad for the economy (well if the only trade is training slaves then of course it would but that’s because SB makes no sense). That her war has wrecked the economy and caused suffering for her people. That is a double standard. The Stark wars should have caused massive hardship for the people of Westeros and that blame should be placed on their shoulders by the text. Instead you have this double standard. Rob isn’t accused of impoverishing the North with his wars and that leading to really tough moral decisions. Do I repress my own people to win a “just” war. George totally circumvents this question but for another character makes it a massive topic of discussion.