Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tyrion1991

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,591 profile views
  1. Assuming Winds of Winter has significant material with the Others at all. Dany, Tyrion and co is very unlikely to get to Westeros whilst we have all of the Bolton/NW stuff to resolve. What this would amount to is Dream of Spring starting with “the others are evil” and ending with “oh yeah total misunderstanding”. I don’t see the positive here. Compare that to the Star Trek film The Undiscovered Country where Kirks resentment and prejudice against the Klingons is introduced on the back of previous films and given space to play our throughout the story until he overcomes it. Imagine if instead Kirk had not even heard of a Klingon until the last ten percent of the story and the same big deal was made about the Federation making peace; it would not have the same impact. It would be incredibly shallow. He has withheld substantial information from the reader and characters so it’s not subverting our expectations when he’s done so little to establish what they actually are; they’ve been a non presence in the story. Because the humans goal is driving the military that’s invading their country out; not “genocide” if we presume they’re anything approaching our concept of life. Whether you get theatrical about that as a war between good and evil or portray it in purely mechanical terms is irrelevant; the end result is the same. If the Others refuse to talk and make no effort to do so that is entirely on them. It’s not like the prejudiced humans are refusing to talk to the Others and if they can laugh at some dying men I am not buying an Enders Game situation. George has avoided casting doubt on the North and has went out of his way to make them the most tolerant and Everyman faction. Look how he’s leading into the North joining with the Wildlings with a minimum of grumbling. The characters being racist to the Wildlings are all Southern characters; not Northmen. So why isn’t he going to follow this existing pattern? Jon isn’t filled with hatred of the Others, he barely even dwells on them, it’s just a job to him and George presents that as being a healthy or normal mentality. He’s going to follow this pattern with the rest of the Starks and Northern characters. So they are set to be the ones who do any sort of peace with Winter nonsense. All the good Northerners will have this pragmatic stoicism and be depicted as central to solving a problem only they truly understand. The evidence points to Dany being thrown under the bus because Dany is the character choosing war over planting trees and is associated with fire. Any fantastical war with the Others will heavily involve her. If you pull he rug out from her saving the world by making the Others like the Navi from Avatar then how is that not demonising the character? Saying, oh look the crazy woman’s being too quick tempered and judgemental, it makes her narrow minded; look how the smart Stark Bran gets it all sorted by talking things through. I don’t think George is going there. If he is, it’s a terrible idea and I can imagine how that would play out given the broad trajectory of the characters. Dany does not come out of such a situation in a positive light.
  2. OP We only have two books to go. George has not done enough to convincingly turn around and belittle the audience for misjudging the ice monsters who raise the dead to kill all life. He would be pulling this out of nowhere and have to explain how previous appearances of the Others and statements by the Wildlings are all inaccurate. At the very least they’re commiting genocide and have made no effort to communicate whatever grievance real or imagined they may have. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it’s probably a duck. Not only that but the pacing is all off. Our characters don’t even know the Others exist so how can they be prejudiced against them and it be rewarding for them to overcome it? Dany for example has no preconceived notion and it would be ridiculous for George to suddenly reveal hidden knowledge to throw Danys “preconceptions” in the space of the same novel she learns about them. I must say as well. Such a plot would purely be done to undercut Dany as a character. The main justification for Dany is that she could save the world from the Others. If you make the Others, somehow, a misunderstood victim of human violation of article 4 paragraph C of the Ice Accords; that’s only going to cast Dany in a bad light. The Starks invariably will be the rational characters saying they never leapt to conclusions about the Others, since they don’t know they exist yet and have the good fortune of not being saddled with a divine saviour archetype. So most of the characters won’t even get slapped with the naughty stick apart from Dany. Making the outcast character a monster whilst the main cast are held up as the reasonable down to earth folk is not challenging the readers or expectations. But yeah, I think George’s story has grown with the telling. This was meant to be a throw away fantasy trilogy in the 90s. Not a forty year epic of generational proportions that would be micro analysed by millions of people and explored for its thematic substance by critics and experts. If the Others were introduced as just another version of the Wild Hunt they probably aren’t much more than that. People are looking for more than is there. Look at all the theory work that went into Wandavision; it’s exactly like that. Because he’s not going to depict the good guys war as clean and glorious. I fully expect him to write about Danys army devastating the land. Full on scorched earth, living off the land, eastern front, not one step backwards, use of human sacrifice etc etc. Ordinary people will struggle to distinguish between Dany and this Undead army they’ve only heard about. She isn’t going to be given easy choices. Of course George will then have Bran ex Machina solve everything and make the wise Starks with their intimate knowledge of winter war central to winning the fight; making everything Dany does seem unreasonable. No doubt with Northern Soldiers belittling the Dothraki and Unsullied lack of winter clothing and metal armour. All that nonsense is going to come out in the final few books as George goes for the Stark win.
  3. TBH I never got how a man ruling an island the size of Iceland can’t afford a bard and sundry luxury items for one woman. It’s a little bit off. Plus he wouldn’t be the first absentee Lord or could have taken up court service in a warmer climate. I mean if he is a military guy he could offer to be a Varangian style mercenary at Oldtown for her father. The situation is kind of suspect. George frames that as a martyrdom at the Red Wedding. So he makes us like Dacey and Maege to put some faces to the brutality of the Red Wedding. Rather than it be some miserly Glover let’s focus on the down to earth cool warrior women being killed by the Freys. It’s why the Reeds and Mormonts are so pro Stark, it’s part of George framing the Starks as good if these virtuous little guy Houses are so beholden to them. So I think that does set Jorah up as a prodigal son type character and that requires some sympathy from his family. It’s setting up him leaving Dany for his family by joining the NW. I think that’s George having a sly dig that she should have known who she was marrying. Which is him knocking the whole love at first sight story and that they haven’t thought this through. It’s right next to the wall how would you not know it was cold? You’d have to ask George that. It’s fair to say he has an issue with materialism. I don’t think Lynesse is really at fault here and it’s a little bit too absurd to take seriously. You’re saying love at first sight is bad and working hard to please your other half is bad by creating this absurd and contrived situation where it leads to slavery and this dramatic exile of Ned coming for his head? Yeah I don’t buy that. It’s like the Twincest where the situation is so bizarre and weird that it undermines what he’s passing commentary on. There’s a dozen different ways that could turn out if you shifted a few circumstances, solutions that fail because reasons and potential work arounds that are left unspoken. That’s kind of fine if you’re doing a tragedy. But again it’s all part of that love vs duty angle.
  4. The only reason to care about Jorah is because Dany does. You remove that element and well there wouldn’t even be much characterisation at all. He’s entirely defined by how Dany views him and to what extent he meets her idealised view of him. We also hear Jeor, the She Bears, Sam at the dock where the people of Hightower describe her as a whore. Those aren’t all bigoted individuals and that’s quite a lot of sympathy George wrote into the text which verifies what Jorah said. Plus, he’s not really that harsh on Lynesse considering they divorced (there’s a throwaway line that’s slightly more harsh with Tyrion in ADWD) and that in George’s world wanting things like jewels and singers is bad and not meant to be viewed sympathetically. I think George has pegged Lynesse as a bad apple. If he wanted Jorah to rant about Lynesse he had a good excuse to do that with Tyrion out of Danys earshot and “she left me so she’s could keep her jewels” is pretty milld. Compare that to what Tyrion says of Shae after she testified against him. George is criticising Jorah because he should have judged Lynesse on her character and not on her looks. It’s that vanity that he’s criticising. The idea that he should then do everything to please his wife becoming a socially destructive thing with the slavery and the debt. The Good Man wouldn’t have wanted to marry Lynesse in the first place and would have had the foresight to not get into that tangle. That could very well be George’s view. Certainly in the case of Tyrion with Shae. It’s quite likely given how the She Bears view Lynesse and that they are given favourable treatment by George that this is his view. His criticism of Jorah is almost entirely due to him placing his selfish desires over the society. That’s where the push for him to join the NW comes from. But again he’s criticising the judgement of character that those men had in falling for those women. He’s saying they shouldn’t want their love.
  5. Drama. If you caught the Spartans in those sort of situations they would have come out poorly. It’s not making out the Northern soldiers are poor fighters at all. George is showing that the Starks soldiers are a hardy martial people and the only way the Southerners can beat them is with subterfuge, treachery and not a true contest of arms; where they always triumph spectacularly. This subtly implies that the Stark and Northern soldiers generally are superior to their Andal counterparts. This is also making them Martyrs by having these noble Spartans killed by treacherous little people like the Freys. Plus, George is generally more interested in “Great Men” rather than military institutions. Basically they’re numbers and everything is being dictated by the hubris of our characters. Basically George has told us the North is a great power and matters more than any of the other Houses so it kind of doesn’t matter how much stuff they lose or if it makes much sense.
  6. That has lost its way from the pure path. That’s no different than Egwene trying to set the Aes Sedai back onto the correct path. He doesn’t question the core values of the institution being a penal colony, the vows and the whole spartan mentality. These things are praised and contrasted sharply with it compromising those values. George is telling us the NW is good but has lost its way; not condemning it ideals.
  7. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Even the She Bears don’t say that. They dislike her for being a soft and vain outlander; obsessed with luxury. I think, barring some messed up glass candle mad maid Hightower I can see the future nonesense, that its a case of Anna from Frozen. She falls madly in love with this guy and then the relationship does not work. But, she stayed with him a very long time, nothing prevented her throwing in the towel earlier or returning to her family and she probably wouldn’t have liked the Puritan Northerners disdain for her culture. I do think George is shaming the character for the vanity of luxury and contrasting her sharply to Cat; but you could view her very sympathetically. She stays with Jorah through exile for quite some time despite repeated failures and disasters. Only then does she leave for another guy which freed the family from debts. I mean, for all we know, she might have reasoned that this was good for both of them because she could see that Jorah was driving himself into the ground trying to make this work. So her making that decision freed them both. If Jorah still loves and hates her then it stands to reason that the other half is meant to mirror that. Probably wrong, she’s probably going to show up like Cleopatra in Winds and be all sass with Jorah and Dany.
  8. He doesn’t endorse the atrocities, he places the blame on personal hubris and passion. It’s the other side of the coin for the good is dumb element. Which is why he will push emotionless King Bran. Tywin is condemned for his lack of self control and letting his hatred consume him. He doesn’t put the blame on other factors like society, the state, and the nature of war. Which he gives a pass for anyone fortunate enough to wear a Wolf Sigil. The blame is put on Jamie having an excessive idealism and his vanity about wanting to be a perfect knight. George introduces that conflict to punish the character for that delusion. In George’s world the ideal man would not place value on that sort of vanity about what people think of you but would do the greater good. Plus, frankly, this is the decision he makes when he kills Aerys and it’s an easy decision to make. It’s just weird that Ned and Rob have a problem with this considering they were rebels themselves. Basically it’s about Jamie letting go of his vanity and ego. Which George and Aemon describe as having been weakness. It shames Aemon that he considered breaking his perfect vows for such a base and selfish reason. George isn’t throwing shade at the NW institution. I could say it’s a gulag but that bit how it’s depicted. I like the complexity and mystery of the story. There’s a lot of humor and witty dialogue which creates suspense and drama. Some of the characters I am quite invested in. However I think the author is totally wrong in the point he’s driving at. It’s on one level a satire of fantasy that’s no longer written for three decades and on another it’s got some sinister undertones that I think DnD inexpertly laid out in the show. Also, he’s clearly making the story up as he goes along and has no plan for the series; which undercuts a lot of the speculation you can make. By Crows and Dance I d say he was starting to lose me and the show has pretty much confirmed that view.
  9. If she only needs Tyrion why take the added risk of bringing Jorah along? She clearly holds the power at that point and could just dispense with him. For somebody who was point blank suspicious that he had darker motives she quite inexplicably decides to include Jorah in her plan. Honestly I think George is railroading here. He wanted Jorah to meet with Tyrion but then get them to Mereen. However Jorahs meant to be viewed by Tyrion with no filter and them starting to work together is an arc so he can’t/won’t be nice to him. I mean Jorah literally does not want to talk to Tyrion so he makes excuses for this to happen. So, rather than just buy passage he has a third party randomly decide they should both go to Mereen but free Tyrion without making Jorah unnecessary. The whole situation is really contrived. How Jorah even crossed path randomly with Tyrion. How is the only path of passage an anti slavery group who would want Tyrion freed. Plus i don’t get what’s achieved by berating Jorah over wanting to pay for passage by boat. It’s not unreasonable and why wouldn’t that be a typical exchange here? When she makes it a test of sincerity she dismisses his motivation which Tyrion who’s meant to be perceptive actually agrees to be the case; so she has misread him completely. But then is okay with the Dwarf who confesses to wanting to murder his Sister because at least he’s honest about being a malicious scumbag. Yeah I am not buying this situation at all. Why does she trust Tyrion exactly? George wants a particular scenario to unfold so is having this bizarre series of events occur. Oh and you also get the obligatory “oh dumb Jorah can’t read people like clever clever Tyrion.” Because you need complex and nuanced people skills to pay ten gold to fast travel. You shouldn’t need to trade wits with an enigmatic wise woman. Especially when hundreds of ships are going in an out of Mereen all the time. Clearly the Ironborn are just terrible sailors because those slavers are just coming and going with their armies, camp, siege equipment and supplies. It’s a false situation. He should be able to get passage on any number of ships. Notice Quentin breezes through because the plot needed it but the only way for Jorah is haggling with the Wise Woman.
  10. @Walda You’ve put more thought into the character than George did. It’s just like Marwyn, another one of those smartarse smug Chaotic good know it all characters that come out of nowhere and wax lyrical about utter nonsense. Marwyn is much worse BTW and far more obnoxious. If she knew it was Jorah why would she send him back to Dany? We know Danys conflicted over this but so far as the world is concerned he was sentenced to death and sent on his way. Why would the Widow be party to that and what’s to be gained by not talking plainly about how she knows who he is? She just randomly decides to include Jorah in her own plans despite seconds earlier accusing him of conspiring to kill her. But yeah I don’t think she had any clue who he was and certainly had no prophetic insight into his character that Dany or Tyrion would have failed to pick up on. Why should i second guess two POV over one throw away characters three second assessment? She basically implies Jorah wants to kill Dany and dismisses entirely his motivation for wanting to save Dany. Which doesn’t square with his actions or behaviour in ADWD at all. If he was a mercenary he would sell TYrion to Cersei. Of course, he’s a bastard to everyone else, but that has no bearing on his intent. At the end of the day he asks for a boat trip, not a moral lecture. Then he says the idealistic response and she doesn’t believe him because reasons. It’s a random scene only meant to remind us Tyrion exists and let us know Tyrion’s super smart with people. It’s like Stannis and Jon he’s pushing one character down to lift another up. Also, I actually think Volantis might become a victim of Danys dark turn. So the Widow and all those on the fence slaves might become victims of her wrath. A way of showing Dany descending into madness and becoming an unnecessary extreme.
  11. Because there is no maybe here. It’s almost every case in his story. A balanced approach would have counterpoints and wouldn’t give the NW or KG vows the time of day. Tywin, Stannis and Roose are not cold blooded people at all. The bulk of criticism is on their malice, jealousy, pettiness, lust for power and pretentious hubris. To him that’s just another form of losing control and a lack of reason which harms the social good. George doesn’t come out against machine men with machine minds here. He sees that as the solution to human weakness. The show is a pretty good indicator about the authors intent and where the series is heading. More than we can say for most unfinished book series. The details may be different but the theme and overall destination; he hasn’t come out and said its not his ending. The burden of proof is to say that’s not the ending.
  12. He has a funny way of showing it then. It’s a common take away from his work that good is dumb. George praises the Nights Watch and blames human weakness for the institutions problems. He’s being very literal when Aemon tells him that the Greater Good is served by letting go of your selfish desires that are a temptation which leads men astray. Love to George is depicted as something that is a sin. It’s a temptation and people want it but that makes it socially dangerous. It has nothing to do with lack of knowledge or naivety. Look at Cat. Whenever she does anything that does not directly concern her she is very wise, intelligent perceptive and has a good measure of things. George repeatedly shows her bad decision making as a result of her emotions clouding her judgement. So he’s not actually saying the characters just need the knowledge, experience and judgement to carry their idealism forward. He’s saying that such feelings and temptations are a corrosive force. Thats because those authors don’t railroad the characters with absurd situations. Oh yeah I want to plant some trees in a city, let’s have half the world declare war on me, forget the few million freed slaves who like me, make it impossible geographically for people to get to me etc etc. You can’t railroad a character that much and then pontificate on how you’re the only writer who gets it whilst everyone else is being naive. He isn’t presenting natural situations that would play out. At one point George has Dany read about how she wishes people were like those shifty eyes villains in the stories when George has Mirri, Littlefinger and Varys be exactly that trope. He’s a total hypocrite.
  13. Jeyne wasn’t arranged by her parents but by her captors and this was all done by the villains who are themselves creatures of emotion that George has already criticised. So of course if they’ve co-opted the system it’s bad. But when our Starks and Tullys do it and people do their part things work. He’s brutally unsympathetic to Lysa and her child. He’s looking back for excuses to explain why she’s a cartoon villain. Gregor is a minor character and George doesn’t spend a lot of time dwelling on this beyond emphasising Gregor is a bad man. George isn’t really using that to open the floor against arranged marriage. The issue is that George repeatedly calls into question the ability for any character to be the judge of whether they’re in love without being betrayed in some horrific way. Whilst having one of the few good working relationships we are presented with be a dutiful arranged marriage. That’s the issue. It’s dumb. A bit like in Aliens Prometheus how all the characters keep getting themselves killed and putting their noses where they shouldn’t. Not everyone is such a poor judge of character. Which isn’t just tragedy because he makes love vs duty a talking point and clearly comes out in support of the latter.
  14. A previous poster picked the point. We’d be here all day if we had to discuss George being a narcissist and every single instance of this. Other stories don’t make this point and they aren’t general tropes at all. You talk about the show, season 8 has Sansa point blank tell Jon love makes you do dumb things. Oh look emotional girl burns down city and goes dictator. Let’s get ice man in charge to set us on the golden path. That’s a bit more than Anna wanting to marry the Prince after one song with him. Love and emotion is never depicted as a positive in George’s world. It’s something they might want but never an actually good thing and often that desire is treated with suspicion. It always comes back to a negative and is constantly cited as a cause of war, distress and violence. There is no “healing fire” at all here. That would imply nuance and that George has any interest in that. Whatever character said that is at odds with what he’s actually written. If he was then you would have characters saved by love, you would have people brought together by it and what you get is endless cynical disdain for even the mildest notion. If we’re being metaphysical and talking of the show then ice clearly wins; so there’s that as well.
  15. Her maternal feelings became socially dangerous when they interfere with her judgement. George praises the dutiful elements of her behaviour but condemns anything approaching emotion. His ideal Catelyn would only think of duty and have stayed in her lane. He wants people to be like robots and that those feelings aren’t useful or have a positive impact in society. I don’t think he is knocking Hoster. It’s like how George puts Sansa through hell over her misplaced love of Joffrey. That’s him punishing the character for what he sees as bad behaviour and poetic justice. Lysa puts herself through that for a man who does not even love her and ends up killing her. Again, he’s pointing the finger at her love and personal failings not at the system. It’s a warning against that behaviour. Had she not defied her father and let emotion compromise her judgement she would not have found herself in that situation. He’s still putting the blame on her, not really on Hoster or father knows best.
  • Create New...