Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tyrion1991

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,299 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. @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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. George tells us that she wanted Littlefinger and that her defiance of her fathers will led her to ruin and madness. With her misplaced love and desire for Littlefinger ultimately leading her to murder her husband, drag the realm into civil war only for her to be murdered by Littlefinger who turned out was just using her. This is contrasted sharply and consciously to Catylyn who did not follow her passions, obeyed her father and found “love” through the family she had with this dour and miserable stranger; her duty. George is not a subtle man here, he’s very clearly telling us who the good daughter is. George is placing the fault on wilfully seeking love and an awfully optimistic view that father knows best. So the focus isn’t on Jon Arryn and her loveless marriage but her unreasonable and impulsive desire to be with Littlefinger. Again, George is depicting those emotions as poisonous, socially destructive and in this case foolishly wrong. The insinuation is that had she been like Cat she would have set aside her own base selfish desires and done what society demanded of her; which would have literally spared the realm of war and desolation. I think it all comes to this love vs duty dynamic that George has in the story. He is laying the blame on emotion and selfishness, not the system.
  10. Worse, he depicts love as a destructive and selfish emotion that is to the detriment of wider society. It’s far more than just saying it has no utility. He’s saying it’s dangerous and self destructive. Which implies George is okay with age differences if the pair genuinely love each other.
  11. OP I dont think that could be the case. The satire George is making is of the fairy tale ending of love at first sight triumphing and happy endings. Whereas here he presents it as socially dangerous and the principal cause of misery. Love is the death of duty and all that. So it has to be a fairy tale love story in order for his satire to work. Adding the caveat that “oh if it was true love it would have worked” and Jorah was a creep would undermine the moral message entirely. So they kind of have to have been in love and had that fairy tale story because that’s what he’s criticising. Also, it foreshadows one way Jorahs story could go with him dishonouring himself trying to please a woman out of love; Dany. Who has a very different set of needs and they involve killing a lot of people. The first thing Dany asks him to do is burn an old woman and it’s brought up at the exile that he is killing a fair few people for her already. So again, that’s the point George is making that love is a socially dangerous thing and that Jorah should return to the Watch and North etc etc. Not to second guess his love for Dany and Danys belief that he does indeed love her. I mean Dany voices this belief long before he does and is written by George as being stunned by the depth of that affection on several occasions. We’re frankly beaten over the head with how much she wants him around and that she loves him as Brother. If George wanted the villain from Megamind he’s got a strange way of doing it. Sansa does not think or say those things about Littlefinger. Plus the Hightower’s would not have agreed to this unless Lynesse had wanted it. Why give Jorah the time of day? I really do think it would be a Frozen style situation with Anna asking to be married only her father said yes. He really can’t have groomed her because they literally just met at the Tourney. George is very critical of Jorah but not for those reasons. He had no problem describing Drogo and Dany as a true love story despite age differences. The criticism is that love is a socially destructive thing that turns the individual against society. His love for Dany will, like his affection for Lynesse, lead him to a path of ruin. I think, George RR Martin is an older guy and is perhaps not as tuned in to how readers might hone in on the age gap and the dynamic between a male and female character. There was that very questionable scene he wrote for Arya in Winds and he very sympathetically writes about Barristans love for Ashara or Nettles affair with that older Targaryen. Dany doesn’t bring up his age that often with far more to say on him being ugly, lowborn and overstepping himself and you could write Jorah as an 18 year old without changing the important elements of the character and the main thematic points. I really do think this is a Darkstar “Iam the Night” moment were George thought the age gap was just adding to the gulf between the two ever reciprocating their love and not the singular talking point of his character. As an aside the Volantis Widow and Tyrion are wrong because we have Danys POV where we see that she wishes Jorah was there and misses him. He’s being told “she’s gonna kill you” repeatedly whilst Dany is wishing he was there to catch her when she trips over. The Volantis Widow has no idea who Jorah actually is or what Dany wants so she’s literally talking out her arse. To quote Blackadder this is “the wise woman” situation. She’s simply another character like Tyrion, Brown Ben and his clerk who are sniping at the foolishness of Jorah going on his trip. She actually doesn’t believe that’s what he’s doing when he tells her he wants to save her. But again, that’s what George is criticising so he has to genuinely love Dany.
  12. I think George has to have told DND the broad strokes and themes of his story. So, Dany is my take on ultimate power corrupts and Bran is the Fisher King who sets the world to rights. Knowing Dany is destined to crash and burn whilst the Stark vs Targaryen conflict is set up throws the books into sharp relief. Danys obstacles aren’t conflicts for her to resolve and overcome her darker nature but absurd railroading to drive the character into the ground and then point at the Starks as amazing because they don’t screw their sisters and have the good fortune to live in a country where everybody likes them anyway. Oh he does shy away from it. If half of any country in the real world broke away because of nationalism and then tried to invade and annex another piece of real estate this would result in far, far more brutal and sinister consequences than what George presents. He heavily sanitises that situation and rigs the game to make the Starks/North the good guys. If he actually let the situation play out naturally the Starks/North would be unsympathetic: either a bunch of cynical Nobles out for land/petty revenge or they would be massacring their religious and ethnic rivals because they want their land for their people. Avoiding those grim topics would be fine for a High Fantasy novel if he weren’t getting on his high horse about Dany when the Dothraki ride into a village; where suddenly it becomes a moral pantomime. He is far more ambivalent and avoids direct blame being hurled at the Northern cause whilst being direct and blunt with every time Dany steps on an ant. Even characters that make accusations against the North are undermined and depicted as untrustworthy sources. Or it’s the bad apples who join the Lannister’s anyway and not the proper Northerners. George would probably claim he’s being neutral and morally grey with all the factions as you say but I don’t think that can be taken at face value. He is definitely framing the Starks/North in a positive light even if it’s not Gondor or Rohan levels.
  13. Bran really should come up as a threat. George not seeing any issue with a emotionless telepath becoming God Emperor is quite telling. You’re confusing theatrics with actions. If the Starks instigate Wars and desolation with the full expectation that their birthright should be returned it’s irrelevant that they don’t talk about it. That just makes them conceited and dishonest. Rob didn’t make any speeches about his blood right to rule half the country but he did it and even tried to conquer the Riverlands. Jon bringing wildlings to take Winterfell and just being handed the crown isn’t any different than Dany rocking up with dragons at Kings Landing. In the show Sansa is a perfect example of this kind of double standard with her making herself Queen in the same scene about democracy. You could say Danys dragons won’t fully grow during the series if we’re going to say Brans powers won’t increase at all. George is making a false equivalence with nuclear weapons. Nukes are a problem because of the radiation and the world ending thing. To fixate on Dragons as world ending for killing a few hundred people whilst Rob started a war that devastated the Riverlands a heroic struggle is ridiculous. I mean the show actually has the balls to present besieging Kings Landing and starving the population as a good thing compared to any use of the dragons. Again, it’s hypocritical and concerned with form not substance. Why wouldn’t the people of Westeros love Dany? You mention that she would be a Mary Sue if that happened, but the only reason she would be opposed is the writer wanting to create conflict and obstacles for her to overcome. Oh she has to win them over, they see they were wrong etc etc. What George and the show did is to railroad the character with all of Westeros suddenly becoming concerned about democracy and the rule of law and fanatic nationalists willing to die for the Fatherland and good Queen Cersei. They know nothing about Dany, they form this impression out of nowhere and then decide it’s a smart idea to have a fanatical fight to the death rather than step down. It’s an absurd situation and can’t be taken seriously. Why would the beautiful Queen who freed all the slaves in Essos and saves the world from the Others be seen in anything other than a positive light? I don’t believe that the people of Westeros would oppose her and get all weepy because she executed two traitors but were okay with Tywin running a torture factory on civilians or Jon chopping off heads because people don’t respect his authority. He actually hanged a child. I didn’t see a Mirri Maz Duur chasing him for that. What have the Starks actually done that would merit them being put on the throne of Westeros? Bran has literally been dragged around by the Reeds; he’s there for the ride. Sansa has actually been a pawn the whole time. Rob devastated the North and the Riverlands in his hubris. Jon was a fool who got elected on his blood and then drove the NW into the ground. In the show he loses the battle of the bastards and takes the credit for almost getting everyone killed. He then takes credit for beating the Night King and Dany and her armies role gets dismissed entirely. Arya did what? Fail to kill Cersei and resolve the whole war whilst she indulged in her own whims and kept her own counsel out of arrogance. They aren’t heroes and they aren’t impressive. They’re a cluster of mediocre clowns who are blundering through the story and being carried by everyone’s expectation that they’re special. Jeor would never have given Jon the time of day if he was just some peasant son. Dany is important because of what she’s done and who she is. That should impact people’s opinions in the world. None of this Bran having an amazing story that would heal the realm nonsense.
  14. How is an omnipresent telepath who can mind control people less of a danger and threat to society than a girl with a flying flamethrower? A helicopter with a few napalm barrel bombs is equivalent to what a dragon can do; its a huge exaggeration to say they can kill millions in an instant. Bran hasn’t peaked in terms of power and he could very well be a professor Xavier/God Emperor Dune style character by the end. I am sure George said that if an eleven year old had to rule the world then so be it. For all we know the resolution is Bran taking over the Others and their Undead army for his own. Dany isn’t that powerful by comparison and so she isn’t as much of a “threat” as an undead army led by Ice Demons or an eternal winter. Its hypocritical to view Dany as this great threat to Westeros on a level with the Others. Whilst saying a telepath ruling the world like Paul Atrades is okay. Plus the sentiment and core message is important. If you bring it down to a question of scale then that’s a bit off. Like it’s okay for the Starks to take back half the country because it’s their birthright but Danys the monstrous villain for wanting both? Why would it be okay for Bran to mind dominate any Lord who disagrees with him and create a Stalinist state where everyone lives in terror of this Leviathan in their midst? That’s far more dangerous than a targaryen on a dragon, Dany can’t invade the minds of people and kill them dead with a thought. Also, George completely dismisses the issues of if Dany had the opposite worldview. Let’s say Dany didn’t give a damn. I am just going to travel the world with my dragons in an endless circus show. Aerial acrobatics and stuff like that. Loads of money, none of this chair, crown and messy helping people business. By Georges reasoning that makes Dany a good person because she would have that power but not be corrupted by delusions of saving people or her ego. However this would result in at least Westeros being destroyed by the Undead or ruled by God Emperor Bran in a dystopian nightmare; without George having a Stark ex machina to let the Wolves win. Would leave eighty percent of Essos in chains for the next few hundred years if we are being generous. Dany has a responsibility to others and if you have the ability to do something positive about these things you probably should. If you’re able to do that why wouldn’t people want to put the crown on your head as a way of morally obliging you to save them? Let’s go further with this scenario and say that a few years into the Others Invasion some Nobles rock up and ask Dany to come to Westeros to help with her dragons. Well by Georges logic the right thing to do is to say no because she doesn’t have the experience, training and worldly experience to make that work and that sort of power would just make things worse. In general George repeatedly depicts headstrong and egotistical characters causing problems for the world; I am not seeing a lot of the opposite. This is why Bran is being held up as this perfect King. Because he has no “ego” or “theatrics” but is apparently this rational technical expert. A civilised aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional general elections; that’s what Bran is.
  15. Because it’s hypocritical. You have the hypocrisy of Sansa calling Dany a tyrant before being crowned as an absolute monarch and how she’s helping the people of the North. Bran, who uses his powers to guide humanity down the Golden Path on his Weirwood Throne. If you accept both of those then you aren’t really criticising the idea of using power to achieve good; in fact you’re embracing it. George is very clear that a quiet bookish general secretary who’s bad at making speeches and not popular would make the perfect leader. It should be the tyrant we need not the tyrant we want. What George is criticising is form not substance. Oh Dany is this beautiful silver haired Queen with a Dragon. I should have the crippled introverted ugly Stark win to show what a real good ruler would be. That shows that power corrupts. For one the Starks use a lot of violence for far less justifiable reasons than Dany. They execute prisoners, they kill children, they break the law, they mind dominate people, they repeatedly claim credit for what other people have done. They’re just less theatrical with their language and choice of murder. George does constantly criticise Danys use of violence, because she’s her worst critic and has a whole book dedicated to this in ADWD. So we aren’t asked to get used to it so the author can trip us up at all. Dany steps on an ant and it’s a metaphor for her killing people. George is not a subtle man. George does not apply any of this criticism to the Starks in terms of the use of violence and power. Rob Starks personal vendetta gets a pass. I absolutely expect George to apply the double standard that it’s okay for the Starks to take back their throne but it’s evil for Dany to do the same. Plus, it’s ridiculous. If you had a character like that who was that powerful: Why would they not be loved and supported by everybody? Why, when the world is being invaded by ice demons and theres no clear successor; would you not have a restoration of 1660 situation? George isn’t letting the situation play out naturally but is railroading the character with absurd situations. Like, you know, two secret Targaryen Nephews, one of whom he pulled out his backside. Oh and the only person she’ll love is one of those nephews and they can’t be together which breaks her little heart so she burns a city down. Never mind rigging the game so that Danys the Mad Queens Daughter and everybody thinks she’s crazy anyway. Or making it so the Starks have a national block behind them but the Targaryens have like four fishing islands. I do think George wants Dany to be a big moral tale in that light. He probably would explain it in similar terms as you have. But it makes no sense to me. It’s dumb and he’s being incredibly hypocritical. I could easily point at the Starks and say how them awakening nationalism could create all manner of horror and terror in that political context. All so they can get power and petty revenge. I think it’s rich for George to tie a pretty bow on that situation and then spend chapter after chapter talking about how the blond girl with the dragon who wants to sit in a chair is a danger to society.
  • Create New...