Jump to content

Hodor's Dragon

Members
  • Content Count

    2,163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hodor's Dragon

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,305 profile views
  1. Can you elaborate on what this information is? My impression was that we know almost nothing about Bran's current state, we're not even sure he is completely human, we know nothing at all about his motivations, and he has consistently projected "unengaged." What's his perspective? Does he even care what the humans do? If he does care, what's his angle? Is he all Stark 24/7, all tree-dude all the time, or does he transcend all that competitive stuff? As many have remarked, a couple of his statements have even implied that he intentionally allowed things to turn out as they did, including allowing the massacre of King's Landing so that he would be King. Do you agree or disagree with any of this? If it's true, why is Bran the best judge anyway?
  2. By "stuck to your guns," are you referring to anything prior to Season 8? Because I don't recall Sansa ever mentioning "Northern independence" until the point the writers could use it as a wedge issue between the Starks and Daenerys. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  3. Sheer conjecture. I would presume people were cheering for a much more sensible reason: because the bloodthirsty Boltons were no longer in charge. And because the Boltons were Lannister puppets. If the entire plot was about Northern independence, I should think it would've been mentioned. Can you point to a single conversation about Northern independence in season 6? If you can dig one up somewhere, I'll be impressed, but that would still leave the question of how about TWO conversations? Was it the part where the Umbers brought Shaggydog's head to Ramsey? How come nobody really gave a damn about Jon and Sansa's quest for troops? Why did they have to beg to get 58 soldiers from House Mormont? And when they begged, did Sansa cite "Northern independence" or "your family's oath to House Stark?"
  4. The thing about this Northern independence thing is that the North went to war because Ned was imprisoned by an evil king, and going independent was a side effect. There's zero talk of northern independence that I recall between the Red Wedding and the last half of season 8--did I miss something? And once the Iron Throne's ability to keep peace through the realm is thrown away in war, it's a bloody holy horror up there, every house for itself, and what was revealed of the Northern lords isn't all that much cause for confidence. In our world, the tide of history has very obviously been toward larger and stronger states, and now even the nations are banding together through international organizations. History has not been kind to nations that focus inward and don't reach out.
  5. Well now wait, maybe you can make a case for Dany lacking introspection in the show, but don't throw Martin's name into that idea. Book Daenerys is the most introspective character in the whole story: she is constantly examining her own actions and herself. My favorite thing about her, but I concede it is all but completely lost in the show where she is always decisive and self-confident.
  6. Why should she intervene in a battle if she's not involved with either side? Put differently, how did they get to be her "subjects" if she's not their queen? Intervene in a war you're not involved in and you'll likely find both sides battling your forces.
  7. I was just responding to your implication that Meereen was left in an unfavorable state. There's no evidence for that. And we aren't talking about the books here. IMO Martin's intentions had little or nothing to do with what happened in the last 3 years of the show, where we got a simplified version of Slaver's Bay.
  8. When she left, Meereen was well in hand, and there are no facts to say that it is now not well in hand. None. Sheer speculation that Daario would lose power. He commanded a large mercenary company and faced no organized opposition at all. The Sons of the Harpy showed themselves during the last battle and were largely slaughtered. If you look at Daario's advice to Dany over the years, he wasn't clueless about politics and power. Ruthless, yes; clueless, no. There's no reason to assume he couldn't at least keep the peace.
  9. Well, OK, that's your metaphor, but this time the ugly girl with glasses is actually two extremely wealthy and powerful Hollywood producers who managed to take something I dearly love and have devoted more hours of my life to than I care to count and burn most of what is good and admirable about it right down to the ground. Also, people aren't talking about their looks, they're talking about specific things they did in their extremely well-compensated and high-profile professional lives.
  10. "Let it be fear" is just the absurdly tiny fig leaf they threw up to cover the pasty, shriveled genitalia of what was left of the plot. It wasn't just a "horrible decision," it was completely senseless. "Fear" is laughable as a so-called motivation for what she did. Just spare 5 seconds to think this thing through. It is so, so easy to instill fear with dragons, and there are so many ways you can influence them to get people to do things you want to do. Why use them to inflict massive destruction and suffering of a sort that doesn't take a single step toward your supposed goal? Especially when you are in fact operating counter to your supposed motivation when you show people that what you plan to do with your dragons is destroy cities that surrender? No other city will ever surrender after such a colossal blunder. I assume you aren't positing that imposing fear had suddenly become a goal in itself, unrelated to its efficiency in achieving control of the realm. Such a thing would obviously be a complete 180 for her character.
  11. Sadly, I definitely was not the best writer in the M.F.A. fiction-writing program I graduated from, but a lot of folks think I was the best, most perceptive reader. I actually do, literally, have evidentiary "support" for my ability to draw judgments about stories, in the form of letters of recommendation for my subsequent law school application, including from the program chair and multiple other successful, award-winning writers, saying I was the best reader in the program. I'm not going to dig them out of a box, photograph them, photocopy them, black out the identifying info, and load them up to photobucket just because some dude is being a dick on the internet, but I will say this: it's a very, very ordinary thing for people to form impressions of stories they see and read and post them on forums for others to read. If you want to take the position that all of those impressions are invalid and should be disregarded because of some mumblety-jumblety about writers controlling characterization of their characters, the burden is on you to prove it. You're the one making a universal attack on a commonly-held idea (i.e., that ordinary folks may express valid opinions about stories they watch/hear/read), not me.
  12. I'm not about to get mixed up in your word salad, but I'll say a couple of things. First, you're goddamned straight that I'm "attempting to entangle [my] personal subjective opinions with objective fact." YES, SIR OR MADAM, I make so bold as to claim that I can tell a shit story (e.g., GOT, Season 8) from a great one (e.g., ASOIAF, Vols. I-V.). I do, indeed, and you can't take the right to claim that away from me and if you ordain that I should leave it out of our discussions I shall simply disregard your ordinance. I will also make so bold as to say that if humans generally spent their time wondering over whether they could tell good things from bad things, they probably wouldn't know it because they would still be squatting around a cave fire and lacking a language that would aid their ability to engage in abstract thought. Finally, I am simply meaning "unprecedented" as you clearly meant it in your original discussion; IOW, it doesn't mean a unique, new event, it means an event that isn't related to forerunner facts in the story. If you don't like that meaning, the blame is not to me. (Also, all the LOTR crap you went on and on about was in the beginning or middle of the story, not the last chapter.)
  13. Such a lot of hogwash, but what it still all boils down to is that you are trying to declare the story "good" by definition. Nothing in the latter part of a good story is "unprecedented;" everything builds on what has gone before. ESPECIALLY in a work of this size, if there's nothing in the 1st 71 episodes to serve as a "precedent" for the last two, then you have a serious story disconnect and need to go back to the drawing board or better yet back to Fiction Writing 101 and leave drawing boards for real stories for after you get some hang of the craft.
  14. You're playing with words. Yes, the author is the person who gets to decide what happens, but what happens needs to make sense based on what has happened before or it sucks, regardless of whether you hang the word "characterization" on it. And speaking of words, "character assassination" is a perfectly appropriate term to use when a character's actions changes wildly, without any appropriate set-up or segue, at the very end of a lengthy work. It may have been the author's right to do that, but that doesn't mean the author is immune to criticism for his/her acts or that the critics can't sharpen their pens for descriptive terms like "character assassination" that drive home the point of what kinds of mistakes were made.
×
×
  • Create New...