Season 8 Predictions?

[jcmontea]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

I guess the nihilism is something that's always made me apprehensive about the books/show. 

Yea. I am hoping we don’t end with a nihilist message but I am not that confident after season seven and the senseless sacrifice of Vicerion and Cersei’s betryal and continued survival. 

[Dragonsbone]

On 2.12.2017 at 8:35 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes. I believe he is very nihilistic concerning our world. So he is writing another one. One with some hope. There would be no Prince Promised if not.

If the story of PtwP is the same as AA, to me that is a very nihilistic world view. The "hero" must kill his loved ones to please a Fire God so he can give him a sword to fight darkness. Sacrifice of other innocent people is the price that has to be paid to save the world. 

[Faera]

24 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Yea. I am hoping we don’t end with a nihilist message but I am not that confident after season seven and the senseless sacrifice of Vicerion and Cersei’s betryal and continued survival. 

Does the show have a nihilist outlook? It never occurred to me, personally.

I think the showrunners cared more about the 'Rule of Cool' with the death of Viserion, as in, "Imagine a dragon CRASHING into the ice and then sinking! Then imagine if NK raises it from the death and ZOMBIE DRAGON takes down the WALL!" As for Cersei, again, I think it is down to them loving Lena's Cersei and wanting to give her more to do than a genuine nihilistic look of the world.

[Adaneth]

4 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Interesting video given the discussion on Jon being Ned 2.0 or not 

 

 

I just saw the video on my notification. I haven't watched it yet. I have developed an aversion for Sansa since Season 6. I feel like her character went down south and her only "ideology" has been a whinning: Me! Me! Me! 

[jcmontea]

6 minutes ago, Faera said:

Does the show have a nihilist outlook? It never occurred to me, personally.

I think the showrunners cared more about the 'Rule of Cool' with the death of Viserion, as in, "Imagine a dragon CRASHING into the ice and then sinking! Then imagine if NK raises it from the death and ZOMBIE DRAGON takes down the WALL!" As for Cersei, again, I think it is down to them loving Lena's Cersei and wanting to give her more to do than a genuine nihilistic look of the world.

Thats a tough question because it gets into authorial intent which is inherently speculative. I prefer to disregard the reasons why the showrunners do things which is just unknowable and just analyze the story as such. 

The story as a whole has bordered on nihilist at times and that was especially true in season 4 and 5 before it became just the D and D show. Season 6 moved away from that and Season 7 felt like it moved back with the sensless sacrifice of the wight hunt and how badly the attempt to conquer westeros in a softer way proved. 

[Adaneth]

8 minutes ago, Faera said:

Does the show have a nihilist outlook? It never occurred to me, personally.

I think the showrunners cared more about the 'Rule of Cool' with the death of Viserion, as in, "Imagine a dragon CRASHING into the ice and then sinking! Then imagine if NK raises it from the death and ZOMBIE DRAGON takes down the WALL!" As for Cersei, again, I think it is down to them loving Lena's Cersei and wanting to give her more to do than a genuine nihilistic look of the world.

I agree. The show to me had a nihilist outlook till the book lasted. It's indeed the books which I see more as such. It might be one of GRRM problems in finishing the books also. 

This guy explains it rather good, IMO. 

 

[Adaneth]

5 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Thats a tough question because it gets into authorial intent which is inherently speculative. I prefer to disregard the reasons why the showrunners do things which is just unknowable and just analyze the story as such. 

The story as a whole has bordered on nihilist at times and that was especially true in season 4 and 5 before it became just the D and D show. Season 6 moved away from that and Season 7 felt like it moved back with the sensless sacrifice of the wight hunt and how badly the attempt to conquer westeros in a softer way proved. 

I think Viserion's death was the way to give the NK the "weapon" to break the wall. There were no human costs during that mission though. Well, apart from Thoros and other no name characters, which we didn't care much. Same for the huge battle in ep.4 No human costs, not even Bronn. I really do think the whole idea of going beyond the wall was about: a. give Viserion to the NK and b. have that big meeting in the season finale, which was a way to finally make Jamie break with Cersei. 

[BalerionTheCat]

20 hours ago, Dragonsbone said:

If the story of PtwP is the same as AA, to me that is a very nihilistic world view. The "hero" must kill his loved ones to please a Fire God so he can give him a sword to fight darkness. Sacrifice of other innocent people is the price that has to be paid to save the world. 

In my book priests burning people not of their religion and gods requesting (human) sacrifices are not good. So I put R'hllor and his priests in the "evil bag". I would hope the Old Gods, the Lion of Night or the Maiden-Made-of-Light are better masters. But they seem also to request blood sacrifices. Maybe the difference is the sacrifices matters only if the supplicant is paying the price. Meaning burning your enemy is not a sacrifice. As I see it, it cost you nothing. Not much an improvement IMO. And you also have the gods forbidding kinslaying. So where is the logic? Maybe we're reading incorrectly some gods desire?

[Lord_Ravenstone]

23 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

I guess the nihilism is something that's always made me apprehensive about the books/show. 

Just gonna point out that GRRM thinks that the idea his books are nihilistic is moronic

[Lord_Ravenstone]

Interviewer: Early on, one critic described the TV series as bleak and embodying a nihilistic worldview, another bemoaned its "lack of moral signposts." Have you ever worried that there's some validity to that criticism? 

GRRM:No. That particular criticism is completely invalid. Actually, I think it's moronic. My worldview is anything but nihilistic.

[Faera]

21 hours ago, Caterina Sforza said:

I agree. The show to me had a nihilist outlook till the book lasted. It's indeed the books which I see more as such. It might be one of GRRM problems in finishing the books also. 

This guy explains it rather good, IMO. 

 

 

I've seen that video!

Definitely interesting and I enjoyed listening to it though I cannot agree with some of the points it made. I don't see the books or show as nihilistic at all. I would say the show likes to emphasis shock value (or at least in a different way to the book) a little more but that's about it.

Ha, it would probably take a while to explain.

Here are some thoughts though they're quite a fragmented mess and not terribly coherent, aha!

One thing I definitely agree on is the frequent misunderstanding of what LOTR was going for, which is often generalised and simplified too often. I also agree that GRRM's slow pace and widely-spread storylines ever since ASoS makes emotional impact harder to track though I would disagree this leads to a lack of catharsis or the abstract idea of good and evil is necessary.

While I understand the frustration of seeing Ned killed and the Robb killed for some people and it may feel like shock value to them, Robb wasn't a true main character. It was the killing of Catelyn was the most shocking aspect as she was the second major POV character to be well and truly axed. However, the pay off for that is Lady Stoneheart, a horrifying figure but still one who demonstrates in a fantastical way that rejection of certain moral codes in society (like guest right) brings only misery. At least, that's one of the many ways to take her. 

Another pay off are characters like Wyman Mandley and Robett Glover, hatching plans to remove the family that profited from the Red Wedding in the North, born out of genuine loyalty and desire for retribution for what was a heinous act. Yes, there is an aspect of fighting fire with fire and the question of "where will it end?" but to say it is just one step above violence porn... that's a bit too harsh. There is a question looming over the idea of "when is a war or battle, or cause worth really fighting for?" and "when are certain actions justified for the greater good?"

Now, I don't think the show is nihilistic either yet it did make changes to enhance the shock factor of events like the Red Wedding, which genuinely felt like shock value. For example, one that is often cited is Robb's wife being stabbed in her pregnant belly was shocking -- and original to the show, not lifted from the books. They didn't have to do that, but they did. 

Another addition that always comes to mind for adding what could be seen as the "shock factor" to the show was the whole Jon-Bran overarching plot bringing the Mutineers to the forefront. Again, I understand the practical reason why it was done (to stretch out the season as they were running out of Jon and Bran book stuff) but the elements it brought to the forefront were clearly there to shock and make us truly fear for the characters by placing particularly Bran and his friends at the mercy of Karl. 

So, yeah. The video made me think but I disagree on several points.

[jcmontea]

22 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Just gonna point out that GRRM thinks that the idea his books are nihilistic is moronic

He says that. But whether it is or not really depends on what he writes post ADOD.  

[Adaneth]

33 minutes ago, Faera said:

One thing I definitely agree on is the frequent misunderstanding of what LOTR was going for, which is often generalised and simplified too often. 

Exactly. I'm surprised when people start comparing the two and don't get it what Tolkien was going for. 

Quote

I also agree that GRRM's slow pace and widely-spread storylines ever since ASoS makes emotional impact harder to track though I would disagree this leads to a lack of catharsis or the abstract idea of good and evil is necessary.

I agree with that too.

Quote

While I understand the frustration of seeing Ned killed and the Robb killed for some people and it may feel like shock value to them, Robb wasn't a true main character. It was the killing of Catelyn was the most shocking aspect as she was the second major POV character to be well and truly axed. However, the pay off for that is Lady Stoneheart, a horrifying figure but still one who demonstrates in a fantastical way that rejection of certain moral codes in society (like guest right) brings only misery. At least, that's one of the many ways to take her. 

I had no problems with that. I mean it sucked and it was such a powerful, intense and sad moment. I mean I loved Ned and started to read books after season 1 because of his character. But I do not see either of these deaths as shocking values, only. Certainly there is a big shock involved but they do bring the story further. Their deaths bring some important development to the narrative and characters (see Arya, Sansa etc.). 

Quote

Now, I don't think the show is nihilistic either yet it did make changes to enhance the shock factor of events like the Red Wedding, which genuinely felt like shock value. For example, one that is often cited is Robb's wife being stabbed in her pregnant belly was shocking -- and original to the show, not lifted from the books. They didn't have to do that, but they did. 

I didn't mind Robb's wife being stabbed either. Maybe they added her for shock value but I always felt in the books she was left there smh, as a "lost" character. Although it does make sense in the books also, that Robb wouldn't bring her with him at the wedding. But I'm okay that they did finish her story as well in the show.

Quote

So, yeah. The video made me think but I disagree on several points.

I don't necessarily agree with everything either. But it does make me think whether he's right about it. I think people will be divided with whatever ending GRRM has planned. I guess @jcmontea is right, it very much depends on what he writes post ADOD. 

[Dragonsbone]

1 hour ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Just gonna point out that GRRM thinks that the idea his books are nihilistic is moronic

Well, he may say that, but a book is literature and as such, its message will be allways interpreted by the readers, not by the author. If a majority of the readers interpret a different message then the author, then the author was not able to deliver the message right. One "Job" of art, is to provoke a certain emotion to the public. If the resulting emotion varies strictly from the intended emotion, then the artist has failed to deliver. Calling the audience or the readers "moronic" speaks for him and not for them. 

[jcmontea]

2 minutes ago, Dragonsbone said:

Well, he may say that, but a book is literature and as such, its message will be allways interpreted by the readers, not by the author. If a majority of the readers interpret a different message then the author, then the author was not able to deliver the message right. One  way of art, is to provoke a certain emotion to the public. If the resulting emotion varies strictly from the intended emotion, then the artist has failed to deliver. Calling the audience or the readers "moronic" speaks for him and not for them. 

Well said.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

23 minutes ago, Dragonsbone said:

Well, he may say that, but a book is literature and as such, its message will be allways interpreted by the readers, not by the author. If a majority of the readers interpret a different message then the author, then the author was not able to deliver the message right. One "Job" of art, is to provoke a certain emotion to the public. If the resulting emotion varies strictly from the intended emotion, then the artist has failed to deliver. Calling the audience or the readers "moronic" speaks for him and not for them. 

Well not exactly. Some idiot can believe LOTR is nihilistic but we know it's not. Opinions can be wrong. And no artist can deliver the same message to everyone. 

Now if the consensus is vastly different from the author's intent then I'd agree.

Still, there's enough evidence that GRRM isn't nihilistic. A nihilistic series wouldn't have a lot of the beautiful moments that GRRM has written.

[Dragonsbone]

7 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Well not exactly. Some idiot can believe LOTR is nihilistic but we know it's not. Opinions can be wrong. And no artist can deliver the same message to everyone. 

Now if the consensus is vastly different from the author's intent then I'd agree.

Still, there's enough evidence that GRRM isn't nihilistic. A nihilistic series wouldn't have a lot of the beautiful moments that GRRM has written.

I was just trying to explain that GRRM might be wrong, not that he is. As far, the book series is not over, so we have to wait. But if the consensus differs from his opinion at the end, then he indeed has failed if he has approached something different. 

I myself am still not quite sure what the inner message of the book is. I need the resolution to judge by myself. 

[Adaneth]

24 minutes ago, Dragonsbone said:

I myself am still not quite sure what the inner message of the book is. I need the resolution to judge by myself. 

This. 

So far, I tend to be on the nihilistic side a bit more. But I'm not sure about that. It's just a general feeling I get from the books. I need the resolution as well, in order to judge.

 

p.s. Fun fact off topic: I'm watching Fortitude Season 2, and only now I realise that the character of Dan Anderssen is played by Richard Dormer (Beric in GoT). Ugh! Lol

[Meera of Tarth]

 

[Angel Eyes]

4 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Just gonna point out that GRRM thinks that the idea his books are nihilistic is moronic

I guess that makes me a moron.