Jump to content
Montelukast

A Misunderstanding of "Big Bad" / Why Cersei Last Makes Sense

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Amaretto said:

The problem with Cersei being the "final boss"  is that she is an idiotic scheming b*!$£ that has not actually earned her status. An absurd number of coincidences and departures of logic have got her where she is. She might work better if she had someone like Littlefinger- a competent politician that has guided so much of the politics of Westeros currently on her side. Unfortunately she has a mute zombie, a mad scientist with no apparent political ability or connection to any other storyline and 2d, cartoonish pirate who appeared very late in the game. 

Fixed.

19 hours ago, Nightwish said:

She did include Targaryens in the list of houses she mentions about breaking the wheel. So...it doesn’t make sense to me if breaking the wheel doesn’t mean another political system other than monarchy. 

Tyrion talks about her idea or vision discussing issues that she needs to resolve. She cant disagree with her own plan. Whatever this might be. 

Breaking the wheel can simply mean the end of feudalism and the beginning of strong, centralized governments with a system of checks and balances that protect people (i.e. constitutional monarchy).

Basically, Daenerys' dream to break the wheel lies somewhere in between Aegon the Conqueror's vision of taking seven kingdoms and making them one and Aegon the Unlikely's vision of putting the smallfolk first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Fixed.

Breaking the wheel can simply mean the end of feudalism and the beginning of strong, centralized governments with a system of checks and balances that protect people (i.e. constitutional monarchy).

Basically, Daenerys' dream to break the wheel lies somewhere in between Aegon the Conqueror's vision of taking seven kingdoms and making them one and Aegon the Unlikely's vision of putting the smallfolk first.

 

It could, I don’t reject any scenario because her vision has not been shared yet so anything is on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2019 at 12:17 PM, Montelukast said:

Have seen many fans complain that the was the show chose to order the Army of the North's battles (Army of Dead, then Cersei) turns Cersei in to the "Big Bad" of the show -- a more fearsome threat than the White Walkers. While I did have some disappointments with S8E3, I think this particular one is wrong -- and reveals a misunderstanding (and short changing) of what the show has really been about for seven years.

What has caused the most hardship, suffering, death, war, pain on the show?

Has it been the White Walkers? No.

Has it been Cersei? No.

It has been the idea that power comes from strength and bloodline, instead of from cooperation and moral righteousness -- that ruling is a goal to be pursued at all costs, and its end justifies any means.

Basically every conflict in the show has been caused by a thirst for power -- the desire to rule. Whether it's over the Seven Kingdoms, or a region, or city, or family -- all the bad, ugly stuff is all trickle down from various characters' desire to rule -- and the belief that legitimacy comes from strength.

In short, the show's BIG BAD isn't a person -- it is THE THRONE itself. (Obviously, not the physical throne -- but the idea of it.)

The obsession with POWER has caused more pain and suffering than the White Walkers. Cersei is its current manifestation, but it is bigger than her -- it goes back centuries -- it is THE WHEEL that Dany pledged to shatter.

This is why I believe that the show's ultimate battle will be against the very idea of the throne, and that the show will end with a change to the system of rule in Westeros. Not saying it's going to be direct democracy, but the idea of a single person that rules all others will be upended.

Somehow, THE THRONE will be defeated.

Uh, wasn't the threat of all humanity dying the thing that was supposed to unite the realms in common cause and make them forget their petty squabbles over thrones? That's the way Jon put it. 

Now we have two major political conflicts, potentially. Evil Cersei vs. the people who just saved Westeros, and Auntie versus Nephew. Do either carry the same weight as the White Walkers as regards doing away with the Iron Throne? No. 

Edited by darmody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 4:33 PM, snow is the man said:

I think they had the white walker fight first because they wanted to even the odds between cersei and dany. Before dany had more troops and three dragons. Even with the iron fleet and the golden company cersei didn't have as many troops as dany had dothraki. Add in the north and dany would win even without the dragons. And considering aegon and his sisters started their conquest with three dragons and a few hundred men and conquered all of westeros by force (except dorne)  it seems like dany's victory would be assured.  By obliterating dany's army like that it even things out. And the dragons need to heal up as well.

 

That might be persuasive if it weren't for the fact that they had nothing to prevent Danny from defeating Cersei immediately in season 7. Yet they dragged that storyline on for no reason. 

Also, you're looking for ways to make the Danny/Jon fight against Cersei more plausible as the end game, but why? Why did the Army of the Dead need to be defeated so we could get a better demise of Cersei? Why couldn't Cersei die faster so we could get a better War for Dawn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ferrelhadley said:

So a pretty accurate depiction of the War of the Roses or 30 Years War. 

No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, darmody said:

That might be persuasive if it weren't for the fact that they had nothing to prevent Danny from defeating Cersei immediately in season 7. Yet they dragged that storyline on for no reason. 

Also, you're looking for ways to make the Danny/Jon fight against Cersei more plausible as the end game, but why? Why did the Army of the Dead need to be defeated so we could get a better demise of Cersei? Why couldn't Cersei die faster so we could get a better War for Dawn?

I didn't say I agreed with what they did. I just said that was the reason why. They did stretch it out last year to a ridiculous amount and I am not saying they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and have always agreed that the throne itself is the primary source of evil/wrongdoing in the show (and books). It is analogous to the One Ring from Tolkien's story and, as such, must be destroyed for a happy ending, remain in place for a tragic ending and either be destroyed at cost or remain in place with the realisation it is evil for bittersweet.

However, this does not excuse writing off the Others so simply. They were the fantasy wrapper for the whole saga - they were connected to all of the magic/non real world elements (I personally saw them as Elves and the humans in GoTs more like Orcs, so the humans were the fallen/misshapen brethren because of the throne).

This is my biggest gripe with writing the Others off so inexplicably and unceremoniously - it is part of a long line (since Season 5) of totally unexplained and unjustifiable magical events. What held the wall up and how did it fall? How did the climatic seasons in Westeros work and what were they connected to - GRRM promised an explanation for this. Were the humans coming back to life connected to the power of the Knight King or is there another magical force at play - considering Jon didn't fall over when the NK died, I guess there is another magical force at play - but then this raises all new question about what exactly is R'hllor and how do we know it is not more nefarious as an entity considering it requires blood sacrifice to work?How did Arya survive failing faceless man training and get called no-one by Jaquen anyway? Where exactly do the dragons come from? Do dragons cause a magical imbalance on Planetos? Has the 3 eyed Raven been around in one form or another since the Pact? What exactly was in the Pact? Are there any CotF left anywhere? There are just so many lose ends and so much unexplained shit - there is nothing wrong with a bit of mystery, especially concerning magic but when it is unpredictable and unexplained it is just cheap prepubescent level writing/storytelling.

They have had two years to go back over these scripts and get things right - there is no excuse for this level of fucking up on such fundamental narrative levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2019 at 6:38 PM, snow is the man said:

Before aegon came there was seven kingdoms with absolute monarchies. Aegon set up the feudal system in order to rule such a big kingdom  easier. I have never heard her talk about democracy except with tyrion and she didn't say if she agreed with tyrion or not. She might give the common people more rights but that's been done before.  For example one king made it illegal for a lord to get to to force a peasent women to  sleep with their lord on their wedding night (I think it was called the rule of first night or something). I think she is more likely to set up a complete monarchy and give the peasents more rights and protections then anything else. But she and then her children (assuming she wins) would rule.

I don't think that there were 7 absolute monarchies.   Each kingdom was different.  All Aegon did was accept fealty from everybody, leave most everything in place as it was, and retitle the kings as Wardens or Overlords.  He just added another layer on top of what was already there.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ummester said:

I agree and have always agreed that the throne itself is the primary source of evil/wrongdoing in the show (and books). It is analogous to the One Ring from Tolkien's story and, as such, must be destroyed for a happy ending, remain in place for a tragic ending and either be destroyed at cost or remain in place with the realisation it is evil for bittersweet.

However, this does not excuse writing off the Others so simply. They were the fantasy wrapper for the whole saga - they were connected to all of the magic/non real world elements (I personally saw them as Elves and the humans in GoTs more like Orcs, so the humans were the fallen/misshapen brethren because of the throne).

You do realize that the Iron Throne is only 300 years old?  Humans have been around alot longer than that.   The Iron Throne is not the primary source of evil/wrongdoing. in the show.  Definitely not in the books.

 

Quote

This is my biggest gripe with writing the Others off so inexplicably and unceremoniously - it is part of a long line (since Season 5) of totally unexplained and unjustifiable magical events. What held the wall up and how did it fall?

What made it fall was quite obvious - dragonfire.

Dragonfire ripped up Winterfell's walls also.

(note: likely not to happen in the books)

 

What held it up?  What holds up any wall?  What holds up the Great Wall?  Or Hadrians Wall (which the Wall is based on).

The Wall was initially constructed by Brandon the Builder with helps from humans, giants, and CotF.  The magic of the CotF may play an important part in keeping the Wall up.  Not sure of that.  That magic is what kept the dead from crossing it.

That was from the books.  The show hasn't made mention much of that.  The show doesn't really need to.

 

Quote

How did the climatic seasons in Westeros work and what were they connected to - GRRM promised an explanation for this.

The show has no reason to explain this.  It might, but it doesnt need to.

 

Quote

Were the humans coming back to life connected to the power of the Knight King

No.

Quote

or is there another magical force at play - considering Jon didn't fall over when the NK died, I guess there is another magical force at play - but then this raises all new question about what exactly is R'hllor and how do we know it is not more nefarious as an entity considering it requires blood sacrifice to work?

R'hollor may well be nefarious.  But I thought her magic (especially the blood magic) was connected to Ashai.

The burnings that mel did (outside of Shireen)  looked to be more for conversions or some kind of ceremonies..  In that respect, the 7 gods of the Andals are almost as brutal.  The First Men used to sacrifice humans to the Old Gods.

 

Quote

How did Arya survive failing faceless man training and get called no-one by Jaquen anyway?

She didn't fail.  That's why Jaquen called her 'no-one'.

 

Quote

Where exactly do the dragons come from? Do dragons cause a magical imbalance on Planetos?

Well...GRRM hasn't answered this yet (), so I wouldn't expect the show to do so.  It's not that important for the show. 

(dragons may have come from Ashai)

Quote

Has the 3 eyed Raven been around in one form or another since the Pact?

Not sure.  Maybe.  Not important for the show.  (GRRM may answer this sometime).

The 3-Eyed Raven could have been 1st created after the War for the Dawn.

Or the 3-Eyed Raven could predate the Pact

 

Quote

What exactly was in the Pact?

Exact terms are uknown (I think).  It did end the wars between the First Men and the CotF.  The CotF got the deep woods and such as their own.  Humans got the rest.  Not important to the show.

 

Quote

Are there any CotF left anywhere?

Likely so.  There may be some on the Isle of Faces.  The Reeds have CotF ancestry.  Again, not important for the show. 

 

Quote

There are just so many lose ends and so much unexplained shit - there is nothing wrong with a bit of mystery, especially concerning magic but when it is unpredictable and unexplained it is just cheap prepubescent level writing/storytelling.

Cheap and prepubescent is not what I'd call it.  It's not to GRRMs or Tolkein's level.  But the writers don't have 20-30 years to get their stories completed.  And they present the story in a different medium.

Quote

They have had two years to go back over these scripts and get things right - there is no excuse for this level of fucking up on such fundamental narrative levels.

They didn't have 2 years.  The scripts had to be ready in time to setup the logistics of the filming, do the filming, and then do the post-production.

 

Obviously, I don't think that they f****d up on a fundamental level.  Definitely not regarding the above.

 

All that said, I would love it if any of the above was addressed by the show  :)

Question : have you read the books?  or no?  (from the questions above, it seems that you have)

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

You do realize that the Iron Throne is only 300 years old?  Humans have been around alot longer than that.   The Iron Throne is not the primary source of evil/wrongdoing. in the show.  Definitely not in the books.

So what is? If it is the NK, in show, then that means that, by default, the source of evil is actually humans invading Westeros and cutting down trees which necessitated his creation.

I had a feeling that the books were hinting more towards the humans being a power for destruction and bad things in Westeros, with the song of the giants lamenting what humans did to the land and so on.

Re the throne being only 300 years old, it doesn't mean it can't be the ultimate symbol of human conquest over Westeros and thus the ultimate symbol of wrongdoing to the indigenous inhabitants of Westeros.

2 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

What made it fall was quite obvious - dragonfire.

Dragonfire ripped up Winterfell's walls also.

(note: likely not to happen in the books)

What held it up?  What holds up any wall?  What holds up the Great Wall?  Or Hadrians Wall (which the Wall is based on).

The Wall was initially constructed by Brandon the Builder with helps from humans, giants, and CotF.  The magic of the CotF may play an important part in keeping the Wall up.  Not sure of that.  That magic is what kept the dead from crossing it.

That was from the books.  The show hasn't made mention much of that.  The show doesn't really need to.

So orange dragonfire could have melted the wall also? Why did the undead dragons even need to be blue then? Just make the dragons eyes blue and still give it orange flame.

And what about all of the blood magic built into the wall - which is talked about in the show?

2 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

The show has no reason to explain this.  It might, but it doesnt need to.



The show has mentioned that the Winter coming will be the longest on record. So is there still going to be a long winter after the NK is dead or not? It's obvious, even in the show, that the walkers and winter are related in some way.

2 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

R'hollor may well be nefarious.  But I thought her magic (especially the blood magic) was connected to Ashai.

The burnings that mel did (outside of Shireen)  looked to be more for conversions or some kind of ceremonies..  In that respect, the 7 gods of the Andals are almost as brutal.  The First Men used to sacrifice humans to the Old Gods.

The humans are still brutal. In what I saw in the show they did far worse and were responsibility for so much more cruelty than the Night King. Honorable beheading, bastard babies slain, hookers arrowed in the twat, backstabbing, bitching, little girls burned, the things we do for love, Jon snow stabbed, Mormont betrayed, Arya cutting a dudes eyes out. Outside of a few characters their motives are all selfish.

The NK gently turned little babies blue. The Walkers were never mean to each other. Their motives, as described in the show, are to kill humans because humans were bad for the trees. These aren't selfish motives - they are protecting a necessary environmental asset. The show just expects us to accept they are worse than the humans, coz of some lame dialogue about death.

Seems to me, especially in the context of GoTs, life is violent and self interested whilst death is quite peaceful and altruistic.

3 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

She didn't fail.  That's why Jaquen called her 'no-one'.

If she didn't fail, why was the waif sent to kill her? And why then, inexplicably, was passing doing exactly the opposite of what Jaquen asked her to do each time?

3 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Well...GRRM hasn't answered this yet (), so I wouldn't expect the show to do so.  It's not that important for the show. 

(dragons may have come from Ashai)

Not sure.  Maybe.  Not important for the show.  (GRRM may answer this sometime).

The 3-Eyed Raven could have been 1st created after the War for the Dawn.

Or the 3-Eyed Raven could predate the Pact

The point is, that in a narrative as clever as this one started, all of these points would have been connected and had meaning.

3 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Cheap and prepubescent is not what I'd call it.  It's not to GRRMs or Tolkein's level.  But the writers don't have 20-30 years to get their stories completed.  And they present the story in a different medium.

 

All that said, I would love it if any of the above was addressed by the show  :)

Question : have you read the books?  or no?  (from the questions above, it seems that you have)

I think its cheap and very basal writing standards. There are no logical set-ups and payoffs anymore.

Think back to something as simple as Obyren & the Mountain - it was shocking that Obyren died because we were invested in him, rooting for his cause and Tyrions fate. But, it was also logical that he died because we saw, with his character introduction, that he was a gloater. Setup, dramatic weight and payoff. Where has all of that gone?

Yes, I have read the books. I read them all after Season 4 ended and before season 5 started - because I was so invested in the show after how clever season 4 was. I found books 1-3 were very well plotted, with incredibly deep character genealogy - which is obviously why the show was so good. I found books 4&5 a bit naff - better than what the show became but still a bit naff.

I think the hard truth we all need to face, as fans of this franchise, is that it started brilliantly, on page and screen. But it was all start an no finish - there was nothing substantial to follow it up. Like a lover that romances you with undreamed levels of seduction and turns out to be a useless fuck, or a sports team that goes super hard in the first half and drops the ball entirely in the second. That is GoTs - and it grieves me because the start was so good, the seduction and first half left me aching for more of the same. It's just another letdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expected Cersei to be the big bad to begin with. I don't get why everyone is surprised that a series that started off killing the main character at the end of the first book/season  would have this universes giant zombie battle be the end instead of taking out the head b.i.c.. So many things pointed to Cersei being the Endgame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, ummester said:

So what is? If it is the NK, in show, then that means that, by default, the source of evil is actually humans invading Westeros and cutting down trees which necessitated his creation.

I had a feeling that the books were hinting more towards the humans being a power for destruction and bad things in Westeros, with the song of the giants lamenting what humans did to the land and so on.

Re the throne being only 300 years old, it doesn't mean it can't be the ultimate symbol of human conquest over Westeros and thus the ultimate symbol of wrongdoing to the indigenous inhabitants of Westeros.

Very true re. the symbolism of the Iron Throne.

It was something created with potentially good motives (uniting Westeros to face the threat of the Walkers), but it quickly devolved into something quite different.

Quote

So orange dragonfire could have melted the wall also? Why did the undead dragons even need to be blue then? Just make the dragons eyes blue and still give it orange flame.

And what about all of the blood magic built into the wall - which is talked about in the show?

I agree re. doubting that dragonfire would melt the wall.   It shouldn't.  But that's what the show went with. 

The books have something else that may that, don't they?  The Horn of Always Winter.

 

Quote

The show has mentioned that the Winter coming will be the longest on record. So is there still going to be a long winter after the NK is dead or not? It's obvious, even in the show, that the walkers and winter are related in some way.

This is a good question, and something that I was wondering also.

Will the death of the NK result in the season going back to 'normal'?

Was it the CotF who altered the seasons?  When they created the NK?   Or some other time?   Did something else cause the seasons to alter? 

The only answer from the show that we are likely to get is the weather that we see in the next 3 episodes.  maybe Bran or Sam will mention something about it.

 

Quote

The humans are still brutal. In what I saw in the show they did far worse and were responsibility for so much more cruelty than the Night King. Honorable beheading, bastard babies slain, hookers arrowed in the twat, backstabbing, bitching, little girls burned, the things we do for love, Jon snow stabbed, Mormont betrayed, Arya cutting a dudes eyes out. Outside of a few characters their motives are all selfish.

The NK gently turned little babies blue. The Walkers were never mean to each other. Their motives, as described in the show, are to kill humans because humans were bad for the trees. These aren't selfish motives - they are protecting a necessary environmental asset. The show just expects us to accept they are worse than the humans, coz of some lame dialogue about death.

Seems to me, especially in the context of GoTs, life is violent and self interested whilst death is quite peaceful and altruistic.

 

Agree.  Who is actually worse - someone like Cersei or the NK?

Cersei just doesn't have the same resources at her disposal as the NK.

Well...that and she can't exist as long as the NK.

 

Quote

If she didn't fail, why was the waif sent to kill her? And why then, inexplicably, was passing doing exactly the opposite of what Jaquen asked her to do each time?

I figured it was a test for both Arya and the Waif.  The Waif also disobeyed Jaquen's command(s).

 

Quote

The point is, that in a narrative as clever as this one started, all of these points would have been connected and had meaning.

I think its cheap and very basal writing standards. There are no logical set-ups and payoffs anymore.

Think back to something as simple as Obyren & the Mountain - it was shocking that Obyren died because we were invested in him, rooting for his cause and Tyrions fate. But, it was also logical that he died because we saw, with his character introduction, that he was a gloater. Setup, dramatic weight and payoff. Where has all of that gone?

It has gone the way of spectacle and fan-service.;)  Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that does detract from the narrative, as you said.

There are still setups and payoffs (Arya is an example).  But not to the degree of what we saw earlier.  And, with some exceptions (eg: Arya), not quite as logical.

Quote

Yes, I have read the books. I read them all after Season 4 ended and before season 5 started - because I was so invested in the show after how clever season 4 was. I found books 1-3 were very well plotted, with incredibly deep character genealogy - which is obviously why the show was so good. I found books 4&5 a bit naff - better than what the show became but still a bit naff.

Fair evaluation.  From what I understand, GRRM had issues with 4 & 5.  And obviously 6, which  is at 8 years and counting.  The 'Meerenese Knot' apparently was difficult for him to solve. 

There is also The World of Ice and Fire, Fire and Blood Vol 1, and the Dunk and Egg stories that lend extra background.

Agree that the quality of the shows narrative dipped as it began to go beyond the published books.  GRRM writing an episode a season for the 1st 4 seasons helped (I think he wrote the eps for the Battle of the Blackwater and Tyrions trial; not sure of the others).

Quote

I think the hard truth we all need to face, as fans of this franchise, is that it started brilliantly, on page and screen. But it was all start an no finish - there was nothing substantial to follow it up. Like a lover that romances you with undreamed levels of seduction and turns out to be a useless f**k, or a sports team that goes super hard in the first half and drops the ball entirely in the second. That is GoTs - and it grieves me because the start was so good, the seduction and first half left me aching for more of the same. It's just another letdown.

 

In general, I agree with your sentiment.  The narrative quality has declined.  But I dont think that the ball was dropped.  I am still quite entertained by the show.

In a way,  a decline is inevitable.  The novels have one author, who can take as much time as he needs to construct the story.  The show has multiple authors (potentially one per episode), and these authors have a limited time requirement and have to write their stories to be seen, not read.   Plus the editting process and post production can change some things or change emphasis.  Take away an underlying narrative that has to be followed more or less, and decisions will be made for expediency and whatnot.

I do think that the quicker pace and fewer episodes of the last couple of seasons play a part in this also.  There is less available time to delve into things that make for a richer narrative.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2019 at 12:44 AM, Amaretto said:

The problem with Cersei being the "final boss"  is that she as an idiot that has not actually earned her status. An absurd number of coincidences and departures of logic have got her where she is. She might work better if she had someone like Littlefinger- a competent politician that has guided so much of the politics of Westeros currently on her side. Unfortunately she has a mute zombie, a mad scientist with no apparent political ability or connection to any other storyline and 2d, cartoonish pirate who appeared very late in the game. 

Agree. And this is One of the reasons I am strongly starting to suspect it will be Dany who becomes the power hungry force that needs defeating at the end... that the idea of relinquishing power and breaking the wheel will no longer be her aim by the time she gets within touching distance of it. She’s gonna go Gollum “mine... my precious” and make some horrible needless deaths happen to shake everyone’s else’s eyes open.

just my gut... it would make for the most bittersweet, stomach churning and brutal ending... I can’t buy any of the marriage, babies, happy ever after stories for Jon or Dany... and a brutal ending like that would really underline to all that the throne, ultimately, is the seat of absolute power that corrupts and needs to be dismantled. 

I also don’t see Jon and Dany as this ultimate romance... Ygritte was the love of Jon’s life... Drogo was the love of Danys... I just don’t see them mutually ruling, and Jon is blatantly the better one to rule justly, so he’s gotta be the one left to dismantle the system methinks....

 

... it was a Prince that was promised... not a King.

 

:blink:

Edited by Figdoni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2019 at 11:13 PM, Tywin Tytosson said:

She didn't fail.  That's why Jaquen called her 'no-one'.

Jaquen also ordered her death. Which I think is fairly conclusive failure. 

The show needed her not to die, so he called her no one and let her go. Otherwise, we'd all be wondering why a faceless man isn't murdering her in every future scene. Instead of merely wondering how she survived a fatal gut-stabbing and why she acts like a crazy person. 

Edited by darmody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2019 at 8:27 PM, ummester said:

I agree and have always agreed that the throne itself is the primary source of evil/wrongdoing in the show (and books). It is analogous to the One Ring from Tolkien's story and, as such, must be destroyed for a happy ending, remain in place for a tragic ending and either be destroyed at cost or remain in place with the realisation it is evil for bittersweet.

The One Ring was forged by a non-human to rule over other rings and thereby bound wearers in subjugation. The Iron Throne was made by humans and is merely the symbol of Targaryen rule over the Seven Kingdoms. Taken by conquest, yes, but preserving some of the authority of subjugated kings as lords and wardens of their kingdoms. 

Men can wield power conferred by the throne. Some have been better at it than others. Men cannot use the Ring. Only Sauron can. 

Edited by darmody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, darmody said:

The One Ring was forged by a non-human to rule over other rings and thereby bound wearers in subjugation. The Iron Throne was made by humans and is merely the symbol of Targaryen rule over the Seven Kingdoms. Taken by conquest, yes, but preserving some of the authority of subjugated kings as lords and wardens of their kingdoms. 

Men can wield power conferred by the throne. Some have been better at it than others. Men cannot use the Ring. Only Sauron can. 

And? The humans in GoTs could be the bad guys and the throne symbolic of their need for conquest and petty in fighting, which makes them bad. As I mentioned in the rest of my post, humans cut all the trees down, upsetting the indigenous inhabitants and necessitating the creation of the White Walkers. Westeros would probably still be getting along fine with Children and Giants doing magical shit with trees if the First Men never invaded. It's fantasy - we don't have to side with our own species in such a tale. In point of contrast, the tale could have been devised exactly to show us everything that is wrong with our own species.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, darmody said:

Jaquen also ordered her death. Which I think is fairly conclusive failure. 

Then this is where we agree to disagree.  :)

Jaquen subsequently said 'at last a girl is No One'.  (and said it with some pride) That's a fairly conclusive success.

Faceless Man training seems almost as brutal as Unsullied training.

 

Quote

The show needed her not to die, so he called her no one and let her go. Otherwise, we'd all be wondering why a faceless man isn't murdering her in every future scene. Instead of merely wondering how she survived a fatal gut-stabbing and why she acts like a crazy person. 

True, the show (and probably the books as well) needed her not to die.   When it happeneed, I wondered if Jaquen allowed her to go on purpose.  And I wondered how much Jaquen was 'in the know' of Arya's purpose.

I don't think Arya acts crazy at all.   I am curious why you think so.

But I agree re. surviving what should have been a fatal gut stabbing and then going for a dip in what should be a quite nasty canal.  I eventually took the stabbing as the Waif being cruel and purposely missing anything vital, just to cause pain.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Figdoni said:

Agree. And this is One of the reasons I am strongly starting to suspect it will be Dany who becomes the power hungry force that needs defeating at the end... that the idea of relinquishing power and breaking the wheel will no longer be her aim by the time she gets within touching distance of it. She’s gonna go Gollum “mine... my precious” and make some horrible needless deaths happen to shake everyone’s else’s eyes open.

just my gut... it would make for the most bittersweet, stomach churning and brutal ending... I can’t buy any of the marriage, babies, happy ever after stories for Jon or Dany... and a brutal ending like that would really underline to all that the throne, ultimately, is the seat of absolute power that corrupts and needs to be dismantled. 

I also don’t see Jon and Dany as this ultimate romance... Ygritte was the love of Jon’s life... Drogo was the love of Danys... I just don’t see them mutually ruling, and Jon is blatantly the better one to rule justly, so he’s gotta be the one left to dismantle the system methinks....

 

... it was a Prince that was promised... not a King.

 

:blink:

Really smart insight here, I can see the final battle being Dany and Jon on their dragons above the Red Keep, destroying it and the throne in the process.  

If they go this route, they should go all the way and have both die in the battle, allowing Tyrion and Sansa to pick up the pieces, perhaps by forging some kind of congress of noble and common (if Varys has any say) houses to rule over Westeros.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 7:17 PM, Montelukast said:

In short, the show's BIG BAD isn't a person -- it is THE THRONE itself. (Obviously, not the physical throne -- but the idea of it.)

The obsession with POWER has caused more pain and suffering than the White Walkers. Cersei is its current manifestation, but it is bigger than her -- it goes back centuries -- it is THE WHEEL that Dany pledged to shatter.

 

Thus concludes today's repetition of what we have learned in sociology. But no. The Targaryens kept the peace for a very long time, while sitting on the throne.

Split up the kingdoms, and you get wars, like they used to have forever in the past.

Quote

This is why I believe that the show's ultimate battle will be against the very idea of the throne, and that the show will end with a change to the system of rule in Westeros.

Cute. "Fight the idea!" What a battlecry. Let's stop inserting modern thinking in Medieval stories. George R.R. Martin has been good at keeping it out. It got ridiculous in the 2000s Star Wars movies when they had a queen who was ELECTED, because modern times. One thing I liked in Rome the TV series was that for once, just for once, they didn't have the main character be horrified by the existence of slavery, which has existed across the world in all of history until the Western empires forced the tribes and nations to free the slaves. Let's keep realism in the historic settings.


 

Quote

 

Not saying it's going to be direct democracy, but the idea of a single person that rules all others will be upended.


 

And of course. This is what people think. But kings almost never ruled all on their own. They needed allies. Especially in the Middle Ages, where life was decentralized and local lords could tell the king to stuff it, then sit in their castles while he besieged them, until an agreement was reached. Cersei lectures Joffrey about this in the first season. Joffrey thinks like you, that a king can just rule and people obey him. Because that's what the system is on paper, right? He says he could raise taxes to pay off the debts. If the North refuses to pay, he'll invade it. Cersey says, why would the other Houses follow you when you have raised their taxes? "Because I'm the king!" he says. No, she tells him, it doesn't work like that.

There is actually very little reason for the Houses to try to take the throne, since they already have their provinces to themselves - and they are even called kingdoms, still. If you try to take the throne for no reason the other Houses will wage war on you. Unless you have a very good reason, like a mad king torturing high nobility and being generally destructive, or Robert Baratheon wasting everyone's money. Killing him might actually have been the wisest thing to do - just that someone other than Joffrey should have taken his place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2019 at 6:17 PM, Montelukast said:

In short, the show's BIG BAD isn't a person -- it is THE THRONE itself. (Obviously, not the physical throne -- but the idea of it.)

Melting down the IT is not going to change human nature. Before Aegon's conquest, Harren the Black was terrorising the Riverlands. Before that other Iron born were reaving along the coast line from Bear Island all the way down to the Reach in the 'old way'. There were once a hundred kings in the Riverlands continuously at war with one another. House Martell after marrying the Rhoynar ladies subjugated the rest of Dorne by war. The Starks and Arryns fought a long war over the Fingers. Before that the Andals were fighting the First Men and before that the First Men fought one another. The Starks gained the north by casting down every other king and marrying their daughters. And before that the First Men were fighting the CotF.

At every stage of this history, you had good rulers and bad rulers. There were achievements under the Targaryens - Aegon after his conquest and the war for Dorne apart, brought peace to the rest of Westeros. Good Queen Alysanne prevailed in Jaeherys I to abolish the Lord's right to the first night and sought to improve the lives of women across the realm. Aegon V tried to improve the lot of the small folk, having lived among them as a hedge knight's squire, but was thwarted by his Lords. And then there were some terrible or completely ineffective rulers.

I really don't think that either removing a central ruler and creating seven or hundreds of kingdoms, or centralising rule in KL completely by removing the feudal structure under it is the answer. In either system, you could have a maniacal tyrant terrorising his people or starting pointless wars.

In the real world, the evolution from a feudal system was through defining common people's rights and setting up an advisory parliament, which very slowly evolved from a chamber of hereditary lords and lesser landowners to what we have today. That didn't stop WW II from happening, of course.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×