[Spoilers] Rant & Rave without Repercussion, Final edition

[OtherGlover]

50 minutes ago, Ser Lepus said:

Actually, if you read the World of Ice and Fire, before the Targaryen conquest the Crownlands were divided into many petty kingdoms in perpetual state of war among each other. The Northmen and the Valemen raided each other constantly; the Northmen ravaged the The Three Sisters, raped the women and sacrificed the men to the Old Gods, hanging their guts from the trees, and the Vale answered in kind, attacking and conquering White Harbor.

The Ironborn had conquered the Riverlands, and were at war with the Stormlands and The Westerlands. The Dornish raided both the Stormlands and the Reach.

And then you have the wars within each of the Seven Kingdoms: Yronwoods vs Martells, Brackens vs Blackwoods, Boltons vs Starks...etc.

The Targaryen were no saints, but the Westeros before them was a land in a state of constant war...

Yes of course there was perpetual war. We know from our own ancient and medieval histories that kings and rulers go on campaigns. My point was that other than the Riverlands most of the Seven Kingdoms had been solidified under stable regimes by the time of Aegon's landing. That is why the Starks, Durrandons, Gardeners, and Lannisters all trace their lineage and kingships back millenniums. While the Arryns date back to the Andal invasion and the Martells the Rhyonish migration. 

The Rape of the Three Sisters happens during the time of the Andal invasion. Which according to the wiki was 6000, 4000, or 2000 years before Aegon. Even if we go with 2000 consider that is roughly the same amount of time that has passed since Julius Caesar became dictator of Rome. And yet the Starks still hold the North while the Arryns still hold the Vale. The Sisters may have been conquered back and forth, but the Starks were never at risk of loosing the North nor were they likely to conquer the Vale. In fact it says the Starks merely lost interest in the Sisters and abandoned the campaign. 

Of course there are plenty of other examples of wars, skirmishes, and bloodfeuds. Yet, for the most part the primary houses remain the same along with regional religions and customs (following the adoption of The Seven across the south). The Boltons and Yronwoods may rise up against their kings but the rebellions have always been put down. Consider how many different dynasties have ruled England since 1066 AD. 

The scale of war, at least to me, seems to have intensified and broadened with the arrival of the Targs and their dragons which disrupted the natural order. Aegons conquest, Faith militant uprising, Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre rebellions (notably the first), Roberts Rebellion, War of the Five Kings, culminating with Dany and the burning of Kings Landing , these were not mere border wars. These were wars that consumed the realm. The only comparison since the Andal invasion was the conquering of the Riverlands by Hoares. 

Further, look at what the Valyrians were doing during the millenniums leading up to the Doom. Five wars with Ghiscar, the greatest empire of its time, culminating with the complete destruction by dragon flame of Old Ghis, the capital. Valyria attacked the Andals forcing the bloody invasion of Westeros by The Seven worshipers. Also, the Rhyonish wars which culminate in 250,000 dead Rhyonar and their own migration to Westeros by the survivors.     

Three hundred years after Aegon's conquest and Northmen still look at Westermen with crossed glances. Dornishmen still mistrust Reachmen. Three hundred years and no real sense of national unity. The Greatjon's famous speech illustrates this. Tribalism, local religious and popular customs still rule the individual Seven Kingdoms. Without the Targs there to hold the realm together I think the best option they could have reached in the show would have been to follow Sansa's lead and each Kingdom declare independence.

Even if this is the ending GRRM is working towards (which I highly doubt) I just don't see how the current arrangement will lead to any kind of long lasting peace. The Targs broke the natural order and bound the kingdoms together; despite there being no desire nor willingness for this to happen. Then not even 20 years after the last Targ king is overthrown the realm erupted in war with houses from each kingdom maneuvering to seize power from the others. Now the six remaining kingdoms are expected vote a new king in every time an old one dies. It will be the blacks and the greens every 20 or 30 years (and that's if they are lucky). 

So yes I believe with Dany dead, Jon banished, and Drogon melting the Iron Throne before taking off, that the lords of the Seven Kingdoms should have taken Sansa's lead and gone back to the natural order of things before the great wheel of the Targaryen's had rolled over them.          

[House Cambodia]

19 minutes ago, OtherGlover said:

Even if this is the ending GRRM is working towards (which I highly doubt) I just don't see how the current arrangement will lead to any kind of long lasting peace. The Targs broke the natural order and bound the kingdoms together; despite there being no desire nor willingness for this to happen. Then not even 20 years after the last Targ king is overthrown the realm erupted in war with houses from each kingdom maneuvering to seize power from the others. Now the six remaining kingdoms are expected vote a new king in every time an old one dies. It will be the blacks and the greens every 20 or 30 years (and that's if they are lucky). 

So yes I believe with Dany dead, Jon banished, and Drogon melting the Iron Throne before taking off, that the lords of the Seven Kingdoms should have taken Sansa's lead and gone back to the natural order of things before the great wheel of the Targaryen's had rolled over them.          

That's excellent analysis. I see the conclusion to the series not as a 'Happy Ever After' scenario, but as the council representing something like the Peace of Westphalia. Feuding Europe was exhausted and agreed a peace deal simply to recover from its wounds. It lasted a generation or so before the .natural order. of things resumed. The agreement of the council in the Dragon Pit fixes things in Westeros for a generation, until it comes time to elect new heads of houses as well as monarchs. Tyrion solved the problem of heredity where mad or bad sons are the only candidates, but historically we know that in place of that we get factions forming behind strong men who intimidate and bribe their way to the top, ironically perpetuating the Wheel, as you say.

But really, is there any alternative? You might be in favour of Sam's idea, "ahead of its time". But look at our current situation. Even with representative democracy, this generation is ignorant of the horrors of World War II and nationalistic interests are tearing the EU apart. This is what will happen in Westeros - peace will be maintained so long as there is a living generation that remembers what just happened. A future generation will reduce that to the fake news of grumbles and bumpkins (or whatever the phrase is). No political system can account for human stupidity.

Maybe, to directly take up your final point, there should be some kind of Westerosi Union whereby each kingdom will have a great deal of autonomy but with a common security and defence treaty. Under Bran, that would be feasible.

Edited May 21, 2019 by House Cambodia

[Elaena Targaryen]

I finally caught up, and I would "like" all the comments if we didn't have a limit lol, so I'll try not to be repetitive here. I hate how they ignored the sociology of the world, it made it feel so small and nonsensical. There are so many unanswered questions but at least I have a hope for the books.

 

From a certain perspective it feels like the show made it all about Dany and this story was never supposed to hinge on one character. Yes, she's a major endgame player but a lot of other story lines feel irrelevant now. If the fandom can barely muster feelings for the Starks what about all the time spent on others? 

So now I have to ask myself if Dany will be the final boss to beat in the books, I don't think so but what if... Does that mean the events have been manipulated from the beginning to thwart Dany? Did Bloodraven (and Bran) pull strings to prepare the Starks for defeating Dany as well as the AotD? What else was the point of the Stark kids trials and tribulations? What was the meaning of their story arcs if they pretty much ended where they began?

 

Why did Bran need to ask his small council questions? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Especially about Drogon?

So Bran repeatably doesn't want to be Lord of Winterfell but he's all about King of the Six Kingdoms?

 

Could anyone give me a clue what the fuck Arya might accomplish in her book endgame? Let me say that in the books I can totally see her leaving on adventures and thank the gods that she doesn't end up as one of her siblings sidekicks. But if the fandom doesn't believe Arya will kill the Freys as that is Stoneheart's job, Littlefinger is Sansa's kill, or that she will kill the NK.... and Arya does nothing else in the show of value then what is her book relevance? She has to do something, anything of importance in the books so why wasn't it in the show? Arya arguably has the most individual story line so what was the point?

 

While I'm happy with Sansa's ending for many reasons, even if it defies the established sociology so I don't know what to expect from the books, I still have issues with her arc from a certain perspective. I've seen several comments "Sansa was right" regarding Dany and I find that disingenuous. If you recall Sansa didn't trust Davos either and he was faithful to Jon and their mission, so she was wrong here. If I recall correctly Sansa only wanted Jon to trust her which is ironic since she ended up with his title. I guess Arya was right when she said that's what Sansa wanted?

It doesn't help cast her in a better light considering Sansa was the only one to contest Bran become king and then to refuse him. She claims the north wont kneel but that is what we saw them do at the end... do they just love her that much? I can't tell if we are supposed to like Sansa or not with the sloppy writing but at least she ended up with more complexity in her story than other characters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aquintus]

22 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

My interpretation is that she is primarily motivated by the wants of the proud, independently-minded  Northerners, not her own personal ambition. She was more than happy for Jon to be king in the North until he came under the sway of Dany, which all the Northerners were wary of.

You and I have completely different interpretations, then. She was never happy with Jon as King in the North, which was why she was constantly questioning his decision, hiding important information from him, and challenging him in front of the Northern Lords. The show also constantly went out of their way to show shots of her brooding or looking on jelously as Jon is acting as King. Unlike Dany going crazy, Sansa's desire to be Queen was strongly established for a while. 

[Corvinus85]

He looked deep into the heart of winter, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned on his cheeks. "Now you know", the crow whispered as it sat on his shoulder. "Now you know why you must live."

Bran: Nah, I need to live so I can be king.

[House Cambodia]

6 minutes ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

From a certain perspective it feels like the show made it all about Dany and this story was never supposed to hinge on one character. Yes, she's a major endgame player but a lot of other story lines feel irrelevant now. If the fandom can barely muster feelings for the Starks what about all the time spent on others? 

So now I have to ask myself if Dany will be the final boss to beat in the books, I don't think so but what if... Does that mean the events have been manipulated from the beginning to thwart Dany? Did Bloodraven (and Bran) pull strings to prepare the Starks for defeating Dany as well as the AotD? What else was the point of the Stark kids trials and tribulations? What was the meaning of their story arcs if they pretty much ended where they began?

I agree with this - yes the show has put too much emphasis on Dany, possibly because she's blonde and sexy and that's what shallow TV viewers are deemed to be attracted to. I don't think the books will emulate that. GRRM likes his cycles and he starts his first book with an emphatic focus on the Stark family. In the end, I do expect the books to fully develop the story arcs of Sansa, Arya and Bran and answer so many of those unfinished issues. I still expect the main threat to be the Others. I hope so anyway.

[Tb0ne]

18 minutes ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

So Bran repeatably doesn't want to be Lord of Winterfell but he's all about King of the Six Kingdoms?

I thought the implication was that he already knew he would become King.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Tb0ne

[Hodor the Articulate]

7 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Huh? Dany wasn't executed, she was murdered. Why do you think Jon was punished by being sent to the Wall?

Surely this thread is meant for ranting about legitimate flaws in the show, not demonstrating gross ignorance of it?

If the show wanted to explore the morality of killing/executing/murdering - whatever you want to call it - evil people without a fair trial, they should have carried through with it. Instead, all it asked us to do in that scene was feel sad for Jon being forced to stab his lover. Where was the ominous music? Did Tyrion look at Jon like he was mad and tell him he was a cruel bad person for not holding a trial first? Did any of our "heroes" suggest a trial? And Jon didn't even get punished. He was sent off to the NW to appease GW, but we saw him riding off with his pet and his Wildling bros in the end.

This is rant & rave WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS so you can gtfo with that last remark.

[OtherGlover]

20 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

That's excellent analysis. I see the conclusion to the series not as a 'Happy Ever After' scenario, but as the council representing something like the Peace of Westphalia. Feuding Europe was exhausted and agreed a peace deal simply to recover from its wounds. It lasted a generation or so before the .natural order. of things resumed. The agreement of the council in the Dragon Pit fixes things in Westeros for a generation, until it comes time to electing new heads of houses as well as monarchs. Tyrion solved the problem of heredity where mad or bad sons are the only candidates, but historically we know that in place of that we get factions forming behind strong men who intimidate and bribe their way to the top.

Yes, I very much agree that they were all suffering from war fatigue. Tyrion throws up his hands and says just pick a King and be done with the whole matter. Interestingly the North and Sansa could be one of those factions. Without having to pay tax to the crown Sansa is in position to use that money to buy votes in the south in exchange for favorable rulers to with which to deal.   

[joaozinm]

So Far we have drogus the philosopher dragon, bran the evil children of the forest revenge, Jon snow as king beyond the wall and possessed Dany.

Keep bringing more excuses ...i'm having Fun.

[no_one...]

For some reason I was reminded of an old pop song by The Sundays, Here's Where The Story Ends.  Something about a "terrible year" and "I synically ... say SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE."  Too many poor attempts at surprises the last couple of seasons.

[UnViserion]

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Did they really fuck up Stannis?  I certainly felt so at times during the early season, but once we learned there it was going and given that we have every reason to believe that's really where GRRM was taking it perhaps they didn't fuck that one up so badly.  It felt bad to me when it was happening, but that was based on my expectations as a book reader thinking that arc was headed elsewhere.  

I’d guess the Stannis arc will play out differently in the books. He’s an important non-POV character.

I think D&D’s desire for the Battle of the Bastards robbed Stannis of a victory at Winterell in the show. Could be wrong though.

[Hodor the Articulate]

28 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Did they really fuck up Stannis?  I certainly felt so at times during the early season, but once we learned there it was going and given that we have every reason to believe that's really where GRRM was taking it perhaps they didn't fuck that one up so badly.  It felt bad to me when it was happening, but that was based on my expectations as a book reader thinking that arc was headed elsewhere.  

They were a bit weird with him. On one hand, he was portrayed as a religious fanatic. On the other, they also portrayed him as a doting father. So I don't know if it made sense that he would burn his daughter. Neither are true to the book version of Stannis, who has many doubts about R'hallor and barely interacts with his family.

[Simon Steele]

 

19 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

They were a bit weird with him. On one hand, he was portrayed as a religious fanatic. On the other, they also portrayed him as a doting father. So I don't know if it made sense that he would burn his daughter. Neither are true to the book version of Stannis, who has many doubts about R'hallor and barely interacts with his family.

I'm with Trisk on this, but you make a good point. Something is really off about show Stannis. In the books, the last we heard from Stannis, it essentially was exactly what happened in the show--Stannis was beaten and Ramsey had the upperhand (according to a letter from Ramsey). I think back when I read it, I figured it was a lie, but after the show pretty much did this, I think this is the route is must go. The only thing is the burning of Shireen. She could be burned by Melisandre and Shireen's mother (for Jon Snow's life?--but then, if Jon is as useless in the books as he is the show, that'd be a stupid choice). 

Of course, Martin could surprise us with a Stannis/Jon team up and no burning!

[darmody]

45 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

They were a bit weird with him. On one hand, he was portrayed as a religious fanatic. On the other, they also portrayed him as a doting father. So I don't know if it made sense that he would burn his daughter. Neither are true to the book version of Stannis, who has many doubts about R'hallor and barely interacts with his family.

He has doubts on the show, which are usually assuaged by Melisandre's bounty of womanhood. These doubts are sometimes expressed verbally, but I think we're also supposed to get ideas from his frowny face. 

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Again, do not debate posts in this thread.  Warnings have been issued. Suspensions will follow if this very simple rule is not followed.

[/MOD]

[teej6]

Good critique of the travesty: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27526660/game-of-thrones-season-8-finale-ending-bad-review-analysis-recap/

[Demetri]

On 5/20/2019 at 12:37 AM, teej6 said:

That was criminal. Why couldn’t the two hacks leave that be? When I saw that I absolutely lost it.

Because it was an idea they had once 3 years ago and, like all their ideas, they thought it was really cool and precious thus had to be included. It might very well be an epilogue piece for GRRM. It fits well with his undertaking of meta-history. But here, in the show setting, it was a slap in the face.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Demetri

[Ser Hedge]

8 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

By the way... does somebody remember Meera Reed? The girl who protected, guided and dragged king Bran's ass through snow, mountains, woods, beasts, psychotic pseudo-vikings, undead and shit? The girl whose brother died for Bran's sake? You would think she would have received some form or recognition or reward, don't you...?

She gets to live happily ever after in a swamp. Bitter sweet.

[Macklunkey]

" There must always be a Stark in Winterfell. Except when there's a management meeting in Kings Landing. Then it's fine."