Bran Truly Was The Best Possible Choice To Rule

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

8 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

He doesn't mean that Bran is a great story teller. Tyrion means that Bran's journey of hardship from broken boy to seer was the most convincing one of all the possible candidates. He was the rightful Lord of Winterfell as Ned Stark's eldest surviving son, and yet he never sought that position.  You'll recognize that Bran's story was that of the Last Hero from Old Nan's tales. His was always going to be a story for all the ages. That makes a great story because it will be so long remembered. It's something people can get behind.

This guy pieces together the pieces we do know pretty convincingly, and he does so without having to guess about things we don't know like the Children's real tale. When you look at what Bran actually did this season, he's the prime mover on setting up the complex domino that brought him to the exact spot he ended up in. He's the one who insisted that Sam tell Jon of Jon's true heritage at the exact moment needed. So Jon told Dany, who started to fear he'd claim his birthright, and that's why Bran got Jon to tell Arya and Sansa, who told Tyrion, who told Varys, who was so convinced he got himself executed immediately after telling Tyrion that he hoped he was wrong. And Bran intervened to save Jaime, in a curious sense: he didn't tell anyone else that Jaime had crippled him. That way Jaime wasn't summarily executed, and would survive to try to return to Cersei only to be captured by Dany so that Tyrion would free his brother to die in their sister's arms at Dany's hand and be found that way by Dany's Hand, which made Tyrion resign in disgust as Hand after accusing Dany of murdering a city, and get thrown in the dungeon for treason, where Jon would visit him and be implored to save his sisters. And earlier Bran had told Tyrion Bran's own story. Then once Jon and Tyrion were both in the dungeon, Tyrion had a lot of time to think.

None of the other Lords Paramount were anything at all. And the whole council was completely dominated by Winterfell and Winterfell's family and supporters: Uncle Edmure for the Riverlands, Cousin Robin with Lord Royce from Vale, Cousin Gendry for the Stormlands, Sam for the Reach, etc etc etc. None of them was himself a candidate for the kingship, but he would certainly support Ned Stark's only surviving son in that position. That made Bran an easy pick.

And not just by the council sitting that day. By Bloodraven. He had already chosen the next king by the end of the first episode of the first season.

We just didn't know it yet.

All of this. It just makes sense once you start thinking about the desperate need for balance. The Children, together with the Starks and the giants, built the Wall not only to keep away the threat of the White Walkers, but also to keep to themselves a territory where their ways were safe. No cutting down weirwoods and keep away those pesky Andals and their religion.

If you consider how nature reacts to human interference screwing with it? Not exactly a measured, gentle response, is it?

The Wall was a failure. Magic returned to the World and all our characters suffered for it. From the Starks, who should be guarding the Pact with the Children, to an idiot girl lost in Essos becoming a dragonlord, to a wild wolf girl becoming an envoy of the Faceless God.

Bran is a conduit. The Three Eyed Raven is a tool to ensure the present that happens is the future he saw happen. Everything for Balance. For the passing of the seasons. For the wheel to keep on turning.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 5/20/2019 at 9:54 AM, Rikard said:

If he had just kept quiet Jon would have stayed in love with Dany, serving as a moderating influence on her rule. 

Daario: "We'll all disappoint her in the end" 

I think this would be worse than the ending he actually got, having to babysit Dany for the rest of his life. What a disservice to this character who actually had a personality before he was brainwashed. Meeting her ruined his life. They ruined each others lives.

On 5/19/2019 at 10:23 PM, SansaJonRule said:

He knows the entire history of Westeros. He knows every mistake that was made and the repercussions of them. That makes him uniquely qualified not to repeat them. Plus, he doesn't want power, and his lack of emotion means he will not make emotional decisions. The problem with all our world's governments is they are run by humans and humans are subject to corruption. Someone who doesn't "want" anymore has no basis for corruption. He may not be appealing, but that doesn't mean he won't make a good king.

This is true. 

I think his homage to historical fiction has a limit. This is a scifi/fantasy story, after all. With Bran, he is pulling from Asimov's psychohistory, more so than we thought.

However, he needs to show Bran doing a lot more though to make this work.

Asimov: “Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives; the real service to society is to detect it in embryo."

Bran has to be shown to be able to do that ^ to some degree. I dont think its meant to be a perfect scenario either. Its another scenario of "asking the questions, not giving answers"

[Rikard]

11 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think this would be worse than the ending he [Jon] actually got, having to babysit Dany for the rest of his life. What a disservice to this character who actually had a personality before he was brainwashed. Meeting her ruined his life. They ruined each others lives.

 

So now he's babysitting his aunt? Then a babysitter with benefits. And wealth, and power. There's nothing dishonorable about being the man behind the woman. Friends and lovers can be excellent advisers; they enjoy the presumption of loyalty. But Jon chose to betray Dany at her most trusting and vulnerable. There's a place in the Ninth Circle of Hell (treachery) for his sort.

[Rose of Red Lake]

11 minutes ago, Rikard said:

So now he's babysitting his aunt? Then a babysitter with benefits. And wealth, and power. There's nothing dishonorable about being the man behind the woman. Friends and lovers can be excellent advisers; they enjoy the presumption of loyalty. But Jon chose to betray Dany at her most trusting and vulnerable. There's a place in the Ninth Circle of Hell (treachery) for his sort.

Yeah, I think its a disservice to this character to basically slot him into Jorah and Daario's roles. He should be a foil and qualitatively different from those men. Hence, why he killed her while they worshipped her BLINDLY. 

[Rikard]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yeah, I think its a disservice to this character to basically slot him into Jorah and Daario's roles. He should be a foil and qualitatively different from those men. Hence, why he killed her while they worshipped her BLINDLY. 

My, that's a bit harsh. Nothing wrong in worshiping a woman. And they weren't blind. They saw her clearly, the good and the bad, and still loved her. The characters in Martin's books are not simply literary devices to advance the plot. He works hard to make them as real as possible, at times wrong-headed and foolish, always unpredictable. I bet they often surprise the author himself.

[random girl from westeros]

19 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

He doesn't mean that Bran is a great story teller. Tyrion means that Bran's journey of hardship from broken boy to seer was the most convincing one of all the possible candidates. He was the rightful Lord of Winterfell as Ned Stark's eldest surviving son, and yet he never sought that position.  You'll recognize that Bran's story was that of the Last Hero from Old Nan's tales. His was always going to be a story for all the ages. That makes a great story because it will be so long remembered. It's something people can get behind.

This guy pieces together the pieces we do know pretty convincingly, and he does so without having to guess about things we don't know like the Children's real tale. When you look at what Bran actually did this season, he's the prime mover on setting up the complex domino that brought him to the exact spot he ended up in. He's the one who insisted that Sam tell Jon of Jon's true heritage at the exact moment needed. So Jon told Dany, who started to fear he'd claim his birthright, and that's why Bran got Jon to tell Arya and Sansa, who told Tyrion, who told Varys, who was so convinced he got himself executed immediately after telling Tyrion that he hoped he was wrong. And Bran intervened to save Jaime, in a curious sense: he didn't tell anyone else that Jaime had crippled him. That way Jaime wasn't summarily executed, and would survive to try to return to Cersei only to be captured by Dany so that Tyrion would free his brother to die in their sister's arms at Dany's hand and be found that way by Dany's Hand, which made Tyrion resign in disgust as Hand after accusing Dany of murdering a city, and get thrown in the dungeon for treason, where Jon would visit him and be implored to save his sisters. And earlier Bran had told Tyrion Bran's own story. Then once Jon and Tyrion were both in the dungeon, Tyrion had a lot of time to think.

None of the other Lords Paramount were anything at all. And the whole council was completely dominated by Winterfell and Winterfell's family and supporters: Uncle Edmure for the Riverlands, Cousin Robin with Lord Royce from Vale, Cousin Gendry for the Stormlands, Sam for the Reach, etc etc etc. None of them was himself a candidate for the kingship, but he would certainly support Ned Stark's only surviving son in that position. That made Bran an easy pick.

And not just by the council sitting that day. By Bloodraven. He had already chosen the next king by the end of the first episode of the first season.

We just didn't know it yet.

As I have said before, a God-like being as King is a cheap way to end a story that the three main themes are the conflict in the hearts of men, how useless is war and climate change because it robes the humans any kind of self-determination and growth. It means that people are children with no chance to grow up and be better and that we need a God to help us. That ending coming from a self proclaim atheist is fatalistic. 

[CrypticWeirwood]

4 minutes ago, random girl from westeros said:

As I have said before, a God-like being as King is a cheap way to end a story that the three main themes are the conflict in the hearts of men, how useless is war and climate change because it robes the humans any kind of self-determination and growth. It means that people are children with no chance to grow up and be better and that we need a God to help us. That ending coming from a self proclaim atheist is fatalistic. 

To the contrary: it proves that people are grossly misunderstanding Bran by referring to him as "a God". Martin would never do that.

[random girl from westeros]

25 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

To the contrary: it proves that people are grossly misunderstanding Bran by referring to him as "a God ". Martin would never do 

I really hopes he doesn't. Because Bran in the show remind me a lot of Dr. Manhattan from the Watchmen. He might not have the same powers, but their personalities are somewhat alike. 

One of the worst thing the writers didn't do was to bring the war against the WW further south. That way lords and smallfolks could see how petty war for power among themselves really is and come to the realization that they need to stop.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

12 hours ago, random girl from westeros said:

One of the worst thing the writers didn't do was to bring the war against the WW further south. That way lords and smallfolks could see how petty war for power among themselves really is and come to the realization that they need to stop

Unfortunately, human nature demands some would merely use others' misfortune for personal gain.

Cersei saw the reality of the threat, but her very human selfishness would always have her looking for a way to stand behind, to 'deal with what's left'. 

Surely others, especially feudal lords used to being in complete command of not only soldiers but 'all' the people in their land would think the same, try the same. It is a happy fiction to believe Cersei to be the exception and not the rule.

[Rose of Red Lake]

17 hours ago, Rikard said:

My, that's a bit harsh. Nothing wrong in worshiping a woman. And they weren't blind. They saw her clearly, the good and the bad, and still loved her. The characters in Martin's books are not simply literary devices to advance the plot. He works hard to make them as real as possible, at times wrong-headed and foolish, always unpredictable. I bet they often surprise the author himself.

They failed at selling this storyline and I think its because no writer alive could make it work. I still dont know why he loved her. 

She has qualities that he would despise. Possessiveness, entitlement, fixation on titles, haughtiness, dominance over others, demanding respect without actually earning it, short-tempered, demanding that he lie to his family. Like Jon would ever love a woman who feels sorry for herself that people didn't worship her when she had thousands of people following her who obey her every command. I think they just made Jon an audience stand-in to hide how awful she actually is. 

"Dany is not a good person" - Kit Harington

[Rikard]

17 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

18 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

They failed at selling this storyline and I think its because no writer alive could make it work. I still dont know why he loved her. 

She has qualities that he would despise. Possessiveness, entitlement, fixation on titles, haughtiness, dominance over others, demanding respect without actually earning it, short-tempered, demanding that he lie to his family. Like Jon would ever love a woman who feels sorry for herself that people didn't worship her when she had thousands of people following her who obey her every command. I think they just made Jon an audience stand-in to hide how awful she actually is. 

"Dany is not a good person" - Kit Harington

 

Well, to each his own. 

[Nowy Tends]

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 I still dont know why he loved her. 

L'amour est enfant de Bohême

Il n'a jamais, jamais connu de loi

[…]

L'amour est un oiseau rebelle

Que nul ne peut apprivoiser,

etc. etc.

[Techmaester]

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

They failed at selling this storyline and I think its because no writer alive could make it work. I still dont know why he loved her. 

She has qualities that he would despise. Possessiveness, entitlement, fixation on titles, haughtiness, dominance over others, demanding respect without actually earning it, short-tempered, demanding that he lie to his family. Like Jon would ever love a woman who feels sorry for herself that people didn't worship her when she had thousands of people following her who obey her every command. I think they just made Jon an audience stand-in to hide how awful she actually is. 

"Dany is not a good person" - Kit Harington

Her saving you from death multiple times and fighting a war for you against the undead would seem to make his love the slightest bit merited, wouldn't it? 

[SansaJonRule]

On 6/1/2019 at 2:57 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

This is true. 

I think his homage to historical fiction has a limit. This is a scifi/fantasy story, after all. With Bran, he is pulling from Asimov's psychohistory, more so than we thought.

However, he needs to show Bran doing a lot more though to make this work.

Asimov: “Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives; the real service to society is to detect it in embryo."

Bran has to be shown to be able to do that ^ to some degree. I dont think its meant to be a perfect scenario either. Its another scenario of "asking the questions, not giving answers"

Excellent points! I have been frustrated by forum members who insist on limiting GoT to our actual medieval history.

I assume you are referring to the "Foundation" series? I have not read that yet as I have never been much of a fan of sci-fi books, but it is actually next on my list as soon as I finish the book I'm on now. Your reference is making even that much more anxious to read them!

[SansaJonRule]

30 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

They failed at selling this storyline and I think its because no writer alive could make it work. I still dont know why he loved her. 

She has qualities that he would despise. Possessiveness, entitlement, fixation on titles, haughtiness, dominance over others, demanding respect without actually earning it, short-tempered, demanding that he lie to his family. Like Jon would ever love a woman who feels sorry for herself that people didn't worship her when she had thousands of people following her who obey her every command. I think they just made Jon an audience stand-in to hide how awful she actually is. 

"Dany is not a good person" - Kit Harington

Her saving you from death multiple times and fighting a war for you against the undead would seem to make his love the slightest bit merited, wouldn't it? 

I agree it was hard for me to understand how he could fall in love with her at first. But she has other characteristics that would appeal to him. Her compassion, and he desire to make the world a better place. "Breaking the wheel" would certainly appeal to a bastard in that kind of society. And plus, love is not logical. Jaime acknowledges that Cersei is a hateful person and tries to break his bond with her, but in the end his love for won out.

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

On 5/31/2019 at 1:46 PM, random girl from westeros said:

I like the idea of the Iron Throne being destroyed, but the fact that was caused by a tantrum of an animal, was cheap. It should have been destroyed by humans as a symbol that mankind shouldn't fight over power but for survival.  They would come to this conclusion because they just witnessed annihilation and overcome it. 

The symbol of power that caused many wars being destroyed by a temper tantrum of an animal and the choosing of a God-like figure as King robs humans of any kind of self-determination.    

 

Agreed. Although they made it pointless in the end when Bran became King anyways. 

This was kind of like Frodo & Sam destroying the ring in the fires of Mt Doom... but then 15 minutes later deciding to re-forge another ring to rule them all. 

[Hodor's Dragon]

On 6/2/2019 at 9:06 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

<snip> Possessiveness, entitlement, fixation on titles, haughtiness, dominance over others, demanding respect without actually earning it, short-tempered, demanding that he lie to his family. <snip>

<rollseyes>

[Rose of Red Lake]

22 hours ago, Techmaester said:

Her saving you from death multiple times and fighting a war for you against the undead would seem to make his love the slightest bit merited, wouldn't it? 

His ass has been saved multiple times by other women, and "fighting a war for you" is like falling in love a with the plumper who fixed your sewage problem. 

21 hours ago, SansaJonRule said:

I agree it was hard for me to understand how he could fall in love with her at first. But she has other characteristics that would appeal to him. Her compassion, and he desire to make the world a better place. "Breaking the wheel" would certainly appeal to a bastard in that kind of society. And plus, love is not logical. Jaime acknowledges that Cersei is a hateful person and tries to break his bond with her, but in the end his love for won out.

But Stark was included in that speech - it was ominous. Jon would side eye that.

If they wanted it to be as deep a love as Jaime/Cersei, then they should have met in the story sooner because Jaime/Cersei were in love most of their lives. They also died together and their love was shown, it wasn't just told to us. Also, repeating a Jaime/Cersei toxic relationship is kind of redundant isnt it? "You knew what she was but you love her anyway." Oh, lets repeat this again with Jon and Dany because that's exactly what the story needs?

[Rose of Red Lake]

14 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

<rollseyes>

You've complained about the writing for Dany in pratically every post. I'm complaining about the writing for this dumbass relationship. So step off. 

[SansaJonRule]

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

But Stark was included in that speech - it was ominous. Jon would side eye that.

Sorry, what speech are you referring to?

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

If they wanted it to be as deep a love as Jaime/Cersei,

I didn't mean to imply Jon and Dany's love was as deep as Jaime and Cersei's. I was merely pointing to Jaime as an example that love often doesn't make sense, not even to the person who is in love.