Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

[SeanF]

55 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I'm biased because I think Daario is the most annoying character in the series (not worst by any means, but most annoying), and I think it speaks very poorly of Dany's judgment that she finds him so irresistible.  But I think he's more than just a jerk, seeing as how his first act in the story was decapitating his two partners' heads.  Sure they were terrible... but he killed them because he likes killing, not because they were terrible or because he was "enchanted by Dany's beauty".  His advice to hold "red wedding" events to kill all the noble class is also diabolical.

Dany herself thinks of Daario as a monster:

That said, I really appreciate Dany here for her self-reflection and fighting her inner demons.  Which is another reason why when she stops resisting Daario, I think it is another step toward her embracing her "monstrous" side.  I guess it is hard for me to grasp why George Martin created such an insipidly annoying (in my opinion) character, if Daario doesn't serve a symbolic purpose other than being Dany's booty call.

You're right.  I looked up the House of the Undying prophecies, and I misremembered.  I blurred the image of Mirri burning with the image of the "old crones" bowing down to her in front of the Mother of Mountains as one event, but the crones bowing down to her doesn't mention a fire.  So I don't think she will burn the khals.  Jhago and Mago, definitely (and for the record, I feel no sorrow for them and would hold no contempt toward Dany for killing them).

As far as the Others go, I do think they hate all of humanity (in the same way that humanity hates all of the Others... for the few who believe they exist), but I think that is more about the bias of war and always hating the "other side".  I think I read somewhere that George Martin named them "Others" to demonstrate the misunderstanding and villainizing of other cultures... though I couldn't tell you where that came from.  We'll see where the story goes, but if they are fully annihilated, I think it will be realized afterward that it was a terrible mistake to do so.  Again, so far the Others don't seem any worse than Tywin Lannister's Bloody Mummers.

What I like about Osten Ard is one can still sympathise with the Norns, even though they are antagonists.  Even among their number, there are those who are sick of endless war against humans

I think Martin’s views on what women find desirable are …a bit odd.  He sees Dany/Drogo as a deep romance.  I see it as a barely pubescent girl persuading herself she’s in love with her master, as an alternative to killing herself.  The idea of a 13 year old being taught to perform “bed tricks” is horrid.

So, I think we’re meant to see Daario as being dashing and attractive, even if he is violent.  Like Darkstar, and Khal Drogo.

I think Martin views Daenerys' love life as being a tale of a young woman becoming confident with her sexuality.  And yet, I think there's something of a whipped dog about her.  I could imagine her persuading herself that a man who abused her was just showing her how much he loves her (something i've encountered in real life, even among successful professionals).  All the more so, in a world where even royal women are taught that they are inferior to their menfolk.

Edited December 23, 2022 by SeanF

[kissdbyfire]

On 12/19/2022 at 11:04 AM, SeanF said:

The two D’s were in love with the Lannisters.  Tyrion was a saintly pacifist, too good for this cruel world.  Tywin was “lawful neutral”, hard but fair.  Cersei was a tragic heroine, looking out for her children.  For the Starks, growing up meant becoming like the Lannisters.

I actually think they disliked Kit Harrington, hence the jokes about his height and penis size.  At the end, they turned Jon into a pathetic waste of space.

None of this aligns with the books.

Kit and NCW are good-looking men (and I think they’ve read the books?)  > Jon and Jaime become two of the stupidest characters in the story. 

[csuszka1948]

There are a few things than can be said with great likelihood:

- Bran the Broken will be King of Westeros and 'his story' will play a part in his election

- the endings of the other 5 main characters in broad strokes: Tyrion Hand of the King, Sansa ruling the North (if I have to guess Lady of Winterfell), Jon leaving with the wildlings (if I have to guess King Beyond the Wall) and Arya leaving to explore the world, Dany will be remembered as a tyrant in Westeros and killed by someone she trusts (if I have to guess Jorah)

- Jaime will die with Cersei (if I have to guess strangling her then killing himself, Tyrion will blame himself and realize that's not what he wanted just like in his dream) and probably won't get full redemption

- the Others were created as weapons by the Children of the Forest. The showrunners tend to simplify things, they wouldn't have made up a detail like this which makes the world more complicated. It is also in line with George's anti-war narrative. 

- the Long Night won't be ended by Dany or Jon. If GRRM told them they will play the central role, the showrunners would have adapted it. If I have to guess, Bran will be the most important and his only contribution in the show (saying a 'thank you' to Theon) will be relevant.

 

The showrunners obviously had their own preferences (a strong bias towards the Lannisters, making Ramsay into a huge villain, preferring Arya over Sansa, disliking Stannis etc.), portrayed politics poorly, couldn't really write good dialogues on their own and didn't try keeping the central themes of the story (except perhaps in the last season).

However, I think a common mistake is to assume that the ending of ASOIAF will be less subversive than the show, that D&D intentionally chose to go against both the plans of GRRM and the audiance's expectations and had Dany to die as a tyrant, Jon not become King, Arya not stay in WF or Jaime not getting a full-blown redemptive arcs just because they are edgelords. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

52 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

There are a few things than can be said with great likelihood:

- Bran the Broken will be King of Westeros and 'his story' will play a part in his election

- the endings of the other 5 main characters in broad strokes: Tyrion Hand of the King, Sansa ruling the North (if I have to guess Lady of Winterfell), Jon leaving with the wildlings (if I have to guess King Beyond the Wall) and Arya leaving to explore the world, Dany will be remembered as a tyrant in Westeros and killed by someone she trusts (if I have to guess Jorah)

- Jaime will die with Cersei (if I have to guess strangling her then killing himself, Tyrion will blame himself and realize that's not what he wanted just like in his dream) and probably won't get full redemption

- the Others were created as weapons by the Children of the Forest. The showrunners tend to simplify things, they wouldn't have made up a detail like this which makes the world more complicated. It is also in line with George's anti-war narrative. 

- the Long Night won't be ended by Dany or Jon. If GRRM told them they will play the central role, the showrunners would have adapted it. If I have to guess, Bran will be the most important and his only contribution in the show (saying a 'thank you' to Theon) will be relevant.

 

The showrunners obviously had their own preferences (a strong bias towards the Lannisters, making Ramsay into a huge villain, preferring Arya over Sansa, disliking Stannis etc.), portrayed politics poorly, couldn't really write good dialogues on their own and didn't try keeping the central themes of the story (except perhaps in the last season).

However, I think a common mistake is to assume that the ending of ASOIAF will be less subversive than the show, that D&D intentionally chose to go against both the plans of GRRM and the audiance's expectations and had Dany to die as a tyrant, Jon not become King, Arya not stay in WF or Jaime not getting a full-blown redemptive arcs just because they are edgelords. 

Dany and Jon *not* being central to the defeat of the Others falls into the category of “silly twist for the sake of springing a surprise on the readers.” Though even in the Abomination, victory would have been unachievable without Jon putting together a coalition and Dany providing 90% of the military muscle.

If the ultimate message is as banal as “war is never the way”, it begs the question of why the main characters should be placed in a world where war is unavoidable.

A further issue is this.  The books make plain that Westeros’ and Essos’ problems are systemic - they aren’t caused by the wrong noble families or slave owners being in charge. I would be both surprised and disappointed if the tale simply ended with the blind endorsement of the status quo that the show opted for.

Edited April 21, 2023 by SeanF

[csuszka1948]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Dany and Jon *not* being central to the defeat of the Others falls into the category of “silly twist for the sake of springing a surprise on the readers.” Though even in the Abomination, victory would have been unachievable without Jon putting together a coalition and Dany providing 90% of the military muscle.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't doubt that they will play the central role in arranging an army and probably fulfill the Azor Ahai prophecies, I just don't think it is likely that the Others will be defeated by military means:

"But when the dead walk, walls and stakes and swords mean nothing. You cannot fight the dead, Jon Snow. No man knows that half so well as me." (Mance Rayder)

Even in the show, defeat was inevitable until Arya killed the Night King out of nowhere.

Edited April 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

I don't doubt that they will play the central role in arranging an army and probably fulfill the Azor Ahai prophecies, I just don't think it is likely that the Others will be defeated by military means:

"But when the dead walk, walls and stakes and swords mean nothing. You cannot fight the dead, Jon Snow. No man knows that half so well as me." (Mance Rayder)

Even in the show, defeat was inevitable until Arya killed the Night King out of nowhere.

Arya springing out of a tree on the Great Other is 100% not happening.

[csuszka1948]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Arya springing out of a tree on the Great Other is 100% not happening.

 

 

 

Obviously not. I am just saying that even the show (where the Others were dumbed down to leaders of a simple zombie army and not hunters who can appear anywhere where it is dark and cold) portrayed military victory against the Others impossible.

 

Yes, the legends say that the Others were previously defeated in the Battle for the Dawn, but:

1. We don't know how much of the legends is exactly true - for example, GRRM calls Brandon the Builder a mytical figure. It might be they are right about the existence of Others (and CoF), but glorified the manner they were 'defeated'

2. According to the legends, a multiple year long winter and darkness preceded this defeat. Obviously, there isn't time for something like this in the books

3. According to the legends, the CoF and humanity made an alliance. Whatever magic assistance (+greenseeing) the CoF could provide was much more significant they could provide now.

Edited April 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[divica]

2 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

There are a few things than can be said with great likelihood:

- Bran the Broken will be King of Westeros and 'his story' will play a part in his election

- the endings of the other 5 main characters in broad strokes: Tyrion Hand of the King, Sansa ruling the North (if I have to guess Lady of Winterfell), Jon leaving with the wildlings (if I have to guess King Beyond the Wall) and Arya leaving to explore the world, Dany will be remembered as a tyrant in Westeros and killed by someone she trusts (if I have to guess Jorah)

- Jaime will die with Cersei (if I have to guess strangling her then killing himself, Tyrion will blame himself and realize that's not what he wanted just like in his dream) and probably won't get full redemption

- the Others were created as weapons by the Children of the Forest. The showrunners tend to simplify things, they wouldn't have made up a detail like this which makes the world more complicated. It is also in line with George's anti-war narrative. 

- the Long Night won't be ended by Dany or Jon. If GRRM told them they will play the central role, the showrunners would have adapted it. If I have to guess, Bran will be the most important and his only contribution in the show (saying a 'thank you' to Theon) will be relevant.

 

The showrunners obviously had their own preferences (a strong bias towards the Lannisters, making Ramsay into a huge villain, preferring Arya over Sansa, disliking Stannis etc.), portrayed politics poorly, couldn't really write good dialogues on their own and didn't try keeping the central themes of the story (except perhaps in the last season).

However, I think a common mistake is to assume that the ending of ASOIAF will be less subversive than the show, that D&D intentionally chose to go against both the plans of GRRM and the audiance's expectations and had Dany to die as a tyrant, Jon not become King, Arya not stay in WF or Jaime not getting a full-blown redemptive arcs just because they are edgelords. 

I have huge doubts about a lot of the things you say.

- I agree that some years ago grrm wanted bran to sit on the it and arya to go explore the world. However the plotwist is that bran will take over the body of who was suposed to be king and nobody will know it.

-It is much more likely that sansa will be lady of the vale and control that region than the north. She is gaining power in the vale, it is a region where she fits perfectly (has several northern and southern elements like her) and it makes sense that she will end up marrying the ruler of the vale.

-It makes no sense for the wildlings to return north of the wall. First, because either the others are defeated and the wall makes no sense or they aren't totally defeated and nobody would go live near them. Second, because they are being given lands on the gift and several of them want to live south of the wall where there are better living conditions. Third, because the north will need people and after the war the wildlings will have formed attachments. And finally, because it was wrong to have the wildlings live in misery north of the wall since the beguining. So after all the war people will have to do better and try some lasting peace.

-So I believe jon will end up living with the wildlings,  the northmen,  iron born, skagosi and other war veterans/refugees in the north and that it will be very diferent land that it was in the beguining of the story. I could even see it separated from the rest of the kingdoms because they will be just too diferent from everybody else.

- I doubt tyrion will be hand. There simply wasn't anybody else around to do it in the show and they liked tyrion. However he will end up in a position of power. Most likely a lord.

-jaime may not have a redemption arc, but if he was going to kill cersei it would have happened in the show. They wouldn't waste such a moment.

- the showrunners had no idea how to write a battle. I can garantee you that several characters will be fundamental in defeating the others. That maybe who gives the final blow wont be that important because it will only be possible thanks to the action of several characters. Like imagine there is a NK and jon cuts his arms, arya his legs, the hound kicks him and he flys into a bakery and hot pie takes the oportunity and kills the dude. Is hot pie our unsung hero?

 

 

[csuszka1948]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

If the ultimate message is as banal as “war is never the way”, it begs the question of why the main characters should be placed in a world where war is unavoidable.

 

Is it? Let's go through this:

1) Ned gave Cersei an option to flee with her children and she refused

2) Cersei gave Ned Stark an option to bend the knee and he refused (to be fair, he thought he is in winning position and might avoid war by capturing them)

3) After Ned's death, Catelyn gave a speech in favour of peace, but the Northern lords decided to crown Robb instead

4) Renly could have tried to stay out of the war (or join his nephew's side) but instead declared from himself

5) Dany could have taken the dragon eggs and flee with Jorah instead of staying and trying to follow her family's legacy

6) Stannis could have tried to declare for Renly (or Joffrey) but instead declared for himself

7) Renly and Stannis (especially the latter) could have bent the knee to the other one

8) Robb could have tried making peace after the Blackwater, but categorically refused

9) Stannis could have tried making peace after the BW, but categorically refused 

9) the NW could have tried to make peace with the wildlings after realising the existance of the Others (Jon managed to accomplish it as well as he could)

10) Ellaria Sand gave an impassioned speech in favor of peace, but Doran and the Sand Snakes decided to pursue vengeance

11) The Ironborn captain could have chosen peace and reforms via Asha or maintaining the traditional way via Victarion, but have chosen the conquest and madness of Euron

12) Aegon decided to pursue his (real or imagined) family's legacy by landing on Westeros

13) Jon agreed with Mel to send Mance and spearwives to save Arya/help Arya escape to the Wall, risking a conflict with the (potentially victorious) Boltons when the Others seemed to be the greatest danger. After Ramsay's letter, he decided to personally lead an attack against him to help Arya&destroy him instead of waiting for him at the Wall.

14) During and after the pit opening scene and her days in the Dothraki sea, Dany decided to go to Westeros to reclaim her family's legacy (mother of dragons) instead of stay and rule in Meereen (Mhysa)

 

I would say in most cases the war wasn't unavoidable, it was a conscious choice when other options also existed.

 

I don't have solid proof for it, but I am pretty sure that GRRM isn't meant to portray the war with the Others and especially the Long Night as unavoidable events either.

I think these are (or will be) the result of the actions of humans: breaking the Pact with the children of the forest and conquering the areas above the Wall (causing the return of the Others), sounding the Horn of Winter (causing the fall of the Wall) and performing some sort of Blood Betrayal (causing the Long Night). 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

A further issue is this.  The books make plain that Westeros’ and Essos’ problems are systemic - they aren’t caused by the wrong noble families or slave owners being in charge. I would be both surprised and disappointed if the tale simply ended with the blind endorsement of the status quo that the show opted for.

 

 

I am pretty sure that Essos will end up drastically changed by the end of the series, with slavery being overthrown in most of the cities.

I am not sure about Westeros, because I cannot imagine some sort of smallfolk revolution happening. The election of Bran himself is a symbol of rejecting succession wars and wars of conquest - which are the biggest bane of the smallfolk in Westeros -, in favour of settling succession by compromise and choice:

“The common people pray for rain, healthy children and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.”

 

 

[csuszka1948]

1 hour ago, divica said:

I have huge doubts about a lot of the things you say.

- I agree that some years ago grrm wanted bran to sit on the it and arya to go explore the world. However the plotwist is that bran will take over the body of who was suposed to be king and nobody will know it.

 

 

 

I fundamentally disagree. That's not a bittersweet ending.

The point of the 'Hold the Door' event is to make Bran realise that possessing other people's bodies and taking away their autonomy is morally wrong.

1 hour ago, divica said:

-It is much more likely that sansa will be lady of the vale and control that region than the north. She is gaining power in the vale, it is a region where she fits perfectly (has several northern and southern elements like her) and it makes sense that she will end up marrying the ruler of the vale.

 

 

 

What kind of claim does Sansa have to the Vale? What will she do in ATWOW and ADOS, stay in the Vale and marry Harry, go to the North to fight the Others then go back?

I would be very surprised if LF's plan worked out as planned. The arcs of the 3 Stark kids (Bran, Arya, Sansa) parallel each other and they are all going to reject the destinies their 'mentor figures' (BR, Faceless Man, LF) set out for them.

Besides, I personally feel GRRM set Sweetrobin up as one of the 'unlikely survivors' and he is going to rule the Vale at the end.

1 hour ago, divica said:

-It makes no sense for the wildlings to return north of the wall. First, because either the others are defeated and the wall makes no sense or they aren't totally defeated and nobody would go live near them. Second, because they are being given lands on the gift and several of them want to live south of the wall where there are better living conditions. Third, because the north will need people and after the war the wildlings will have formed attachments. And finally, because it was wrong to have the wildlings live in misery north of the wall since the beguining. So after all the war people will have to do better and try some lasting peace.

-So I believe jon will end up living with the wildlings,  the northmen,  iron born, skagosi and other war veterans/refugees in the north and that it will be very diferent land that it was in the beguining of the story. I could even see it separated from the rest of the kingdoms because they will be just too diferent from everybody else.

 

 

 

The Others will probably not be fully defeated, but once spring comes, they will likely retreat to the Lands of Always Winter.

The wildlings stayed North of the Wall because they refused to kneel. This is going to remain the problem with some of them at the end of the series, and I think Jon (who knows them well) will play a part in the solution. 'King Beyond the Wall' is just my guess.

Edited April 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Is it? Let's go through this:

1) Ned gave Cersei an option to flee with her children and she refused

2) Cersei gave Ned Stark an option to bend the knee and he refused (to be fair, he thought he is in winning position and might avoid war by capturing them)

3) After Ned's death, Catelyn gave a speech in favour of peace, but the Northern lords decided to crown Robb instead

4) Renly could have tried to stay out of the war (or join his nephew's side) but instead declared from himself

5) Dany could have taken the dragon eggs and flee with Jorah instead of staying and trying to follow her family's legacy

6) Stannis could have tried to declare for Renly (or Joffrey) but instead declared for himself

7) Renly and Stannis (especially the latter) could have bent the knee to the other one

8) Robb could have tried making peace after the Blackwater, but categorically refused

9) Stannis could have tried making peace after the BW, but categorically refused 

9) the NW could have tried to make peace with the wildlings after realising the existance of the Others (Jon managed to accomplish it as well as he could)

10) Ellaria Sand gave an impassioned speech in favor of peace, but Doran and the Sand Snakes decided to pursue vengeance

11) The Ironborn captain could have chosen peace and reforms via Asha or maintaining the traditional way via Victarion, but have chosen the conquest and madness of Euron

12) Aegon decided to pursue his (real or imagined) family's legacy by landing on Westeros

13) Jon agreed with Mel to send Mance and spearwives to save Arya/help Arya escape to the Wall, risking a conflict with the (potentially victorious) Boltons when the Others seemed to be the greatest danger. After Ramsay's letter, he decided to personally lead an attack against him to help Arya&destroy him instead of waiting for him at the Wall.

14) During and after the pit opening scene and her days in the Dothraki sea, Dany decided to go to Westeros to reclaim her family's legacy (mother of dragons) instead of stay and rule in Meereen (Mhysa)

 

I would say in most cases the war wasn't unavoidable, it was a conscious choice when other options also existed.

 

I don't have solid proof for it, but I am pretty sure that GRRM isn't meant to portray the war with the Others and especially the Long Night as unavoidable events either.

I think these are (or will be) the result of the actions of humans: breaking the Pact with the children of the forest and conquering the areas above the Wall (causing the return of the Others), sounding the Horn of Winter (causing the fall of the Wall) and performing some sort of Blood Betrayal (causing the Long Night). 

I am pretty sure that Essos will end up drastically changed by the end of the series, with slavery being overthrown in most of the cities.

I am not sure about Westeros, because I cannot imagine some sort of smallfolk revolution happening. The election of Bran himself is a symbol of rejecting succession wars and wars of conquest - which are the biggest bane of the smallfolk in Westeros -, in favour of settling succession by compromise and choice:

“The common people pray for rain, healthy children and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.”

 

 

Sure, one can always just shrug, throw in the towel, and turn a blind eye to injustice.  

Ned could leave a psychopathic family who tried to murder his son, in power.  Robb could simply allow the Riverlands to be ravaged. Catelyn had no peace plan, which is why her argument fell flat. Any attempted settlement would founder over Ned’s execution and Arya’s disappearance. Dany could just decide to leave the women and children of her khalasar to their fate, and ride off to a life of luxury as a slave owner in the free cities.  She could likewise decide that slavery is no big deal, at Astapor and move on.  Jon could leave his sister to be raped and flayed by Ramsay, and accept the rule of the Boltons.

Those are all choices, but not *good* ones. At least, IMHO. It’s like Ukraine having a choice to submit.

And often war *is* coming, regardless.  Dany might have daydreamed about living in peace, in the khalasar, and then she was nearly poisoned.  The Volantenes and Ironborn are still coming to the fight at Meereen, regardless of her actions.  The freedmen aren’t going to submit to re-enslavement, and the slavers aren’t going to tolerate their freedom. Cersei is still sending assassins after Jon.  The Wall is (probably) going to fall. The Others are still coming and raising the dead against the living.

Bran’s appointment, in the show, by sixteen magnates who viewed the smallfolk as livestock is not what I would see as progress. 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by SeanF

[divica]

1 minute ago, csuszka1948 said:

I fundamentally disagree. That's not a bittersweet ending.

The point of the 'Hold the Door' event is to make Bran realise that possessing other people's bodies and taking away their autonomy is morally wrong.

No. The " hold the door" is used to show the dangers and cruelty of bran's powers. There is no moral lesson to take from the event. 

And is there a more bittersweet ending than the king being an asshole refusing to help and bran skinchanging into him so that he could give the orders needed to defeat the others but deciding not to tell anyone (not even his familly) because what he did was terrible? THIS is the best and most belivable way bran can sit the IT. 

8 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

What kind of claim does Sansa have to the Vale? What will she do in ATWOW and ADOS, stay in the Vale and marry Harry, go to the North to fight the Others then go back?

I would be very surprised if LF's plan worked out as planned. The arcs of the 3 Stark kids (Bran, Arya, Sansa) parallel each other and they are all going to reject the destinies their 'mentor figures' (BR, Faceless Man, LF) set out for them.

You literally said what her claim to the vale was... She just has to marry harry or robyn and if her husband dies she is the ruler of the vale. It is simple and fits well with what happened in the show.

The rest is your wishful thinking. And even ruling the vale and turning it to assit the north in the coming war is probably against LF wishes.

14 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

The Others will probably not be fully defeated, but once spring comes, they will likely retreat to the Lands of Always Winter.

The wildlings stayed North of the Wall because they refused to kneel. This is going to remain the problem with some of them at the end of the series, and I think Jon (who knows them well) will play a part in the solution. 'King Beyond the Wall' is just my guess.

The whole north/wall/wildling situation remaining the same as it was in the beguining of the series is one of the most stupid things in the series and obviously doesn't work.

First, if the others aren't fully defeated then what was the point of the story? just to repeat the past? Even in the show the others are completly dead. And the idea that after the long night ANYONE would want to be neighbours with the others makes no sense. Nobody knows when they would attack again...

Second, jon has only started integrating the wildlings into the north and some of them have already joined the nw, setled in the gift and married into a great house. In the future they will be even more conected to the north. Their bulk isn't going anywhere.

Third, most of the surviving wildlings will be war refugees (non fighters) and everything in their land will be dead, destroyed and frozen. Even if they wanted to go back they don't have the means to survive in their land. In order for the wildlings to survive they will need support and a northern leader that they respect and understands them so that he can make a truce with them that allows them to be free but follow some rules.

Fourth, what will be the diference between the north and the true north? the wall, gift and karstark lands and probably more will be filled with wildlings. that is most of the northern part of the north. Does anyone think these wildlings will fight against other wildlings because the kneelers say so? That the north won't claim the lands north of the wall? 

fith, the ideia that we spent several books to unite all the people against the dead so that after the war we go back to how everything was is ridiculous. And the wildlings follow a king into a crises. Anyone believing that the most wild freefolk that are too wild to accept any kind of rules like the rest of their people would follow jon doesn't make sense. jon has no chance to lead people like the weeper in times of peace. 

 

[csuszka1948]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Sure, you can always just shrug, throw in the towel, and turn a blind eye to injustice.  

Ned could leave a psychopathic family who tried to murder his son in power.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what Doran Martell has done after Elia and her children were brutally murdered. Was it a bad decision? I don't think so - it was a difficult choice but the right one. 

That said, I have to admit I shouldn't have included Ned, since he genuinely tried to avoid war (as I mentioned it among parantheses). Tywin's decision to send the Mountain to the Riverlands over Tyrion's kidnapping would have been a better example.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Robb could simply allow the Riverlands to be ravaged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did I say that? I don't think it's on my list.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Catelyn had no peace plan, which is why her argument fell flat. Any attempted settlement would founder over Ned’s execution and Arya’s disappearance.

 

 

 

 

She had a good argument in favor of peace. A peace plan is not something that can be crafted overnight.

Arya's disappearance was not known, the lords made their decision without that.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Dany could just decide to leave the women and children of her khalasar to their fate, and ride off to a life of luxury as a slave owner in the free cities.  

 

 

 

 

She doesn't need dragons to help out the people around her.

If you read her POV, her primary motivation was becoming queen, not the remainder of the khalasar that surrounded her.

It wasn't an evil action, but she undoubtedly chose a (possible) future war (or her death if she fails) over a reasonable chance at peace.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

She could likewise decide that slavery is no big deal, at Astapor and move on.

 

 

 

 

Again, it isn't on my list.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

 Jon could leave his sister to be raped and flayed by Ramsay, and accept the rule of the Boltons.

 

 

 

 

That's what he would have done if it wasn't his sister married to Ramsay (about whose nature he didn't actually know much before the Pink Letter!) and it wasn't his family that was displaced. 

I think there were quite a few members of the Night's Watch who faced a similar situation in the past.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Those are all choices, but not *good* ones. At least, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

Dany's choice in Astapor is arguably a good one, and so is Jon's decision to advise Stannis and Robb helping out the Riverlands. I don't think the same can be said about the rest of them (if we view the smallfolk almost as important as the nobles).

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Wall is (probably) going to fall. The Others are still coming and raising the dead against the living.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe the Wall is going to fall because the Others are so crafty and overwhelm it with wights (if they were able to, they could have accomplished it after the Battle of the Fist of the First Men), but as a result of human actions and warring in the South.

I don't think (but admittedly I don't have conclusive evidence) that the Long Night is inevitable.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Bran’s appointment, in the show, by sixteen magnates who viewed the smallfolk as livestock is not what I would see as progress. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main progress is that they decide who should be King during a Great Council instead of the warring which has decimated the smallfolk:

“Let the three of you call for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years. We will send to Winterfell, so Bran may tell his tale and all men may know the Lannisters for the true usurpers. Let the assembled lords of the Seven Kingdoms choose who shall rule them.” (Catelyn IV, ACOK)

 

I imagine will be other examples of progress in the books, such as an attempt to 'dish out' justice fairly for the crimes committed during the wars and this justice will probably be restorative in nature. I think Bran's decision to make Tyrion Hand and send Jon North was a (poorly written) example of that by the showrunners.

 

The fact that GRRM decided to introduce Young Griff and is planning a Second Dance of Dragons should be a forewarning that he is not planning to write a story of great social progress in Westeros though. Dany would be the perfect person to spearhead such a movement but she won't do it in Westeros, because she doesn't have a large base of support there.

Edited April 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[divica]

2 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

That's exactly what Doran Martell has done after Elia and her children were brutally murdered. Was it a bad decision? I don't think so - it was a difficult choice but the right one. 

you are judging this decision using wrong parameters.

If dorne had the force to make tywin pay for what he did obviously doran's decision would be wrong. The idea that no matter what tyrants do the important thing is to have peace is dumb and it is how monsters get the power to do what they want. 

war is bad and hurts a lot of people, but it is a price to pay in order to achieve your objectives. If your cause is worthy enough then you should go to war no matter the price.

7 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

That's what he would have done if it wasn't his sister married to Ramsay (about whose nature he didn't actually know much before the Pink Letter!) and it wasn't his family that was displaced. 

I think there were quite a few members of the Night's Watch who faced a similar situation in the past.

Alys was facing a simillar situation and jon found ways that his vows let him help her. Simply because it was the right thing to do...

10 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

The fact that GRRM decided to introduce Young Griff and is planning a Second Dance of Dragons should be a forewarning that he is not planning to write an story of great social progress in Westeros though. Dany would be the perfect person to spearhead such a movement but she won't do it in Westeros, because she doesn't have a large base of support there.

Book danny isn't show danny. In the books she doesn't want to break the wheel, reinvent the wheel or even think about wheels. This isn't a story about socialism or democracy or women's rights. Danny likes to be a targ, to be the rightful queen and expects obedience from her lords wether they like or not. She does not want to go to westeros and hold a grand council where a bunch of nobles will decide if they should follow her or some usurper.

And we just have to look at the IB kingsmoot to see how that isn't really the best election sistem there is. 

 

[csuszka1948]

3 hours ago, divica said:

No. The " hold the door" is used to show the dangers and cruelty of bran's powers. There is no moral lesson to take from the event. 

 

 

 

 

Let's agree to disagree then.

3 hours ago, divica said:

And is there a more bittersweet ending than the king being an asshole refusing to help and bran skinchanging into him so that he could give the orders needed to defeat the others but deciding not to tell anyone (not even his familly) because what he did was terrible? THIS is the best and most belivable way bran can sit the IT. 

 

 

 

 

It's not bittersweet, it's evil.

What kind of asshole King would Bran skinchange into who doesn't help to fight against the Others? Aegon? Dany? Both of them would be probably willing to help I imagine.

Also, I don't think that's the utilitarian message that the story wants to impart, that would mean that Bran is no different from Bloodraven.

However, what makes it truly evil is STAYING in his body after the Long Night ends.

3 hours ago, divica said:

You literally said what her claim to the vale was... She just has to marry harry or robyn and if her husband dies she is the ruler of the vale. It is simple and fits well with what happened in the show.

The rest is your wishful thinking. And even ruling the vale and turning it to assit the north in the coming war is probably against LF wishes.

 

 

 

 

No, it's not wishful thinking, it's looking at the story of Bran, Arya and Sansa as 3 parallel hero's journeys. 

Sansa staying at the Vale doesn't make for an engaging story and doesn't give an opportunity for her character to evolve. 

Also, if that was Sansa's story, why wasn't it implemented in the show? They could have avoided the backlash that came with the Ramsay-Sansa pairing.

I think it is much more likely that Sansa will be (f?)Aegon's Queen, who brings Cersei down.

3 hours ago, divica said:

The whole north/wall/wildling situation remaining the same as it was in the beguining of the series is one of the most stupid things in the series and obviously doesn't work.

First, if the others aren't fully defeated then what was the point of the story? just to repeat the past? Even in the show the others are completly dead. And the idea that after the long night ANYONE would want to be neighbours with the others makes no sense. Nobody knows when they would attack again...

 

 

 

 

Yes, ASOIAF seems to be cyclical in nature:

"The dragon is time. It has no beginning and no ending, so all things come round again." - The Soiled Knight

"Many roads lead to the same castle." - Jon Snow"

"Archmaester Rigney once wrote that history is a wheel, for the nature of man is fundamentally unchanging. What has happened before will perforce happen again." – Rodrik Harlaw

The fact that something similar happened in the past doesn't make it a bad story, because we weren't told the actual story of the past, only the legends.

3 hours ago, divica said:

fith, the ideia that we spent several books to unite all the people against the dead that after the war we go back to how everything was is ridiculous. And the wildlings follow a king into a crises. Anyone believing that the most wild freefolk that are too wild to accept any kind of rules like the rest of their people would follow jon doesn't make sense. jon has no chance to lead people like the weeper in times of peace. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Jon will manage to unite most of the warrior wildlings - including the Weeper's band - at the first half of TWOW, and they will be willing to follow him after that.

You are making good arguments though, it doesn't make much sense for them to go back beyond the Wall.

Edited April 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

The ending of the show proved that evil won. The difficulty is that Benioff and Weiss seemed to think that evil is good. 

We learned, through Tyrion, that fighting slavery and rape is a terrible thing.  Presumably, the morally correct attitude is to just “spread ‘em and take it” , as witnessed by the priority of the new regime being to create new brothels, staffed by desperate peasants.

The North was ruled by Cersei 2.0.  The South was ruled by a creepy teenager, who manipulated people and events to his advantage.

Of the two idealists among the main characters, one finished up dead, the other a disgraced exile.

Maybe that’s Marin’s intended End.  But, it would be a dismal one.

[Nevets]

Sansa in charge of the Vale?  Sorry, but no.  The Vale holds no meaning for her.  It's a refuge, and not much more.  One part of her story is discovering who she is.  And who she is is a Stark.  Her story is of the North.

I don't see her marrying Aegon either.  She gets to be Queen Consort to a teenager she's never met and knows nothing about in a city with few if any allies and lots of enemies.  What's to like, and where have we seen this before?  By the way,I think the younger more beautiful is Margaery.  The prophecy is self-fulfilling and Cersei is making it happen.

Arya I can see sailing away but not by herself.  She's someone who needs to be in charge.  I think if she goes sailing it will be in the footsteps of her wolf's namesake, Nymeria.  She will lead an exodus of Northerners to a new home, either undiscovered or in Essos.  Or maybe she'll marry a king, rule his castle, and have sons that are princes and lords.  Dad got it right after all.

 

[divica]

25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The ending of the show proved that evil won. The difficulty is that Benioff and Weiss seemed to think that evil is good. 

We learned, through Tyrion, that fighting slavery and rape is a terrible thing.  Presumably, the morally correct attitude is to just “spread ‘em and take it” , as witnessed by the priority of the new regime being to create new brothels, staffed by desperate peasants.

The North was ruled by Cersei 2.0.  The South was ruled by a creepy teenager, who manipulated people and events to his advantage.

Of the two idealists among the main characters, one finished up dead, the other a disgraced exile.

Maybe that’s Marin’s intended End.  But, it would be a dismal one.

I want to agree with you, but I don't think the Ds understood the mensage they were sending with their ending. I think they actually thought that it was a happy ending with a stark on the IT, sansa as queen after having sufered so much, arya the sailor (never going to understand why they didn't say she was going to explore essos) and jon with his friends (whoever they may be besides tormund)...

Even if you ignore the story (and you should never do that) we are talking about people that ended GoT without having good battle scenes in the last season. Like, why didn't someone kill vyserion doing something insane? why didn't we have some awesome fight between several characters and several ww? why didn't we have several characters gang up on the mountain to kill him in a travesty of the toj scene ith arthur? why, plese wHY DID A DEAD GIANT GRAB LYANNA AND BROUGHT HER TO 30CM FROM HIS EYE? why did the dothriaki ride to their doom in the first 30 secs of the battle? And I could go on.

Both the story and the execution were too bad to try to understand grrm intentions based on the last season. And we just have to compare it with the battle of the bastards that had a ridiculous story that made no sense but as it had several cool scenes people liked it. For some reason they couldn't even mantain this standar in season 8.

[csuszka1948]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The ending of the show proved that evil won. The difficulty is that Benioff and Weiss seemed to think that evil is good. 

We learned, through Tyrion, that fighting slavery and rape is a terrible thing.  Presumably, the morally correct attitude is to just “spread ‘em and take it” , as witnessed by the priority of the new regime being to create new brothels, staffed by desperate peasants.

The North was ruled by Cersei 2.0.  The South was ruled by a creepy teenager, who manipulated people and events to his advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that you are taking it too literally.

Bran ending up as King and Sansa as Lady of Winterfell doesn't mean that they will be the same characters as portrayed in the show.  

1) The problem with Sansa is that D&D cannot write feminine female characters well (although Margaery was a decent attempt) and wanted to 'counterbalance' for the backlash with the Ramsay marriage. For example, if (book)Sansa hated Dany's guts she wouldn't be so stupid to display it openly but instead mask it in courtesies and plot against her behind her back.  

2) The part about Bran 'manipulating people and events to his advantage' is mostly made up. The fact that he presumably sees some bits and pieces from the future doesn't mean he foresaw that Dany will end up burning down KL. 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Of the two idealists among the main characters, one finished up dead, the other a disgraced exile.

Maybe that’s Marin’s intended End.  But, it would be a dismal one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you expect Jon or Dany to end up on the Throne and make some large-scale reforms? Because I always thought it was too straightforward to be GRRM's intended ending and that seven independent kingdoms or a Great Council are in the cards. Obviously I didn't expect Bran to end up King though, it was a huge shock and I strongly disliked it first.

  

The most important thing is that the journey is more important than the destination, that's one of the reasons why GRRM takes so long time finishing the series.

Or do you consider an ending where Jon or Dany don't end up as rulers of the Seven Kingdoms to be a dismal one regardless of not knowing the journey leading there?

Edited April 22, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

The problem is that you are taking it too literally.

Bran ending up as King and Sansa as Lady of Winterfell doesn't mean that they will be the same characters as portrayed in the show.  

For example, if (book)Sansa hated Dany's guts she wouldn't be so stupid to display it openly but instead mask it in courtesies and plot against her behind her back.  

Did you expect Jon or Dany to end up on the Throne and make some large-scale reforms? Because I don't think this was every GRRM's intended ending and you will be disappointed.

I would hope they get would better endings than the show gave them.  Defeat is no refutation.

i don’t actually want Dany on the Iron Throne, because I think she’d hate it.

But, yes, I may be disappointed.  Martin’s take on history may be that people who try to do good are stupid saps, who deserve to fail, and the liars and manipulators are the guys who understand how the game is played, and who deserve to win.

WRT Bran, I take such comments as “why do you think I’ve come all this way, and “you were exactly where you needed to be”, as evidence that he knew what pieces he was playing.  He could tell them the Wall had fallen, but he had no intention of warning Dany of the ambush.  He encouraged the parentage reveal.  And, he did have the vision of the dragon over the city. I saw him as malevolent by the end, or at any rate, someone who is completely indifferent to human suffering, so long as it achieves what he views as “the greater good.”

Bran’s prescience would be a major driver towards totalitarianism.

Granted, Bran was so poorly written as a character that his motives are opaque.

Edited April 22, 2023 by SeanF