Jump to content
Free Northman Reborn

Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well sure, it's definitely a possible scenario.  I think Sansa will be in a position to refuse it and frankly I anticipate Tyrion will be happy to annul it.  And as I've stated, I think it's hilarious you guys are like "Bran? Man that's crazy!"  While in the same breath are willing to entertain Robin as someone that could hold any influence.

Robin will be completely in Sansa’s pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Robin will be completely in Sansa’s pocket.

I think this is likely to happen for sometime - either him or Harry - but by the endgame.  Nah, I expect Sansa to be single by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I just strongly disagree with this premise that it "does not matter who is monarch on the last page."  It matters to me :dunno:

Seems our qualms are as simple as that.

Fair enough, no point beating a dead horse over that difference of opinion.

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

So, you mean the guy who persistently brings up Aragorn's tax policy as a criticism of Tolkien?  You don't think he's going to take an avid interest in depicting how the government will function upon the conclusion of his life's work?

I actually do, that is why making Bran seems an illogical choice for the world GRRM has built.

Its long been established that the average Westerosi Lord is closer to the Robert/Randyll viewpoint on what is needed for a leader than the Sam/Tyrion viewpoint. The idea that a (not so) Great Council would nominate him kind of goes against much of what he's written.

Simply making an impotent cripple King because he's magic makes a mockery of GRRM's thoughts on Aragon's tax policies. That is all Bran has got going for him, his connection to magic.

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

I suppose, yes, Edric could come back in ADOS and all of a sudden become Henry VII.  I won't completely rule that out.  But you seem to not realize how damaged Robin is.

He's being drugged by Littlefinger and badly brought up. Should Littleinfinger be removed in the next book and Royce become guardian he'll grow up fine, not Jaime Lannister fine but a more likely choice than Bran.

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Says who?  The Last Hero vs. the guy Arya hung out for awhile with and now is just another minion of Stoneheart?

How many people in the South are going to believe that he's the last hero? How many people in the North?

I watched the show, I'm not even sure how he was thought of the last hero there either. His siblings believed him, did anyone else?

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

How many of those worked well, for any parties involved?  None, I'd say, although I guess the Westerlings and Tyrells are alright at the moment. 

Not sure your point here. In GRRM's world few care about happy marriages, they are all political and its the basis that the politics of the land is built on. It seems a stretch that the nobles of the land are going to abandon this in the final book.

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

So you think Tyrion and Sansa will actually end up together?

No, but I'd say its more likely than Bran ending up as king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Its long been established that the average Westerosi Lord is closer to the Robert/Randyll viewpoint on what is needed for a leader than the Sam/Tyrion viewpoint. The idea that a (not so) Great Council would nominate him kind of goes against much of what he's written.

Well, I suppose you deserve my thought process at this point.  My thinking is Bran will prove himself integral in the defeat of the Others.  Therefore gaining considerable respect and/or acknowledgement of his gifts.  I think this is why the remaining Lords will elect him - perhaps even in part because they're scared of him.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is all Bran has got going for him, his connection to magic.

His connection to magic is also a connection to knowledge.  Maybe even tax policies.

19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Should Littleinfinger be removed in the next book and Royce become guardian he'll grow up fine, not Jaime Lannister fine but a more likely choice than Bran.

Yeah I think this is just silly, to each his own.

21 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

His siblings believed him, did anyone else?

Um, I'm not saying the show has much relevance here - or any in terms of how they depicted that scene - but since you brought it up:  yes.  Why do you think Tyrion nominates him as King?  Then he got a unanimous vote.  Hard not to assume most figured he had some type of special powers.

23 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Not sure your point here. In GRRM's world few care about happy marriages, they are all political and its the basis that the politics of the land is built on. It seems a stretch that the nobles of the land are going to abandon this in the final book.

The point is those political marriages have been abject, often devastating, political failures for most of the houses involved.  I think that's pretty damn clear.  And, therefore, it's not a stretch for such families to be like, hey, maybe we should try something else.

25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, but I'd say its more likely than Bran ending up as king.

Sorry, that wasn't addressing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some further reflections from me.

One key element to keep in mind when assessing how show ending and book ending differ is the obvious lacunae in the show regarding the two magical northern stories. It seems pretty clear Bran is going to learn to be a very powerful greenseer and play a major, perhaps the major role, in rolling back the Others. Jon is also on the path to some sort of magical transformation; he’s got the super-warg storyline going on and a potential fire-based resurrection. The show either cut or drastically truncated these stories. All we got for Bran was ‘hold-the-door’ him being a kind of emotionless robot and then a kind of bait for the Night King (a purely show invention). Jon got nothing, the resurrection on the show was utterly pointless as it was divorced from the magical aftermath.

The show probably did this because Benioff and Weiss like the magic less than the politics, didn’t really know how to translate the magical plotline onto the tv and didn’t actually know what the magical plotline was for the most part, as GrrM was still writing it. This fact is going to have massive consequences for the ending.

One consequence is that the books can make it much more plausible Bran will be a viable choice as king. If he returns to the north as a greenseer, with knowledge of how to withstand the Others, then he’ll not just be Ned Stark’s son to the northerners, he’ll be a quasi-divine figure, a kind of shaman sacred to the northmen, priest and king. The Starks will literally have a divine right to rule because it seems clear than the greenseeing abilities are connected to the Stark bloodline. This just reinforces how ridiculous the show's ending is, Sansa actually objects to the north kneeling to king Bran when he’s Ned’s son and a semi-divine figure to the northmen. It is beyond stupid and will not happen.

The real question is whether Bran’s kingship will be accepted by the south as well as the north. It is possible that the southern nobles come to realise the power of the old gods in withstanding the Others, and this, coupled with Bran’s likely allies in the Vale and the Riverlands could be enough to see him proclaimed king. However, this is much more uncertain than him becoming king in the north, I think.

A second consequence of the omission of the magical plotlines is that the defeat, or repulse of the Others is going to look very different, and I suspect will involve Jon in a different way than the show did. In the show Jon builds an alliance to fight the Others by kneeling to Dany, which sort of does some good in the battle at Winterfell but in the books I think his role might be on the more magical side of things with the politics possibly left to Sansa.

A final point, I’m not keen on this idea that electing kings or ending dynastic marriage is a good or logical way to progress and then end the political storyline. Planetos has plenty of elected officials, both in westeros itself (the NW and Citadel) as well as in the Free Cities and in Volantis. I don’t think the message will be westeros needs to be more like Volantis to stop it having wars – I think George knows about the Roman Republic. He seems to be going in the other direction, the king at the end will have a real divine right to rule through his connection with the weirwoods and the old gods. The message could be kingship is only any good if it actually fulfils its pretensions and the king is a semi-divine figure - this can't be true in the real world but it can in Planetos as magic and kingship can go together (sort of an Aristotelian point, kingship would work if kings were gods).

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

A final point, I’m not keen on this idea that electing kings or ending dynastic marriage is a good or logical way to progress and then end the political storyline. Planetos has plenty of elected officials, both in westeros itself (the NW and Citadel) as well as in the Free Cities and in Volantis. I don’t think the message will be westeros needs to be more like Volantis to stop it having wars – I think George knows about the Roman Republic. He seems to be going in the other direction, the king at the end will have a real divine right to rule through his connection with the weirwoods and the old goods. The message could be kingship is only any good if it actually fulfils its pretensions and the king is a semi-divine figure - this can't be true in the real world but it can in Planetos as magic and kingship can go together (sort of an Aristotelian point, kingship would work if kings were gods).

Allow me to clarify my perspective on that.  I definitely do not think dynastic marriage will be "ended" in any broad way.  I'm saying a council of lords - who observe agnatic primogeniture - will choose Bran because it's in their interest.  And it's in their interest to establish that council as a reconvening body.  I don't think that's, like, an insane amount of progress from the status quo.  And it has historical precedent, both within and without Martin's world.  It's not like Volantis, or even the Roman Republic.  Further, I fully hope Martin steers clear of a divine right on kingship.  An anointing, whatever, but not the way you're describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I suppose you deserve my thought process at this point.  My thinking is Bran will prove himself integral in the defeat of the Others.  Therefore gaining considerable respect and/or acknowledgement of his gifts.  I think this is why the remaining Lords will elect him - perhaps even in part because they're scared of him.

So GRRM's complaints about Aragon's tax policy looks pretty hypocritical as GRRM is just making his version of Gandalf king.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

His connection to magic is also a connection to knowledge.  Maybe even tax policies.

Not that we've seen in either the books or the show. He's happy to have Bronn manage the taxes of the kingdom.

But, again, if it is its another case of none government, the magical tax fairy solves the problems of running the realm. No work,  no government just magic.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I think this is just silly, to each his own.

One can't have children, one is believed to be able to create heirs. Monarchies are preoccupied with heirs. Medieval realms are deeply concerned with Kings having an heir.  It seems very unlikely that GRRM would have his nobility have a collective brainfart and ignore this, especially as his Targaryen history is full of Kings marrying early to secure heirs.

The true War of the Roses was not really resolved while Henry VII was king, it was not until his death and the ascension of Henry VIII, the true union of the Lancasters and Yorks, was the realm at peace.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Um, I'm not saying the show has much relevance here - or any in terms of how they depicted that scene - but since you brought it up:  yes.  Why do you think Tyrion nominates him as King?  Then he got a unanimous vote.  Hard not to assume most figured he had some type of special powers.

I actually have zero idea why Tyrion nominated him. They barely interacted all season, there was little in the show to indicate that Tyrion thought him worthy of ruling the realm.

But Tyrion is a fan of broken things, the misfits of the world everyone else despises. Bran certainly qualifies under that umbrella in the backwards world of the middle ages. Tyrion nominating Bran is one thing, the rest of the realm (which is much larger than in the show) following suit is quite another.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

The point is those political marriages have been abject, often devastating, political failures for most of the houses involved.  I think that's pretty damn clear.  And, therefore, it's not a stretch for such families to be like, hey, maybe we should try something else.

The only reason the Lords have power is because they have not tried something else. What you are suggesting is Turkey's voting fro Christmas. The idea that their families will not keep power and someone can be elected to it is not a change that is going to happen for decades, maybe centuries in Westeros' society.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sorry, that wasn't addressing you.

I know, but I thought I'd share my opinion on it. Tyrion becoming King at the end seems unlikely to me, even with Sansa as a bride but I still see a Tyrion-Sansa Monarchy as a more likely scenario than Bran ending up king based on the 5 books and other accompanying canon material in this series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

So GRRM's complaints about Aragon's tax policy looks pretty hypocritical as GRRM is just making his version of Gandalf king.

I simply don't see it that way.  We have different evaluations of Bran - particularly Bran in the books - I suppose.

22 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But, again, if it is its another case of none government, the magical tax fairy solves the problems of running the realm. No work,  no government just magic.

So magically-derived knowledge is now unearned or something?  As opposed to what the maesters have been meandering about for hundreds of years?

25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Monarchies are preoccupied with heirs. Medieval realms are deeply concerned with Kings having an heir.  It seems very unlikely that GRRM would have his nobility have a collective brainfart and ignore this, especially as his Targaryen history is full of Kings marrying early to secure heirs.

Uh, he would if the most available Targaryen heir is a choice between Edric Storm and Arianne Martell.  Or, hell, maybe Brienne in the middle there.

27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

it was not until his death and the ascension of Henry VIII, the true union of the Lancasters and Yorks, was the realm at peace.

Yeah that worked out great.  We can argue about when exactly the War of the Roses started and ended all day.  I don't think it matters much.

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

They barely interacted all season, there was little in the show to indicate that Tyrion thought him worthy of ruling the realm.

They started what was presumably a long conversation in the second episode when everyone was getting drunk before the battle.  It's not outlandish to think Tyrion developed a respect for him after that conversation.

31 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

What you are suggesting is Turkey's voting fro Christmas.

Um..

31 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The idea that their families will not keep power and someone can be elected to it is not a change that is going to happen for decades, maybe centuries in Westeros' society.

First, their families would retain their power, no idea what you're saying there.  Maybe you just don't get it.  Second, says you.  That is - resolutely - like, your opinion man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Some further reflections from me.

One key element to keep in mind when assessing how show ending and book ending differ is the obvious lacunae in the show regarding the two magical northern stories. It seems pretty clear Bran is going to learn to be a very powerful greenseer and play a major, perhaps the major role, in rolling back the Others. Jon is also on the path to some sort of magical transformation; he’s got the super-warg storyline going on and a potential fire-based resurrection. The show either cut or drastically truncated these stories. All we got for Bran was ‘hold-the-door’ him being a kind of emotionless robot and then a kind of bait for the Night King (a purely show invention). Jon got nothing, the resurrection on the show was utterly pointless as it was divorced from the magical aftermath.

The show probably did this because Benioff and Weiss like the magic less than the politics, didn’t really know how to translate the magical plotline onto the tv and didn’t actually know what the magical plotline was for the most part, as GrrM was still writing it. This fact is going to have massive consequences for the ending.

One consequence is that the books can make it much more plausible Bran will be a viable choice as king. If he returns to the north as a greenseer, with knowledge of how to withstand the Others, then he’ll not just be Ned Stark’s son to the northerners, he’ll be a quasi-divine figure, a kind of shaman sacred to the northmen, priest and king. The Starks will literally have a divine right to rule because it seems clear than the greenseeing abilities are connected to the Stark bloodline. This just reinforces how ridiculous the show's ending is, Sansa actually objects to the north kneeling to king Bran when he’s Ned’s son and a semi-divine figure to the northmen. It is beyond stupid and will not happen.

The real question is whether Bran’s kingship will be accepted by the south as well as the north. It is possible that the southern nobles come to realise the power of the old gods in withstanding the Others, and this, coupled with Bran’s likely allies in the Vale and the Riverlands could be enough to see him proclaimed king. However, this is much more uncertain than him becoming king in the north, I think.

A second consequence of the omission of the magical plotlines is that the defeat, or repulse of the Others is going to look very different, and I suspect will involve Jon in a different way than the show did. In the show Jon builds an alliance to fight the Others by kneeling to Dany, which sort of does some good in the battle at Winterfell but in the books I think his role might be on the more magical side of things with the politics possibly left to Sansa.

A final point, I’m not keen on this idea that electing kings or ending dynastic marriage is a good or logical way to progress and then end the political storyline. Planetos has plenty of elected officials, both in westeros itself (the NW and Citadel) as well as in the Free Cities and in Volantis. I don’t think the message will be westeros needs to be more like Volantis to stop it having wars – I think George knows about the Roman Republic. He seems to be going in the other direction, the king at the end will have a real divine right to rule through his connection with the weirwoods and the old goods. The message could be kingship is only any good if it actually fulfils its pretensions and the king is a semi-divine figure - this can't be true in the real world but it can in Planetos as magic and kingship can go together (sort of an Aristotelian point, kingship would work if kings were gods).

There's a great deal here that I agree with, especially the bold.

They certainly mishandled Bran's storyline very badly that we have to go through mental gymnastics to get to this end point.  I'm not convinced this is his end-point.  I do believe, however, GRRM can get him there in a logical manner, if that's his plan.  I've thought he'd stay in that cave and the show hasn't shown me anything to change my mind on that. Given we already know that Book!Bran has gained power even Bloodraven hasn't, I think it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he'll be able to exercise influence from his "weirwood throne".

I believe there will be real adverse consequences to Jon's resurrection/re-awakening after his time in Ghost. We can't ignore what we've seen with Beric and Lady Stoneheart or Varamyr's revelations.  They have to bite in some way.  In addition, I've long thought that Jon would end his story in the North (the heart of Winter, to be precise) and lose his life to the fight with the Others - the hidden prince who remains hidden. That's my pet theory, but I'm not wedded to it.  If he doesn't, I have no doubt I'll be satisfied with whatever GRRM concocts.  My watch wait continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 12:25 PM, Maia said:

Yea, book Jon was already breaking his vows and leaving the Wall when he was killed, so the "death" loophole in the oaths is completely unnecessary. It is also quite ludicrous to think that people would believe in it and accept it without question, like they did in the show, where even Cersei somehow totally bought that Jon was still super-honorable, rather than a power-hungry oathbreaker. He could have just left the Wall at the end of ADwD and been saved from the charges of desertion by Robb's will turning up, if that's where GRRM was going.

But is it? Given how quickly the whole KiTN thing was dispensed with in the show and Jon's ending, I kinda doubt it.

IMHO, Jon getting assassinated was in part to _stop_ him from going down that road.

I'm not sure if Jon's ending will be the same in the books, as in him rejoining the Watch or living north of the Wall with the wildlings. That seems a little disconnected and trite to me. He goes through this gigantic arc only to end up more or less back where he began? What about the LotR ending George said he was aiming for? Some characters did "go back home". but neither Frodo nor Aragorn ended up where they began. The events of the books changed them to much.

Now, when it comes to his assassination, I don't think that's actually about Jon... Well, it is to some extent, but that's not the main reason why George made it happen. I think it's more about how Jon's absence will affect the rest of the story in the North, especially Stannis's.

Unlike D&D, George doesn't make his character stupid just for the sake of advancing the plot. Stannis is stubborn and flawed, but he's not stupid. If Jon was around when the Others invaded, he would listen to his advice, just like he did in the Bolton campaign. I can see Stannis failing to take advance from Davos in the future, and that would be one of those big tragic mistakes for the character, but Davos would only be in a position to give ethical advice. Jon knows a lot about the North, the wildlings, the wights and the Others, he is in a position to give informed tactical and political advice. If the end of Stannis's arc is that he burns Shireen and leads a doomed attack against the Others after half his men abandon him, I can't imagine that happening with Jon at his side. And simply saying "Jon was caught up somewhere else" would be a cop out if we assume the clash with the Others is imminent.

Another important part of this is that Jon, not Stannis, was the glue holding all the factions at the Wall together. The wildlings wouldn't turn on the Watch while Jon was in charge. The northern lords presumably wouldn't turn on Stannis if Jon was at his side. Especially if they know about Robb's will. Taking Jon out of the picture is an opportunity for these conflicts to play out. I will be very surprised if they don't.

Of course, this also serves Jon indirectly, because you want to think of him as the character who would have known what to do. Had he been around and incapable of doing anything while all the shit the fan, then you would ask yourself "Who is this guy to pick all the pieces at the end? He's just as responsible as everyone else".

So I don't think it will matter all that much if he's dead or in a coma or if people will make a big deal of his resurrection or not. The real plot point is that he won't be around for a while, and the way in which this will affect his character is that he won't be directly involved in whatever goes down (while still being able to internalize some of the blame, since the assassination itself was a result of his own political and leadership mistakes).

Personally, I still suspect he will die and be resurrected, first of all for the "cool factor" and the impact it will have on some of the people who choose to follow Jon afterwards, and second of all because it would allow George to tighten up the narrative a little bit. Think about it, Cat stopped getting PoV chapters after she became LSH, so George can stop giving us Jon chapters for most if not all of TWoW, to keep us in suspense on whether or not it's still our Jon in there. Then all the other PoV characters in the North, like Davos, Asha, Mel and Theon, instead of being superfluous after Stannis dies, can serve as a window into whatever Jon is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 I suspect Bran becomes King in the North. You cannot just discount the religious aspect here. He   is not of the Faith. He is a greenseer of the Old Gods.

Not if fight against the Others leads to the massive resurgence of the Old Gods religion. Also, more Great  Houses need to fall - there has to be sweeping change of political landscape at the end of the series, otherwise it would have all been quite pointless and a waste of  time. If Arryns, Tullys and Baratheons - who are all teering on the edge of extinction, are gone, the Lannisters are seriously disgraced, and the Starks are seen as the heroes with a divine connection, then it could work. 

Bran being the king of Westeros is part of the original outline of ASoIaF and, I guess, something that GRRM is really keen on, because the show-runners clearly weren't interested in the character and allegedly wanted to write him out completely. Yes, it doesn't make much sense from where the things stand at the end of ADwD. No wonder that Martin has been struggling with TWoW for so long.

Quote

(Now, I wonder if an alternative is him ending on the Isle of Faces. But that’s a long shot.)

I thought that all the complaints about how haphazard and anti-sanitary KL was when compared to other great cities might have been hinting that maybe they are going to build a new capital after it is destroyed. And location on the God's Eye would be more central and provide that Old Gods connection.

Martin does need to provide good justifications for the kingdoms staying together, though. Devastation after the Others, the greyscale epidemic and the civil wars could do it, but then Northern secession could not be presented as a good thing, so I dunno, maybe it doesn't actually come to pass.

Concerning Jon - maybe he never leaves the NW in the books, given that it mainly happened to spike Dany's ascent to the throne in the show and FAegon is going to it much better in the books?

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicolaj and Gwendoline talking about, who will be King at the end, back then when promoting Season 7.

Gwendoline bets it is Bran. Nicolajs reaction to that is just hillarious :D

Nicolaj: The three eyed raven???? That doesn't make any sense! :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:02 PM, DraculaAD1972 said:

On the true side I would imagine much has been revealed. Shireen will burn. Dany torches the city. Jon kills Dany. Bran becomes King. Drogon melts down the IT. Stannis doesn't win in the end. Littlefinger does not win in the end. Jaime and Cersei die in each other arms. Tyrion is Bran's Hand. The Others are defeated at Winterfell.

 

 

Pretty much this. Except it will be well written and actually make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This just reinforces how ridiculous the show's ending is, Sansa actually objects to the north kneeling to king Bran when he’s Ned’s son and a semi-divine figure to the northmen. It is beyond stupid and will not happen.

But he's not Bran Stark anymore. That's something they've stressed over and over again. And what sigil was Brienne wearing on her Kingsguard armor? Raven or Direwolf? Bran in the show is not a Stark anymore.

Bran becoming King in the books I can't see happen anyway. First he'd have to leave the cave and then a time jump needs to happen which ages him up. Unless the Others actually manage to wipe out most of Westeros and Bran uses his powers in some crucial way that will become known to the survivors and they choose him as a sort of divine entity for that reason. So KitN maybe (with a regent due to his young age) but I see no scenario where he becomes King of the 7 Kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Mystical said:

But he's not Bran Stark anymore. That's something they've stressed over and over again. And what sigil was Brienne wearing on her Kingsguard armor? Raven or Direwolf? Bran in the show is not a Stark anymore.

Bran becoming King in the books I can't see happen anyway. First he'd have to leave the cave and then a time jump needs to happen which ages him up. Unless the Others actually manage to wipe out most of Westeros and Bran uses his powers in some crucial way that will become known to the survivors and they choose him as a sort of divine entity for that reason. So KitN maybe (with a regent due to his young age) but I see no scenario where he becomes King of the 7 Kingdoms.

Of course you cant see it. 2/7 of the story is not done yet. Do you know how much plot hapened in the first two books? FEAST and DANCE are bad examples, because literally nothing happend plotwise. But the earlier books had a lot to tell.

Edited by T and A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mystical said:

But he's not Bran Stark anymore. That's something they've stressed over and over again. And what sigil was Brienne wearing on her Kingsguard armor? Raven or Direwolf? Bran in the show is not a Stark anymore.

Bran becoming King in the books I can't see happen anyway. First he'd have to leave the cave and then a time jump needs to happen which ages him up. Unless the Others actually manage to wipe out most of Westeros and Bran uses his powers in some crucial way that will become known to the survivors and they choose him as a sort of divine entity for that reason. So KitN maybe (with a regent due to his young age) but I see no scenario where he becomes King of the 7 Kingdoms.

The show has hated and minimized Bran's story since he left Winterfell.  So, my guess is that the ONLY reason the show made him King is because this happens in the books, it was completely out of left field and makes no sense, and there easy and obvious thing for the show to do is have a great council rule without a king, but they had Bran be King so I believe absolutely this happens in the book story.  And I'd further say, it's another sign of why GRRM will never finish the series because I can't see him being able to set up Bran as King in less than 3 books, especially if the war against the dead isn't until Dream of Spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The show has hated and minimized Bran's story since he left Winterfell.  So, my guess is that the ONLY reason the show made him King is because this happens in the books, it was completely out of left field and makes no sense, and there easy and obvious thing for the show to do is have a great council rule without a king, but they had Bran be King so I believe absolutely this happens in the book story.  And I'd further say, it's another sign of why GRRM will never finish the series because I can't see him being able to set up Bran as King in less than 3 books, especially if the war against the dead isn't until Dream of Spring.

I could see this being GRRM's endgame for Bran because he is fond of those all-knowing, hive-minded entities (they are all over his stories) but I can't see how GRRM would get him there without taking major short cuts (aka time jumps). And even then, the populace of Westeros would need a major shift in their thinking in order to accept him. Society doesn't change over night and neither does political thinking or political system or religion. He's literally a boy, crippled, possibly can't father children, his power comes from Gods everyone south of the North would see as evil...he literally has everything stacked against him becoming King of Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mystical said:

I could see this being GRRM's endgame for Bran because he is fond of those all-knowing, hive-minded entities (they are all over his stories) but I can't see how GRRM would get him there without taking major short cuts (aka time jumps). And even then, the populace of Westeros would need a major shift in their thinking in order to accept him. Society doesn't change over night and neither does political thinking or political system or religion. He's literally a boy, crippled, possibly can't father children, his power comes from Gods everyone south of the North would see as evil...he literally has everything stacked against him becoming King of Westeros.

I think it would mean that for certain the battle against the Others takes place in the Riverlands and maybe extends further south, so that the main population centers would be 100% clear that there was an actual undead zombie magical force that was defeated with much help from Bran [unlike the show where doing it at WF means no one outside the Vale and the North will even believe it happened, LOL], that would be the first thing.  Second, there would still have to be a lot of destruction of the major houses to weaken things to the point that they would accept a Northerner to rule the 7 Kingdoms, let's say a young teen? He'd have to be at least 15 to be taken seriously, I'd think, so more evidence of the need for 3 books.  I can't remember how old he is in the books at the end of Dance, is he 10ish?  So, yeah George will need time to pass unless Bran is 'ruling' from the Weirwood tree in Winterfell or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I can't remember how old he is in the books at the end of Dance, is he 10ish?  So, yeah George will need time to pass unless Bran is 'ruling' from the Weirwood tree in Winterfell or something like that.

I'm not a timeline fanatic but yeah I believe he's about 10 by the end of dance.  I think that makes it entirely plausible he's around 14-15 by the end of ADOS.  Even if he's 12-13, I don't see that being much of a substantive difference if he proves himself essential to saving existence from the Others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I think it would mean that for certain the battle against the Others takes place in the Riverlands and maybe extends further south, so that the main population centers would be 100% clear that there was an actual undead zombie magical force that was defeated with much help from Bran [unlike the show where doing it at WF means no one outside the Vale and the North will even believe it happened, LOL], that would be the first thing.  Second, there would still have to be a lot of destruction of the major houses to weaken things to the point that they would accept a Northerner to rule the 7 Kingdoms, let's say a young teen? He'd have to be at least 15 to be taken seriously, I'd think, so more evidence of the need for 3 books.  I can't remember how old he is in the books at the end of Dance, is he 10ish?  So, yeah George will need time to pass unless Bran is 'ruling' from the Weirwood tree in Winterfell or something like that.

But one problem I see is that bran's powers are creepy. Nobody would be comfortable with bran being able to see into their past or warg into animals and spy them...

Then, even if we ignore the fact he may not be able to have children he doesn t have a claim. Which means that there is no reason for the other kingdoms to acept him instead of becoming independent. He would need to have something to buy their loyalty...

Then the entire porpuse of the last 2 books was for us to see how some characters rule and give them experience. Are we suposed to acept that bran is the final king without ruling anything before? What does bran know of politics? Of presiding court? Of managing a realm? taxes? He is a kid that got his education interrupted and then went to learn magic… It is a very cheap blow to have him a king out of the blue...

The only way that it makes sense to have bran as king in the end is if he becomes KitN in winds and he is the one that decides how to gather everybody against the others. However at this point this seems very unlikely. 

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

×