Jump to content
Free Northman Reborn

Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2019 at 5:17 AM, Bernie Mac said:

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.

It was that truncated scene with Tyrion and Bran in E2. You know, that one with the Vulcan mind meld which Tyrion came out of saying that he thought they’d win when before he’d been so dour.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 10:11 AM, Cas Stark said:

A 12 year old elected king would be pretty crazy, especially after the disastrous run of the 13 year old Joff and the 8 year old Tommen, I'd think Westeros would demand someone who is at least a teenager and would be seen as a man, so he'd have to 14, which I think? was the age Robb was when he takes over.  Otherwise, it becomes a really silly ending.

If a twelve year old needs to save the world, then so be it.

 "Once there was a curious lad who lived in the Neck. He was small like all crannogmen, but b rave and smart and strong as well. He grew up hunting and fishing and climbing trees, and learned all the magics of my people."

Bran was almost certain he had never heard this story. "Did he have green dreams like Jojen?"

"No," said Meera, "but he could breathe mud and run on leaves, and change earth to water and water to earth with no more than a whispered word. He could talk to trees and weave words and make castles appear and disappear."

"I wish I could," Bran said plaintively. "When does he meet the tree knight?"

Meera made a face at him. "Sooner if a certain prince would be quiet."

"I was just asking."

"The lad knew the magics of the crannogs," she continued, "but he wanted more. Our people seldom travel far from home you know. We're a small folk, and our ways seem queer to some, so the big people do not always treat us kingly. But this lad was bolder than most, and one day when he had grown to manhood he decided he would leave the crannogs and visit the Isle of Faces."

"No one visits the Isle of Faces." objected Bran. "That's where the green men live."

"It was the green men he meant to find. So he donned a shirt sewn with bronze scales, like mine, took up a leathern shield and a three-pronged spear, like mine, and paddled a little skin boat down the Green Fork."

Bran closed his eyes to try and see the man in his little skin boat. In his head, the crannogman looked like Jojen, only older and stronger, and dressed like Meera.

"He passed beneath the Twins by night so the Freys would not attack him, and when he reached the Trident he climbed from the river and put his boat on his head and began to walk. It took him many a day, but finally he reached the Gods Eye, threw his boat in the lake, and paddled out to the Isle of Faces."

"Did he meet the green men?"

"Yes," said Meera, "But that's another story, and not for me to tell. My prince asked for knights."

"Green men are good too."

"They are," she agreed, but said no more about them.

Little Lord Bran, “rex quondam rexque futurus”, never did get to hear the tale of magics from the Lady of Greywater Watch that day, only the tale of knights that we’ve all come to know inside and out.

I’m convinced that understanding the missing tale is as critical to the story’s end as understanding the one he did hear has proven to be.

Share this post


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

Which midle age history are you talking about? Because I know of no monarchy where the kings didn t have heirs to take their place. If you are talking about monarchies where the king doesn t have absolute powers they did exist. However you are ignoring the major problems with the sistem the show established.

The Papal States of the Middle Ages were an absolute monarchy without heirs to take the monarch’s place when he died. The College of Cardinals simply elected a new Pope.

And, oddly enough, all of that is still true.

Share this post


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

But no, I don't know of any historical precedent of a council or legislative body intentionally choosing a monarch that they know will not produce heirs.  That's what the argument is about.

In this as in all things, all roads lead to Rome, for the College of Cardinals have always collectively elected a monarch who they know will never produce any heirs.

That’s kind of the point.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

In this as in all things, all roads lead to Rome, for the College of Cardinals has always elected a monarch whom they know will never produce any heirs.

Heh, well yeah sure.  Kinda trying to keep religion out of the discussion - think there's sufficient controversy already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t believe this story is culminating in a theocracy of the Old Gods ruling the Seven Kingdoms. That is simply too big a leap from everything that went before.

Bran ruling the North, with the North experiencing a revival of Old Gods worship - sure.

The Old Gods replacing the Seven in the South - no chance.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


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

Heh, well yeah sure.  Kinda trying to keep religion out of the discussion - think there's sufficient controversy already.

Oh but maybe you should. Remember that Lord Acton’s famously relevant quote was sent to a bishop, and it concerned the absolute power of monarchs, notably including the elected one I referred to:

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authorityThere is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

The tapestry we call A Song of Ice and Fire shows this to us time and time again. It’s a critical theme. Witness if you would Maegor the First, Aegon the Second, Aerys the Second — even Cersei the Neverth.

As Dany gains power she becomes worse and worse. It is the wanting after power that destroys the person and those around them. All Jon’s offices were thrust upon him, not ones of his own volition. As with the three storied Hobbit Ringbearers, that’s why Jon has not fallen prey to the devastating internal corruption that Dany has. And as he sheds power, he becomes better and better. He would have been truly miserable on the Conqueror's pointy throne.

How all this applies to Bran and Sansa and Tyrion, we will alas have to wait some goodly while to find out.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


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

I don’t believe this story is culminating in a theocracy of the Old Gods ruling the Seven Kingdoms. That is simply too big a leap from everything that went before.

Overtly? No, certainly it will not be such a thing. 

But covertly? Perhaps, and maybe that’s not a bad thing. Remember that what men call the old gods are simply the timeless greenseers. Who better to keep the world in balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Oh but maybe you should. Remember that Lord Acton’s famously relevant quote was sent to a bishop, and it concerned the absolute power of monarchs, notably including the elected one I referred to

The divine right of kings is indeed the very concept that enabled monarchies to sustain themselves for centuries.  I'm a college instructor, and have prepped many classes in my discipline - political science.  First class I ever prepped was American Government 101 (it's called a lot of different things depending where you are).  In the first lecture of that class, naturally I talk about The Founding.  And the basis of that founding philosophically starts with Hobbes and Locke, and the latter rejecting the divine right of the monarch.  That is the birth of modern western democracy. 

I don't think nor anticipate Martin will comment on that in his crescendo, but I also would be quite disappointed if he leaned into the "divine right" concept as it was justification for centuries of subjugation.  I expect the High Sparrow's designs will be thwarted by the time of the endgame, and the faith's influence once again relegated to nominal power at best - which it was at the onset of the story.  I think Martin's exploration there was really nothing more than a kind of dalliance that is a result of him being a gardener rather than an architect.  Generally, Martin's realpolitik depiction is fairly bereft of religious influence - especially compared to how much influence Rome did have on the international relations of Europe during the actual middle ages.  Based on that, I don't expect the gods or god or whatever to be much of a sticking point with him.

Share this post


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

Overtly? No, certainly it will not be such a thing. 

But covertly? Perhaps, and maybe that’s not a bad thing. Remember that what men call the old gods are simply the timeless greenseers. Who better to keep the world in balance?

I disagree that Westeros is heading for a “better” or “improved” social state. This is not a story of an upward trajectory for society. It is just a snapshot of a particular moment in the looong history of Westeros.

Interesting events will happen, and the old political games, conflicts and wars will continue as before. The smallfolk aren’t being emancipated. Democracy Lite isn’t taking root. And an age of rule by omniscient greenseer plugged into Mother Earth isn’t about to Dawn.

Share this post


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

I disagree that Westeros is heading for a “better” or “improved” social state. This is not a story of an upward trajectory for society. It is just a snapshot of a particular moment in the looong history of Westeros.

Strongly disagree there.  This is undoubtedly a seminal moment in Westerosi history.  If it wasn't why would Martin stage the conflict during such an era?  It makes more sense that things will change in the denouement than if things didn't.

Share this post


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

Strongly disagree there.  This is undoubtedly a seminal moment in Westerosi history.  If it wasn't why would Martin stage the conflict during such an era?  It makes more sense that things will change in the denouement than if things didn't.

As seminal as the previous Long Night and Aegon’s Conquest. In fact, I would argue this moment in history combines and resolves both those initiating events, and will effectively end the legacy of both - ending the Others and Aegon’s dynasty.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Last Hero, master of magic, High priest of the Old Gods, immortal greenseer, sure. Agree with all of that.

King of the Seven Kingdoms, nope.

Correct.  They're different skill sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 12:32 PM, Orphalesion said:

So anybody else assuming that in the book Faegon, after taking King's Landing will somehow get one of Daenerys' Dragons and the city will be torched when he and Daenerys (and possibly Jon beign somewhere in the mix too) make heir dragons "dance" over KL?

That is what I see happening. "A Dance With Dragons" and all that. Plus, there is thematic importance of "three heads of dragon", and the fact that Daenerys has three dragons, two of which are without riders. Also keep in mind that in the books, dragons - being magical creatures - cannot cross the wall. There is literally no chance of Night King getting one. So three dragon riders may be Daenerys, Jon and Aegon. However, it is also entirely possible that Euron will capture one of dragons with his horn, so dance may be between Euron and whoever gets other two dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Euron will have one. Possibly Moqorro will keep the other. I don't see fAegon with a dragon. Neither Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

The Papal States of the Middle Ages were an absolute monarchy without heirs to take the monarch’s place when he died. The College of Cardinals simply elected a new Pope.

And, oddly enough, all of that is still true.

I am no expert in that period of story. But as I said earlier the pope's power is a very special one. Nobody would act agains the pope because of their religion. It was a taboo to opose him. Then if he needed support he could use the help of other rulers just because they were christians.

In adition, if I am not mistaken the pope was only the leader of rome and the other city states had their own rullers.

Another thing to take into account is that it was the cardinals that chosed the pope and not the powerful families of that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I believe Euron will have one. Possibly Moqorro will keep the other. I don't see fAegon with a dragon. Neither Jon.

The real question is "do you think there will only be 3 dragons?".

Because unless the dragons are unstopable and can easilly defeat the others 3 dragons aren t enough. Does anyone think that countless others can t kill a dragon? That if a dragon gets wightified there isn t a high chance the others will also die?

And I highly doubt that moqorro will be the final owner of any dragon. He might control 1 for a while but I doubt it will last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, divica said:

The real question is "do you think there will only be 3 dragons?".

Another question is. Can a dragon kill an Other? How much are they useful in the cold? I don't think the dragons are the answer. They are a threat. Fire as much as Ice, are the threats converging to Westeros. Moqorro is also part of the Fire's Another question is. Can a dragon kill an Other? How much are they useful in the cold? I don't think the dragons are the answer. They are a threat. Fire as much as Ice. Moqorro is also part of the Fire threat..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon will be in Cersei’s role - meaning in possession of King’s Landing with the Golden Company, but dragonless.

The Dragonhorn plotline will be rather pointless if Euron does not get a dragon as a result of it, so I expect he will get one.

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

×