Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

[DMC]

On 5/28/2019 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

The books make it exceedingly unlikely that a greenseer can (try to) possess another person via watching the past through a weirwood (he might be able to speak through the tree, though), but even if he did there is literally no reason why such an accidental attempt in the past should actually fry Hodor's brain from that point on.

Apologies for the delayed response.  We have (generously) about 5 pages on Bran being a greenseer.  That is far too little to draw any conclusions off of in terms of what the books make "exceedingly unlikely" or not.  And the combination of Bloodraven immediately insisting Bran can't change the past (in a doth protest too much way) - right after Bran pretty much instantly rendered a reaction from Ned in the past when he sees him on his first try - is decent textual suggestion that Bran will, actually, affect the past in some way.  Not in a stupid time-travely way like some theories you see around, but something resembling what happened with ShowHodor?  Yeah, I think that's possible - maybe that's why Bloodraven was so quick to warn him.

On 5/28/2019 at 4:13 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

Bran will need the same to become a greenseer. They gave him seeds to eat. They gave him a throne. The cave is his place.

Note the rest of the series of greenseeing Bran does at the end of his final ADWD chapter is after they remove him from the throne and he goes to sleep in his chamber, which suggests the skills can be mobile, at least for a time.

[teej6]

20 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

On the side, the bolded would be a minority view on your part. Most seem to be under the impression that Bran arranged himself to be on the throne and the most heated debate is what exactly he plans to do with it. 

20 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 

 

 

Minority/majority view I don’t care. Bran didn’t utter a word or do a thing. He got the throne because all the dumb Lords/Ladies of Westeros were convinced by incompetent kinslaying Tyrion’s 5 minute speech. Unless you are telling me Bran warged Tyrion and the rest of the people on the council, D&D showed Bran getting the throne because he had the best story.

Edited May 30, 2019 by teej6

[Lollygag]

Just now, teej6 said:

Minority/majority view I don’t care. Bran didn’t utter a word or do a thing. He got the throne because all the dumb Lords/Ladies of Westeros were convinced by incompetent kinslaying Tyrion’s 5 minute speech. Unless you are telling me Bran warged Tyrion and the rest of the people on the council, D&D showed Bran getting the throne because he had the best story.

The video shows where Bran did do things. Actually some of his actions make no sense unless it's a move to where he is now. Yes, they were convinced by Tyrion's speech, but the point was that Bran set up that this would happen. Which means that Bran wasn't just sitting there and got picked out of the blue to his surprise like he won some contest or something. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

43 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't think Dan and Dave's ending is going to be that different from my ending," says author George R.R. Martin about the HBO series moving beyond his books. See more at https://www.cbsnews.com/game-of-thrones/

 

It is what it is.  The series has been "extremely" faithful.  He says.  

There is also this one 

 

[teej6]

26 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The video shows where Bran did do things. Actually some of his actions make no sense unless it's a move to where he is now. Yes, they were convinced by Tyrion's speech, but the point was that Bran set up that this would happen. Which means that Bran wasn't just sitting there and got picked out of the blue to his surprise like he won some contest or something. 

Your video is a fan’s interpretation.  I’ll stick with what D&D actually showed. What they showed was the most moronic way a bunch of people who rule the kingdoms agreed to have a total unknown character upto that point become king. I don’t care if fans want to see some hidden scheming on Bran’s part, point is its Tyrion who convinced the council to elect Bran with his ridiculous 5 minute speech. Like I said, unless Bran warged all those people, my point stands — he was elected king because he had the best story.

Edited May 30, 2019 by teej6

[Lollygag]

20 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Your video is a fan’s interpretation.  I’ll stick with what D&D actually showed. What they showed was the most moronic way a bunch of people who rule the kingdoms agreed to have a total unknown character upto that point become king. I don’t care if fans want to see some hidden scheming on Bran’s part, point is its Tyrion who convinced the council to elect Bran with his ridiculous 5 minute speech. Like I said, if you don’t have a theory that Bran warged all those people, my point stands — he was elected king because he had the best story. 

Google this topic and see how common this view is. It's all over the place, not just "a fan's interpretation" and this particular "interpretation" is quite sound and well-cited. D&D did show that Bran may have made sure these events came about otherwise why would this idea be everywhere complete with evidence to cite for it? 

Isaac said Bran as king came from GRRM. He doesn't get it like he won a beauty pageant or something. So yes, the 3EC might well be that hypothetical 12 year old who conquerors. 

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Lollygag

[Ser Hedge]

2 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Thank you. Someone, I can’t remember who, pulled the 'one of the D's was involved in Troy' out of the box of 'ew'. Once you consider that, Martin is completely safe to finish the books as per the endgames.

Indeed Benioff was and Paris survives the war! And Achilles survived longer than he should have to be in the wooden horse, but by D&D standards that is not even nitpicking.

And yeah, Helen is off to Rome (with Andromache, Briseis and Paris), Menelaus having died in the opening engagement of the war 

I'm pretty sure that when he was writing the script DB thought Paris was a woman and he thought he was making her a bad a$$ warrior.

[teej6]

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Google this topic and see how common this view is. It's all over the place, not just "a fan's interpretation" and this particular "interpretation" is quite sound and well-cited.

Isaac said Bran as king came from GRRM. He doesn't get it like he won a beauty pageant or something. So yes, the 3EC might well be that hypothetical 12 year old who conquerors. 

 

Again, you go on about how popular some theory is. For the umpteenth time, I don’t care for the popularity of a theory that fans came up with to make sense of D&D’s senseless plot. In the show Bran does not conquer anything, he got the throne because Tyrion said so. If you can show me where in the show they show Bran “conquering” (which is what GRRM said), I’ll say you have a point. As of now you don’t, so no point in repeating some theory that people came up to make sense of the nonsense which is the show.  

As to your reference to a beauty pageant, you are not far off as on the show that’s somewhat how they showed Bran getting the throne. He wasn’t the most beautiful or talented, but he had the best story. 

And it’s hard to see how Bran will be 12 in the next two books. He started the books as a 7 year old and in 5 books he has aged by 2 years. I don’t think in the next two books GRRM is going to make time work differently and have Bran miraculously age to 12. If Martin isn’t doing to do a time jump, the most I can see Bran being is 11, that is if you stretch it. This is why I said your quote about a conquering 12 year old will make more sense for Arya, considering her current age in the books.

[Lord Varys]

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

Apologies for the delayed response.  We have (generously) about 5 pages on Bran being a greenseer.  That is far too little to draw any conclusions off of in terms of what the books make "exceedingly unlikely" or not.  And the combination of Bloodraven immediately insisting Bran can't change the past (in a doth protest too much way) - right after Bran pretty much instantly rendered a reaction from Ned in the past when he sees him on his first try - is decent textual suggestion that Bran will, actually, affect the past in some way.  Not in a stupid time-travely way like some theories you see around, but something resembling what happened with ShowHodor?  Yeah, I think that's possible - maybe that's why Bloodraven was so quick to warn him.

We do have much more on the possession on people, though - Varamyr's entire Prologue. Sure, greenseers seem to be more powerful skinchangers than normal skinchangers - although Varamyr was very powerful, too, considering the amount of animals he controlled - but it seems that possessing another human being is an altogether different thing than taking over an animal. Varamyr failed to take over Thistle, and one assumes that Bran would have a similar problem taking over another human being.

Even more so, it even seems to be a stretch to assume greenseers can do that kind of thing when their are not physically close to other people. Both skinchangers and greenseers only remote-control animals and people they have already broken, they don't reach out and subdue animals hundreds or thousands of miles away. If Bloodraven could do something like that, then it is ridiculous that he never tried to interact with/guide the people at Winterfell or Castle Black by means of controlling animals or people in the region.

If they don't do that kind of thing in the present then I find the idea ridiculous that they could do that kind of thing by reaching out not only through space but also through time. Not to mention that the show take on it is ridiculous - Bran would be never trapped in a vision of the past nor would he ever confuse past-Hodor and present-Hodor. If there was a danger to his person while he was watching the past he would immediately return to the present and take steps to prevent that. Not to mention that chances are pretty high that a fully trained greenseer can likely do many things at once - talk to people, watch the past, control scores of animals, etc. He would not be completely absorbed by one task.

You are also conflating the time issue with the possessing issue. Bloodraven does not warn Bran, he tells him that he cannot affect/change the past. That's not a warning but merely a tidbit of information - and it might be something that's wrong because Bloodraven is too weak and cannot do what Bran will do in the future.

My personal guess is that Bran will only be able to contact other people in a proper way via the weirwoods - and there we talk about him talking through the faces in the trees like a proper old god - if things work properly - meaning that the weirwood trees are properly watered with human blood. This could mean that Bran might first learn to speak through time rather than reach people in the present because there were times when all the weirwood trees of Westeros were getting their fair share of human sacrifices. Once that custom is revived in the North and eventually (possibly) in other regions of Westeros as well Bran will be able to reach out to them as well. But this is never going to be a one way road - Bran won't be able to talk to somebody just because he wants to, but only when said person(s) actually sacrifice humans to the weirwood.

Under normal circumstances he can be *there* in the tree, but he cannot make himself properly heard. The kind of thing that happened when he saw his father seems to have happened rather often (then with Bloodraven or a future Bran watching) in the various earlier weirwood chapters in the books (Ned, Bran himself in the earlier books, Catelyn, Theon etc.) - those people always felt something from the trees, presences, the facial expressions of the trees conveying certain emotions, a sense of foreboding, etc. That kind of thing does work, but that does rarely translate to a proper transfer of information.

And we can be very sure that the people Bloodraven watched and tried to contact - his half-brother Daeron II, his half-sister and paramour Shiera - were not exactly often close to weirwood trees considering where they lived.

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

Note the rest of the series of greenseeing Bran does at the end of his final ADWD chapter is after they remove him from the throne and he goes to sleep in his chamber, which suggests the skills can be mobile, at least for a time.

But he is not yet a proper greenseer. He has not yet replaced Bloodraven. Whatever he can do right now is not even remotely the stuff he will have to do, or else his training would already be over - which it isn't.

There are two crucial scenes in ADwD that make Bran's future clear. His acceptance that the wizard is not going to give him back his legs at the end of chapter 2, and his heartbreaking decision to eat the weirwood paste in chapter 3 because it is going to give him powerful abilities. Unlike Arya or Sansa there is no sign whatsoever that Bran is going to break with his tutor, that he is going to go back to be a Stark of Winterfell, etc. - Sansa has her rejection of Littlefinger's pomegranate back in ASoS and Arya hides Needle in AFfC rather than throwing it away. But Bran is broken, and he will never be whole again, unlike Winterfell. It will be rebuilt, but Brandon Stark will not. He has to continue to go down the path he has started.

A note on the video from George above:

This was done before he saw the last season of the show. And he never says the show was an 'extremely faithful adaptation'. He said, it was 'extremely faithful' in comparison with most of other movie adaptations of books - which is a truism since the overwhelming majority of such adaptations aren't even remotely faithful.

[thehandwipes]

2 hours ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

So yeah, he says that they made some of the characters have the same ending as what he had in mind 5 or 6 years ago. and that's all. Everyone on this thread who is falling for the ULTRA STUPIDITY of what D&D gave us---well I feel very sorry for you, and I am sorry that you have so little faith in GRRM. To even suggest that his masterpiece will end the same way those 2-bit hacks showed us on HBO is appalling.  But of course, all Dany-Haters will love the HBO ending (despite most of them complaining about how stupid the show is these past 8 years) and Dany-Fans will hate it. I am seeing a clear divided line on these HBO threads, with most book-forum Dany-Haters coming here to say they think this is how it will end. So the show is "stupid, plot-less, bad writing, ridiculous, larry carol, deadpans, Pomade Jesus", etc. right up until Dany starts killing innocents--then all of a sudden it's "Exactly accurate" and "this is the ending" well fucking LMAO to that. D&D are dumbass terrible writer/directors and if hating Dany makes you suddenly disagree with that that's on you. I prefer to be 

This is extremely unfair.  Many of us have seen Dany's arc leading to this long before D&D did their hack version of it.  This is like saying there won't be a Long Night because the show version of it was ridiculous.

I don't consider anything on the show to be confirmation in the books (Cleganebowl, the Others being irrelevant and pointless, other stupid things) but there are a lot of reasons to believe that something like this will happen in the books.

They diverged so drastically for all the characters that its just impossible to tell what's a shitty version of GRRM's ending and what's just fanservice.  But Dany's ending certainly wasn't fanservice, and the hamfisted way they bent her character makes me think they felt some obligation to end her story that way.  Or they just think fanboys love grim dark stories and can't write character arc's and don't care to try.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Varamyr failed to take over Thistle, and one assumes that Bran would have a similar problem taking over another human being.

Once could argue Thistle's reaction - scratching her eyes and screaming - is actually foreshadowing Hodor's reaction to Bran entering his brain in the past.  So, I guess we have different perspectives on the meaning of the Varamyr prologue.

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Bloodraven could do something like that, then it is ridiculous that he never tried to interact with/guide the people at Winterfell or Castle Black by means of controlling animals or people in the region.

Perhaps BR is not as powerful as Bran.  Perhaps BR understood the adverse results that would happen from this - as they seemed to for Hodor.  Perhaps he did guide people by subtle means, for all we know.  He certainly guided Bran regarding his dream in AGOT, when he was not physically close (although I do assume he was temporally).

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bloodraven does not warn Bran, he tells him that he cannot affect/change the past. That's not a warning but merely a tidbit of information

We can argue semantics all day.  He tells Bran that literally immediately after Bran's first try when he cries out to Ned - in the past.  I take that as a warning.  Sorry if you don't.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

nd we can be very sure that the people Bloodraven watched and tried to contact - his half-brother Daeron II, his half-sister and paramour Shiera - were not exactly often close to weirwood trees considering where they lived.

Well, BR certainly was not in that tree before Daeron II died, so it's quite possible he was never trained like Bran just was by the CotF during that time.  As for Shiera..who knows.  We'll see, I think there's still much more to learn about that relationship.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Once could argue Thistle's reaction - scratching her eyes and screaming - is actually foreshadowing Hodor's reaction to Bran entering his brain in the past.  So, I guess we have different perspectives on the meaning of the Varamyr prologue.

One would compare apples to oranges if one would see similarities between Thistle's reaction and the nonsense the show did with Hodor. Thistle wanted did everything in her power to get the invading mind out of her body, she didn't actually go mad.

And we do know that past-Walder never suffered even remotely a similar trauma turning him into Hodor - which I laid repeatedly out now. George would contradict Old Nan's story of her great-grandson if he ever gave past-Hodor some sort of mad fit turning him into a vegetable. If George were going with the show here then Nan's story would have hinted at the fact that Hodor was once a normal child/boy/man and only became the way he is now later on.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Perhaps BR is not as powerful as Bran.  Perhaps BR understood the adverse results that would happen from this - as they seemed to for Hodor.  Perhaps he did guide people by subtle means, for all we know.  He certainly guided Bran regarding his dream in AGOT, when he was not physically close (although I do assume he was temporally).

The show never established why Hodor's mind should be fried by Bran's past attempt. And it makes no sense, considering that possessing Hodor later against his will doesn't do him any additional harm. If Bran ever possessed past-Hodor he might say 'Hold the door' for a couple of times, but then he should go back to normal, just as he later does when Bran possesses him - and just as the various animals the skinchangers mind-rape and possess do. The will of the beings treated in that way certainly is broken, they become the pets and slaves of their masters, but they don't become mindless.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

We can argue semantics all day.  He tells Bran that literally immediately after Bran's first try when he cries out to Ned - in the past.  I take that as a warning.  Sorry if you don't.

You are wrong when you take it as a warning because it is not meant as a warning. Bloodraven doesn't have any scruples about 'changing the past'. He wanted to do it by trying to reach out to the people he loved, and he failed. He tries to spare Bran the grief it caused him to try, not to warn him what could happen if he did - because it never happened, and he, Bloodraven, thinks it can't.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, BR certainly was not in that tree before Daeron II died, so it's quite possible he was never trained like Bran just was by the CotF during that time.  As for Shiera..who knows.  We'll see, I think there's still much more to learn about that relationship.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that the people Bloodraven tried to reach wouldn't have spent as much time in front of a weirwood tree - if they spent any time there at all - as various Starks and Winterfell folk did - and that certainly could have made it more difficult for Bloodraven to reach those people.

We have yet wait to see how well this 'look beyond the tree' thing Bloodraven promised Bran is going to work out. I'd be surprised if all places can be watched as well as the areas immediately around the weirwood trees. But even if greenseers can basically watch everything, chances are very high that they cannot talk to everybody everywhere. If they can magically talk to other people it will be through the faces in the trees - because that's the reason why they have faces in the first place.

In general, one also should consider the historical weakness of the greenseers of the Children in their fights against the First Men. The Children lost, but if greenseers could be as mobile as you want Bran to be then the Children would have been invincible no matter how many offspring the mortal vermin produced. Because a single greenseer alone could have eradicated the First Men with a vast army of animals simply by always remaining on the move. Nobody could ever find him because he would have literally thousands or millions of eyes. But if the greenseers were as stationary as their weirwood trees, physically connected to them like Bloodraven is, then it should have been rather easy to destroy them. All the First Men needed was to figure out that connection. Then they could cripple their abilities by destroying the weirwoods, did for caves and tunnels beneath every weirwood grove they found.

You have to keep in mind that the First Men basically defeated the Children with very primitive weapons and no powerful magics of their own (that we know of at this point). How would that have been possible if the greenseers were mobile?

[DMC]

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One would compare apples to oranges if one would see similarities between Thistle's reaction and the nonsense the show did with Hodor. Thistle wanted did everything in her power to get the invading mind out of her body, she didn't actually go mad.

Um, who says Hodor went mad?  Neither in the show nor the books did he go mad, thus far.  He had an episode in the show, one that was very similar to what Thistle experienced, if you'll remember:

Quote

He summoned all the strength still in him, leapt out of his own skin, and forced himself inside her.

Thistle arched her back and screamed.

Abomination. Was that her, or him, or Haggon? He never knew. His old flesh fell back into the snowdrift as her fingers loosened. The spearwife twisted violently, shrieking. His shadowcat used to fight him wildly, and the snow bear had gone half-mad for a time, snapping at trees and rocks and empty air, but this was worse. "Get out, get out!" he heard her own mouth shouting. Her body staggered, fell, and rose again, her hands flailed, her legs jerked this way and that in some grotesque dance as his spirit and her own fought for the flesh. She sucked down a mouthful of the frigid air, and Varamyr had half a heartbeat to glory in the taste of it and the strength of this young body before her teeth snapped together and filled his mouth with blood. She raised her hands to his face. He tried to push them down again, but the hands would not obey, and she was clawing at his eyes. Abomination, he remembered, drowning in blood and pain and madness. When he tried to scream, she spat their tongue out.

If you think that's apples and oranges to what could happen - or even what did happen to Hodor in the show - then, well, you're very bad at fruit classification.

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And we do know that past-Walder never suffered even remotely a similar trauma turning him into Hodor - which I laid repeatedly out now.

No we don't and no you didn't.  For the last time, he could have always been mute, had the episode, then started saying Hodor.  You have not provided any evidence otherwise.

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The will of the beings treated in that way certainly is broken, they become the pets and slaves of their masters, but they don't become mindless.

Again, who said Hodor was mindless?  This is becoming borderline offensive.

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You are wrong when you take it as a warning because it is not meant as a warning. Bloodraven doesn't have any scruples about 'changing the past'. He wanted to do it by trying to reach out to the people he loved, and he failed. He tries to spare Bran the grief it caused him to try, not to warn him what could happen if he did - because it never happened, and he, Bloodraven, thinks it can't.

LOL, this is your interpretation.  I'm not saying it's wrong - in fact I mentioned it as a possibility.  But don't act like you know what Bloodraven meant in that moment.  None of us know his head.

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that the people Bloodraven tried to reach wouldn't have spent as much time in front of a weirwood tree - if they spent any time there at all - as various Starks and Winterfell folk did - and that certainly could have made it more difficult for Bloodraven to reach those people.

I'm saying Bloodraven wouldn't be trying to reach Daeron II from that tree until Daeron was already dead.  Thus, it's fundamentally different than Bran's situation over the next two books.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But even if greenseers can basically watch everything, chances are very high that they cannot talk to everybody everywhere.

Oh no, I didn't mean to suggest either.  I'm just saying they can take their skills elsewhere - if their body can take it - and use the weirwoods as a source.  This is literally what happens in the final pages we have of Bran's POV, so I don't think it's crazy.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The greenseers weren’t confined to trees from a young age. The Children’s greenseers gathered in places, moved around and generally interacted with the population.

They were noted as having different coloured eyes and having shorter lives, not as being physically tied to a tree from a young age.

That is simply not how it worked. Bran will merge permanently with a tree yes, but only when he is old. For now, he is just undergoing his training.

And will leave the cave once done.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Free Northman Reborn

[divica]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Um, who says Hodor went mad?  Neither in the show nor the books did he go mad, thus far.  He had an episode in the show, one that was very similar to what Thistle experienced, if you'll remember:

If you think that's apples and oranges to what could happen - or even what did happen to Hodor in the show - then, well, you're very bad at fruit classification.

No we don't and no you didn't.  For the last time, he could have always been mute, had the episode, then started saying Hodor.  You have not provided any evidence otherwise.

Again, who said Hodor was mindless?  This is becoming borderline offensive.

LOL, this is your interpretation.  I'm not saying it's wrong - in fact I mentioned it as a possibility.  But don't act like you know what Bloodraven meant in that moment.  None of us know his head.

I'm saying Bloodraven wouldn't be trying to reach Daeron II from that tree until Daeron was already dead.  Thus, it's fundamentally different than Bran's situation over the next two books.

Oh no, I didn't mean to suggest either.  I'm just saying they can take their skills elsewhere - if their body can take it - and use the weirwoods as a source.  This is literally what happens in the final pages we have of Bran's POV, so I don't think it's crazy.

I think you are misinterpreting things. Hodor is a simpleton in the books that only says 1 word AND has mental problems. I don t remember if he was born this way or not, but there is no doubt that hodor isn t a normal human being. I don t think it makes sense that hodor had some deficiencies and then he got more mental probs after bran intervened… It is just too convenient.

Then hodor does have side efects from bran mind raping him… I have a lot of doubts if bran skinchanging into hodor isn t making him into some kind of thrall like how the skinchanged animals become obedient… 

All in all, just like in the books danny looks to be going in a conquering phase bran looks to be going into a very dark phase. If I remeber right he broke all taboos about skinchanging, might be eating jojen paste, will have to deal with meera wanting to leave him behind, with having all that power but not being able to walk… 

[divica]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The greenseers weren’t confined to trees from a young age. The Children’s greenseers gathered in places, moved around and generally interacted with the population.

They were noted as having different coloured eyes and having shorter lives, not as being physically tied to a tree from a young age.

That is simply not how it worked. Bran will merge permanently with a tree yes, but only when he is old. For now, he is just undergoing his training.

And will leave the cave once done.

doesn t bloodraven say that he won t leave that cave?

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, divica said:

I think you are misinterpreting things. Hodor is a simpleton in the books that only says 1 word AND has mental problems. I don t remember if he was born this way or not, but there is no doubt that hodor isn t a normal human being. I don t think it makes sense that hodor had some deficiencies and then he got more mental probs after bran intervened… It is just too convenient.

I think it makes perfect sense that Hodor has some type of deficiency and/or autism from birth and Bran..influenced that problem.  Hodor is still able in very many ways.  My point is let's not call him mad or mindless.

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Again, you go on about how popular some theory is. For the umpteenth time, I don’t care for the popularity of a theory that fans came up with to make sense of D&D’s senseless plot. In the show Bran does not conquer anything, he got the throne because Tyrion said so. If you can show me where in the show they show Bran “conquering” (which is what GRRM said), I’ll say you have a point. As of now you don’t, so no point in repeating some theory that people came up to make sense of the nonsense which is the show.  

As to your reference to a beauty pageant, you are not far off as on the show that’s somewhat how they showed Bran getting the throne. He wasn’t the most beautiful or talented, but he had the best story. 

And it’s hard to see how Bran will be 12 in the next two books. He started the books as a 7 year old and in 5 books he has aged by 2 years. I don’t think in the next two books GRRM is going to make time work differently and have Bran miraculously age to 12. If Martin isn’t doing to do a time jump, the most I can see Bran being is 11, that is if you stretch it. This is why I said your quote about a conquering 12 year old will make more sense for Arya, considering her current age in the books.

That you refuse to discuss the specific points of the idea and ignore that Bran's the 3ER/3EC and the implications of that are telling. Noted. 

 

I suggest a more expansive definition of conquering as some are conquered by words, not swords. Ask Robb. LF and Varys also did a helluva job bringing down houses without a sword themselves. 

ASOS Tyrion I (Tywin as he's writing the letters to arrange the Red Wedding.) 

"Some battles are won with swords and spears, others with quills and ravens.

 

The books aren't a perfect keeping of a single Earth year. We don't know how that pacing will work out. In AGOT, Sansa is 11. In AFFC, she's only 13. In TWOW Alayne I and the Mercy chapter, most think there was a time jump of some significance. Sometimes it moves slowly and at other times quickly. We don't know and 11-12 is too close of a call, especially as Winter slows everything down. It might be Arya, it might be Bran, it might be both, or even more likely, it's just a turn of phrase as I don't see any character at all conquering the whole world. But as Arya goes off to wander and explore as she has since AGOT, and we know Bran becoming King comes right from GRRM, Bran seems much more likely if one had to choose. 

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Lollygag

[teej6]

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

That you refuse to discuss the specific points of the idea and ignore that Bran's the 3ER/3EC and the implications of that are telling. Noted. 

I have no idea what you mean. I never once disputed Bran being the 3EC. You compared Bran getting the IT on the show to a statement by Martin where he states that he has given up the 5 year time jump and if that means a 12 year conquers all the world so be it. To which I stated that Bran conquers nothing on the show as the IT was given to him because Tyrion made a ridiculous argument about Bran having the best story. You then linked to some fan’s video and used that as proof for your argument as there’s nothing on the show that indicates anything remotely to Bran conquering anything. All your Bran scheming are just theories at this at this points, attempts by fans like you to make sense of that travesty. But hey if it makes you feel better than you won this debate, go ahead knock yourself out.  

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I suggest a more expansive definition of conquering as some are conquered by words, not swords. Ask Robb. LF and Varys also did a helluva job bringing down houses without a sword themselves. 

You can expand the definition all you want, on the show, Bran does NO conquering either by word or deed. You theorizing and speculating thus doesn’t make it so. 

24 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The books aren't a perfect keeping of a single Earth year. We don't know how that pacing will work out. In AGOT, Sansa is 11. In AFFC, she's only 13. In TWOW Alayne I and the Mercy chapter, most think there was a time jump of some significance. Sometimes it moves slowly and at other times quickly. We don't know and 11-12 is too close of a call, especially as Winter slows everything down. It might be Arya, it might be Bran, it might be both, or even more likely, it's just a turn of phrase as I don't see any character at all conquering the whole world. But as Arya goes off to wander and explore as she has since AGOT, and we know Bran becoming King comes right from GRRM, Bran seems much more likely if one had to choose. 

 Earth year or Westeros year, in 5 book, all the characters have aged by only 2 years at most. Again, you can twist the facts to suit your narrative doesn’t make it so. And I’ll believe Bran becoming King came straight from Martin when he himself confirms it.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, divica said:

doesn t bloodraven say that he won t leave that cave?

Nope he says it will take Bran some time to learn the greenseeing arts. Specifically, when Bran asks how long, he says maybe a year, maybe 5. Quite similar to the originally planned 5 year gap, wouldn’t you say...And likely similar to the amount of time George originally had planned for Arya to spend learning assassin skills with the Faceless Men, Sansa to spend learning politics with Littlefinger in the Vale and Jon learning leadership skills at the Wall.

Edit

And Dany having her Dragons grow in the East.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Free Northman Reborn