Jump to content
Demetri

GRRM's (Brief) Thoughts on the Final Episode

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

The appendixes of ACOK included a section devoted to "The King in the Narrow Sea". Last we had heard from Stannis in AGOT, he hadn't claimed the Throne. There are plenty of other mild spoilers in the appendixes, such as Brienne being included among Renly's Rainbow Guard (she is not named until the book's chapter 22).

I get your point, but considering the nature of such appendices it is quite clear they have to introduce characters in the position/role they are in when they first show up. So I've little issue with that (not to mention that Stannis is basically introduced as a crowned king in the Prologue and Brienne essentially becomes a member of the Rainbow Guard when she is introduced to the reader). But in the ADwD appendix, for instance, there is not just that dreadful Brynden spoiler but also the Astapor spoiler which basically gives away that the city is going to be destroyed by listing all the consecutive kings in order.

But it is a different thing to spoil the later role of a character in the appendix. For instance, one assumes there is a reason why Aegon and Connington are the two Griffs in the appendix rather than 'Prince Aegon of House Targaryen, etc.' and 'Jon Connington, former Lord of Griffin's Roost, etc.'.

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As I see it, Aegon will become a clear claimant the moment he sets a foot in Westeros with the Golden Company. His intentions are clearly explained in the previous book, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. But I guess we are not in agreement here... :dunno:

But he already is in Westeros in ADwD. And he is not styled king. Nobody did him homage as a king yet, he doesn't wear a crown, he wasn't proclaimed or crowned or anointed.

Those are all prerequisites for Westerosi to see a prince or royal as a king. There is a reason why the pretenders we see in ACoK all wear crowns. They only became kings in the course of coronations or proclamations - Robb had his proclamation and then they made a crown for which he then wears when we meet him again in ACoK, Stannis had himself proclaimed/crowned king before we go to Dragonstone, explaining why he is styled king and his daughter princess, Renly has his coronation at Highgarden, Balon on the Iron Islands, etc.

The point in time when Aegon is styled 'King Aegon VI' by his followers and/or Westeros at large has yet to come in the books, and that should be a very crucial event. In fact, it seems very likely that the cloth dragon vision from the House of the Undying is going to turn to depict precisely this moment.

If this were the case, if it turned out that the first time Aegon is going to be styled Aegon VI is that even then this was most definitely a spoiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 1:05 PM, teej6 said:

He ended his blog by stating that everyone can argue about the two versions on the internet. He said the same thing in his 60 mins interview. I don’t believe that people are going to debate Penny’s story or lack thereof. If he thinks that both versions will be different enough to cause debates amongst readers, it has to be more substantial than the story arcs of a few secondary characters. As someone above said, in his blog he mostly mentions characters that have not appeared on the show. I think in both his blog and the 60 mins interview, he’s being very vague and cagey and understandably so.

One thing I found interesting in the 60 minutes interview is his reference to Spiderman as an analogy. Now the various versions of Spiderman have very different stories. The character is the same but the stories change based on the writers. He also goes on to mention different girlfriends in different versions, which I found quite interesting. So I do believe we may end up getting different narratives for many of the characters including some of the main characters. I’d like to think that if Jon ends up beyond the wall, that’s due to a choice he makes and not some form of punishment imposed upon him. 

:agree:

Also, wasn't there an interview w/ David & Dan shortly before series 8 started where they said the three of them had some sort of deal where neither part would say what the differences were? Or maybe it was just D&D saying they wouldn't tell anyone what came from Martin and what didn't? Can't remember which now... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DMC said:

Acting like that blog post amounted to revealing anything is...well, I'd say wow, but I suppose not surprising considering the stuff that goes on here.  I also like how this thread includes a page arguing if grammar merits a spoiler.  Davos would be so proud.

Re: Davos....Or would he? How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have? (sidenote: how did he not grow to hate saying that after time one.)

I wasn't trying to suggest that the blog post was some guiding light to the promised land. But I think it was DEFINITELY different from other posts he's made. To me, that's why it warranted the consideration.

There are three reasons why it differs substantively: 

1) It was premeditated. That is pretty new in and of itself. The timing of the post was created due to the timing of the show, but the sentiment didn't come about over a few days or even a few weeks. Hell, some posters suggest that GRRM doesn't even watch the show. While I think the answer to that is mixed (some level of awareness but not slavish devotion to watching), I believe it is very safe to say that the timing of the post was meant to be after the finale, but the content of it is years old (and certainly older than days or weeks.) This is unusual for GRRM. He has several times mentioned that his "Not a Blog" is a somewhat refreshing way to engage in stream of consciousness writing. The only precedents I can think of have revolved around release dates or NFL dates. 

2) It is also notable for the same reason it was premeditated: The ending of the show almost requires some acknowledgement by GRRM. That's why we got a post, but doesn't fully account for the contents.

3) The post included something that GRRM, to my knowledge, has never done. GRRM provided information (Jon's parentage) as a result of the show. It is no less of a book spoiler now than it was 2 months ago. I will, however, say that D&D basically already spoiled it every time they puffed their chests, adopted that ridiculous smirk and talked about the meeting with GRRM and the great gatekeeper question that was Jon's parentage. But even with that de facto spoiler, GRRM is very much a person of rigid principles on certain issues. Above all other issues that we can know without being friends with GRRM, spoilers and fanfiction are the two absolutely inviolable tenets in his professional opinion. 

I think that because we could always infer (through D&D, largely) that the show's handling of Jon's parentage would be the same as the book and thus this spoiler is a non-issue. But that logic doesn't fully cover it because we could say that reasonable inferences could be made about all manner of things and yet his policy of not speaking about unpublished material is a part of every one of the nearly innumerable appearances he's made. As mentioned earlier, he feels really strongly about it.

But the forum here demonstrates that the previous reasonable inference of show=book (for Jon's parents) was not categorical. People, even recently and perhaps even after the show made their reveal, people have argued the point. To do so, they relied on another key principle to all things GRRM: The show and the books are two different tellings. He's said that well over a hundred times (I shudder to think how many it actually is because I know for a fact that if I ran into GRRM I couldn't not try to suss out some info so it probably happens in a private sphere constantly.) If D&D had thought about what they were saying when bragging about guessing Lyanna then they'd realize that they were providing a spoiler to the book. 

It is notable because it is so vastly different. Whether that is because GRRM made the same inferences listed above or because of a mindset shift, I'm not sure. I think it is likely a combination. But I also think that the reason the post was premeditated and written as it was is because the show ending had the functional effect of eliminating a rival to his books. Sure, they're different, but it is irrefutable that they're interconnected. Furthermore, GRRM had an active role (to some extent, at some point but at the very least in the form of him getting an executive producer credit still) in the show.

The books and the show might indeed be so different that they cannot be reconciled or shouldn't be compared. But that's because the medium (or creative limitations..ahem ahem) required the material to change significantly. The books by themselves are static and not great conversationalists. GRRM was the link between the two. He had an active presence in each, creative influence in each, and considerable impact to the content of each. While the books could very easily exist in a different universe, the same cannot be said for GRRM.

I'm not saying that we should go reread it until we discover the secret code that GRRM inevitably included. It isn't special like that. But Not a Blog gives us a pretty long history to compare against with his appearances providing even more material. In many ways, he broke a lot of his own rules because he felt the situation warranted it. I don't think that should be ignored.

3) It is also notable for the same reason it was premeditated: The ending of the show almost requires some acknowledgement by GRRM. That's why we got a post, but doesn't fully account for the contents.

Share this post


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

:agree:

Also, wasn't there an interview w/ David & Dan shortly before series 8 started where they said the three of them had some sort of deal where neither part would say what the differences were? Or maybe it was just D&D saying they wouldn't tell anyone what came from Martin and what didn't? Can't remember which now... 

Probably why they didn’t do their Inside the Episode for the finale. Glad they didn’t do it. I don’t want to hear those morons say “when George told us...”

I’m still having a hard time imagining Martin being able to find a believable way to have a 10-11 year old Bran become King in the end. Will he have a regent? And if so, why would anyone elect (assuming that’s how it plays out since Bran doesn’t have any hereditary claim to the throne) a ruler who needs a regent? It doesn’t make any sense. It could have been the ending GRRM had initially planned but I’m not sure whether he can find a plausible and logical way to make it work now that he has given up on his 5 year gap in the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Newstar said:

No family. They couldn't even be bothered to stick around for her coronation. No friends, either, with the one person she could possibly label a friend, Brienne, upgrading to the Kingsguard (and also not sticking around for her coronation). So yes, she is alone for all intents and purposes, much like Cersei was alone at her coronation. She even ended up with a crown that resembles Cersei's from the back (as there was a similar shot of the backs of Cersei and Sansa's heads as they are crowned).

Going back on topic, GRRM isn't really saying anything in this new blog post that he hasn't already said. Even "How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have?" is something he has said previously. 

How could she intend on not having children when she made a point of Bran's unsuitability based on his inability to procreate.? Seems like heirs must be in her plans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bear Claw said:

How could she intend on not having children when she made a point of Bran's unsuitability based on his inability to procreate.? Seems like heirs must be in her plans. 

This is interesting. First, keep firmly in mind who Cersei is. She is self-centered to the extreme and is fairly unyielding in that regard. However, we all know the exception, "But she loves her children so much!!!" As a result, this is a really fascinating intersection for her psychologically.

We know she thinks very highly of herself. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that she thinks if she'd have been born male instead of Jaime that she'd have been king. That totally fits with how she perceives the world, and the book even shows that she harbors either that thought or something similar. But we also know that she's thought a little deeper (emphasis on little) into the effect of gender as evidenced by her statement that War is the battlefield for men, the birthing bed is the battlefield for women. I think it is very fair to say that she feels exceptionally held back by her gender. And not held back in a wage sense but in a destiny sense. I think that she believes that if not for an accident of birth (her being female and Jaime male) then she'd be on the very top of things. While this is speculative, Cersei's chapters support these sentiments. In fact, she seems to nearly despise women. On a shakier limb, that could be the result of being destined to be a woman which she felt limited what she should have been. I think it is absolutely necessary to keep that in mind when reviewing the forthcoming bits.

So how would she deal with succession?

It is self-evident that a huge chunk of our love for our children derives from our love for ourselves. I suppose some could argue that point, but I think it'd be a matter of degree rather than if it is or is not a thing. Cersei definitely loves herself. Beyond stuff like "a mother's love" we have no real canonical reasoning behind her particular brand of loving her children, which is both extremely fierce and constantly erring on the side of consolidating her interests and avoiding risk for them. 

Cersei would have 3 options for succession. 1) She could magic up a biological child of her own. Case closed there. 2) She could adopt and name that individual as heir or 3) have the line pass either to a branch of her house (which makes no sense based on the common law precedents of succession and the particular situation at the time of the books) OR to another house of her choosing (which would be as fallacious as the first part of this option as she has no legitimacy born of lineage, it is instead enforced by the status quo and force)

1 is kind of a nonstarter. It either happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then she only has two options. If she was a bit more clever she'd perhaps consider that we won't know if the 1st option vests or fails before it is too late and dismiss it entirely. But that isn't how Cersei thinks. 

I find 3 very unlikely as well. Cersei is not a big one for ceding power away. While she'd be making a hugely important decision, it would cost her some power. We have a lot of indications that Cersei would make every attempt to avoid any loss of power to herself.

2 is the interesting one. Cersei might love her kids, but she certainly doesn't have some general love of children. So the question then becomes a matter of if (and to what extent, if so) her fierce love of her offspring derives from her own narcissism represented by her genetic contribution or whether the act of raising her children was the primarily endearing factor. I lean very strongly towards her narcissism being the primary factor. The hair color of her children eventually became a MAJOR element of the plot but it also seemed that the fact she had blonde children was, to her, a powerful and subversive act of rebellion against her hated husband. But the two are intertwined. They have golden hair because she does and she conceived her children with someone who also does. So the golden hair isn't merely defiance, it is also a phenotypical expression of her genes and thus her narcissism. 

But the other option (3) is far less appealing because it is the situation in which she has the least amount of power. Sure, she could eventually get to decide what house would act as successor, which is pretty damn potent, but utilizing that power also directly represents the ultimate dissolution of her power. I don't think she considers naming an outside house for even a second. Neither she nor Jaime express any general good will towards House Lannister as a whole. I don't think she actually sees House Lannister as an extension of herself in the way one might expect. She MIGHT do it for reasons of retaining proximity to power (assuming the heir becomes binding before her death) or, hell, she might even figure that since it doesn't matter as she'll be dead and Lannisters are slightly better than any other options. It is much more likely that she look to Lannister before other houses. But I think the legal issues there might prevent that from ever even being a legitimate option.

So let's look at hte one standing, (2) adoption. Unless she's tired of being in power or in KL, we must assume that she wants to stay as close to the Iron Throne as possible. Adoption would necessitate this as those potential heirs would remain potential for at least the next 15 years. During those years, Cersei is still on the throne and still the most powerful single individual (by potential) in Westeros. I think she goes for adoption.

The question remaining is "what the hell does that relationship look like?" I honestly don't know. Before all else, Cersei must agree to consider such decisions, which is to countenance her inevitable lack of power. The best case scenario is that her power ends with death. I can't see anyone wanting to keep her around (even, maybe especially, a potential Lannister successor) so the only way to retain her power either through or approaching death would be by raising a child and relying on the mother/advisor role to give her continuing relevance.

There's a bit of a conflict. 1) I imagine that Cersei would find the idea of having to raise a brat that didn't come from her own body as being disgusting. 2) I think that she has the arrogance- perhaps rightfully so here- to think that the impact she'd have on the children through raising them would make them much closer to her than anyone else in Westeros could ever be (lannisters included). 3) She wants to stay near power. Her decision flowchart is really short and goes "Does this increase or retain your power? Yes. Good! No. Find a different solution that does."

Ultimately, I think she'd opt to adopt. But I'll say that she would ONLY do it knowing that the child would be heir to the throne. I don't see that ever happening as the Lannisters have no independent claim beyond the precedence of a Lannister ruling for a while recently. But could she ever love that child? She'd definitely try to convince people that she does, but I doubt she ever could. I think the loss of her biological children and her narcissism makes this choice purely a pragmatic one based on retaining power. And, for Cersei, if you have to raise a kid to hold onto power then that's what Maesters and Septons are for anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

As I see it, Aegon will become a clear claimant the moment he sets a foot in Westeros with the Golden Company. His intentions are clearly explained in the previous book, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. But I guess we are not in agreement here... :dunno:

Aegon even names Duck to his Kingsguard and gives him a white cloak. He's proclaimed himself. That's all there is to it. His being a claimant as Aegon VI has nothing to do with whether he is seated on the Iron Throne or anything. It's a non-issue. If someone wants to be upset about it despite this, I think they'll just have to be upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Demetri said:

This is interesting. First, keep firmly in mind who Cersei is. She is self-centered to the extreme and is fairly unyielding in that regard. However, we all know the exception, "But she loves her children so much!!!" As a result, this is a really fascinating intersection for her psychologically.

We know she thinks very highly of herself. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that she thinks if she'd have been born male instead of Jaime that she'd have been king. That totally fits with how she perceives the world, and the book even shows that she harbors either that thought or something similar. But we also know that she's thought a little deeper (emphasis on little) into the effect of gender as evidenced by her statement that War is the battlefield for men, the birthing bed is the battlefield for women. I think it is very fair to say that she feels exceptionally held back by her gender. And not held back in a wage sense but in a destiny sense. I think that she believes that if not for an accident of birth (her being female and Jaime male) then she'd be on the very top of things. While this is speculative, Cersei's chapters support these sentiments. In fact, she seems to nearly despise women. On a shakier limb, that could be the result of being destined to be a woman which she felt limited what she should have been. I think it is absolutely necessary to keep that in mind when reviewing the forthcoming bits.

So how would she deal with succession?

It is self-evident that a huge chunk of our love for our children derives from our love for ourselves. I suppose some could argue that point, but I think it'd be a matter of degree rather than if it is or is not a thing. Cersei definitely loves herself. Beyond stuff like "a mother's love" we have no real canonical reasoning behind her particular brand of loving her children, which is both extremely fierce and constantly erring on the side of consolidating her interests and avoiding risk for them. 

Cersei would have 3 options for succession. 1) She could magic up a biological child of her own. Case closed there. 2) She could adopt and name that individual as heir or 3) have the line pass either to a branch of her house (which makes no sense based on the common law precedents of succession and the particular situation at the time of the books) OR to another house of her choosing (which would be as fallacious as the first part of this option as she has no legitimacy born of lineage, it is instead enforced by the status quo and force)

1 is kind of a nonstarter. It either happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then she only has two options. If she was a bit more clever she'd perhaps consider that we won't know if the 1st option vests or fails before it is too late and dismiss it entirely. But that isn't how Cersei thinks. 

I find 3 very unlikely as well. Cersei is not a big one for ceding power away. While she'd be making a hugely important decision, it would cost her some power. We have a lot of indications that Cersei would make every attempt to avoid any loss of power to herself.

2 is the interesting one. Cersei might love her kids, but she certainly doesn't have some general love of children. So the question then becomes a matter of if (and to what extent, if so) her fierce love of her offspring derives from her own narcissism represented by her genetic contribution or whether the act of raising her children was the primarily endearing factor. I lean very strongly towards her narcissism being the primary factor. The hair color of her children eventually became a MAJOR element of the plot but it also seemed that the fact she had blonde children was, to her, a powerful and subversive act of rebellion against her hated husband. But the two are intertwined. They have golden hair because she does and she conceived her children with someone who also does. So the golden hair isn't merely defiance, it is also a phenotypical expression of her genes and thus her narcissism. 

But the other option (3) is far less appealing because it is the situation in which she has the least amount of power. Sure, she could eventually get to decide what house would act as successor, which is pretty damn potent, but utilizing that power also directly represents the ultimate dissolution of her power. I don't think she considers naming an outside house for even a second. Neither she nor Jaime express any general good will towards House Lannister as a whole. I don't think she actually sees House Lannister as an extension of herself in the way one might expect. She MIGHT do it for reasons of retaining proximity to power (assuming the heir becomes binding before her death) or, hell, she might even figure that since it doesn't matter as she'll be dead and Lannisters are slightly better than any other options. It is much more likely that she look to Lannister before other houses. But I think the legal issues there might prevent that from ever even being a legitimate option.

So let's look at hte one standing, (2) adoption. Unless she's tired of being in power or in KL, we must assume that she wants to stay as close to the Iron Throne as possible. Adoption would necessitate this as those potential heirs would remain potential for at least the next 15 years. During those years, Cersei is still on the throne and still the most powerful single individual (by potential) in Westeros. I think she goes for adoption.

The question remaining is "what the hell does that relationship look like?" I honestly don't know. Before all else, Cersei must agree to consider such decisions, which is to countenance her inevitable lack of power. The best case scenario is that her power ends with death. I can't see anyone wanting to keep her around (even, maybe especially, a potential Lannister successor) so the only way to retain her power either through or approaching death would be by raising a child and relying on the mother/advisor role to give her continuing relevance.

There's a bit of a conflict. 1) I imagine that Cersei would find the idea of having to raise a brat that didn't come from her own body as being disgusting. 2) I think that she has the arrogance- perhaps rightfully so here- to think that the impact she'd have on the children through raising them would make them much closer to her than anyone else in Westeros could ever be (lannisters included). 3) She wants to stay near power. Her decision flowchart is really short and goes "Does this increase or retain your power? Yes. Good! No. Find a different solution that does."

Ultimately, I think she'd opt to adopt. But I'll say that she would ONLY do it knowing that the child would be heir to the throne. I don't see that ever happening as the Lannisters have no independent claim beyond the precedence of a Lannister ruling for a while recently. But could she ever love that child? She'd definitely try to convince people that she does, but I doubt she ever could. I think the loss of her biological children and her narcissism makes this choice purely a pragmatic one based on retaining power. And, for Cersei, if you have to raise a kid to hold onto power then that's what Maesters and Septons are for anyway.

Sorry, I was talking about Sansa. The post I was responding to said that Sansa would never have children, but apparently, Sansa views that as an essential quality for a monarch, so I think she will have children out of duty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bear Claw said:

Sorry, I was talking about Sansa. The post I was responding to said that Sansa would never have children, but apparently, Sansa views that as an essential quality for a monarch, so I think she will have children out of duty. 

Ah, entirely my bad. I actually created an entire thread after writing that on a different but related issue. I think the analysis still holds, but I'm a bit embarrassed that I so badly missed the context. Obviously, Cersei has no blood claim to the throne so any heir of hers wouldn't be anything more than a possible heir to Casterly Rock. But given how absolutely wrecked Westeros is and how absolutely non-existent solid claims are, I think that Cersei's possible heir would have a slightly better legal claim than a random person on the street. 

I also gave you a shout out and quoted your line in the article. Like I said, the analysis for Cersei holds true but it simply isn't worth much. I would argue that it is worth a bit more than 0 though, given the human and feudal age tendency to find comfort in the familiar or status quo. My apologies for misreading. Please don't call me out if the thread gets published! It wasn't part of the analysis, but I wanted to give you a nod for getting me thinking about something WAY, WAY past the scope of my initial reply. Honestly, I think my reading comprehension fail was because I was already bouncing the idea of the thread around and it relates heavily to Cersei so my brain just filled in the blanks. On the positive side, it helped me develop and type out the idea that had been kinda nagging at me. On the other hand, I feel like an idiot. 

Edited by Demetri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 3:29 PM, The hairy bear said:

The appendixes of ACOK included a section devoted to "The King in the Narrow Sea". Last we had heard from Stannis in AGOT, he hadn't claimed the Throne. There are plenty of other mild spoilers in the appendixes, such as Brienne being included among Renly's Rainbow Guard (she is not named until the book's chapter 22).

As I see it, Aegon will become a clear claimant the moment he sets a foot in Westeros with the Golden Company. His intentions are clearly explained in the previous book, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. But I guess we are not in agreement here... :dunno:

I think Varys in TV show trying to find another candidate for the throne right before he was killed was a nod to the Blackfyre line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 11:13 PM, Demetri said:

...

Sure, they're different, but it is irrefutable that they're interconnected. Furthermore, GRRM had an active role (to some extent, at some point but at the very least in the form of him getting an executive producer credit still) in the show.

...

3) It is also notable for the same reason it was premeditated: The ending of the show almost requires some acknowledgement by GRRM. That's why we got a post, but doesn't fully account for the contents.

A quibble, any titles GRRM gets in the show credits are not informative. As creator and/or equity holder in the show he will have some glorified title even if he never had any involvement with the show after the deal with D&D and HBO.

#3 reflects a perfect corporate statement that must be made, but diminishes the show and augments GRRM -

a) yes, yes, yes, the show was wonderful. D&D and Bryan did an awesome job. There were lots of great technical staff! It's been a long, strange trip...

b) but what about all the characters that weren't done in the show? They had six hours to end it - I've got 3000+ pages. D&D and Bryan have a great future ahead of them, but I have 10+ projects currently in the works (not counting the books...). [nb, nice technique, the six hours refers to the last season, but the 3000 pages refers to, prolly, seasons 5-8]

 

As a corporate veteran, and connoisseur of corporate-speak, GRRM hits all the marks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Besides that, look at other characters who were completely robbed of their story, like Sansa in particular. Jaime was messed up to but not to the degree she was, I think Sansa was ripped out of hers and I bet Rickon was killed off so that they could give something to Sansa to make up for the Ramsay stuff. There will be differences. They viewers In D&D's estimate probably figured Rickon was a small child and no one cared about him but Sansa was in it from the beginning so they made that change. Sansa has a different path in the books, maybe two or three and I just do not see her going to Winterfell again. Maybe but i doubt it in the books.

Edited by A Ghost of Someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 1:59 AM, Demetri said:

http://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2019/05/20/an-ending/

This blog entry was an interesting choice. Parts of it felt perfunctory, the natural byproduct of the end of an era via the shows. However. Parts of it certainly stand out and are worth a look.

First is perhaps the most stark example of GRRM spoiling his future material ever. " I sat down for the first time with David Benioff and D.B. Weiss for a lunch that lasted well past dinner?  I asked them if they knew who Jon Snow’s mother was.   Fortunately, they did."

GRRM might be tricky, but he naturally draws a line between outright lying and general deception. If R+L=/=J then this would be basically a complete lie. But furthermore, he is being unnaturally candid in this statement. For those who enjoy some SSM, this is even more confirmatory than even minor things in the past. My read is that he is overtly acknowledging the legitimacy of this aspect of the show as it relates to book canon.

Second, his overall take and the neverending question of endings. Martin says that "Book or show, which will be the “real” ending?   It’s a silly question.   How many children did Scarlett O’Hara have?"

 

 

Thats a tricky question! See in original Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell, Scarlett O'Hara had X amount of children (I don't remember). HOWEVER, there is another famous follow-up book called Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley where Scarlett O'Hara has yet another child. It even had a TV mini series made with Tim Dalton.

So HOW many children does Scarlett O'Hara has - X or X+1? 

Share this post


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

Thats a tricky question! See in original Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell, Scarlett O'Hara had X amount of children (I don't remember). HOWEVER, there is another famous follow-up book called Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley where Scarlett O'Hara has yet another child. It even had a TV mini series made with Tim Dalton.

So HOW many children does Scarlett O'Hara has - X or X+1? 

George was not talking about sequel. It has nothing to do with sequels or fanfiction (sorry, that what this Ripley's book was - glorified "fix it all" fanfiction)

He was talking about book versus movie. 

In books Scarlett had 3 kids. In movie she had only 1 daughter. This is what the Scarlett kids reference is about, as George already used it before (many times) when he talked about books vs adaptation. 

Edited by DanaKz

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

×