Jump to content
#FreeGhost

The Book of The Kingsguard - Help Me Decide

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

You just made that up. Why would you make something like that up?

Because it's true based on the evidence we have so far?? Prove me wrong if you think I made that up.

39 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Were Ned, Robb, and Catelyn secondary characters? Saying they only killed characters whose story arc was finished is a tautology so I have no response to it, other than to say that Jaime’s story arc also was complete when he died.  

Ned's main arc was RR. Robb was never a POV character. Catelyn hasn't disappeared completely in the books. I never said they only kill characters whose story arc is finished. I said the main characters that were killed had finished their story arc.

As for Jaime, his redemption arc is unfulfilled, which is why I say spending so much time behind it was poor writing.

Edited by Apoplexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RFL said:

Your arc is generally complete when you die.  Sometimes, especially in times of war, our stories do not get a satisfying arc.  

Exactly my point. Jaimes arc was far from satisfying. And while that happens in real life, it doesn't make for a good drama, or at least in this specific case, the writers dropped the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why this was a good story.  The ending, for most of the characters, was not really satisfying.  The story was about the story not about the fans.  

Share this post


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

I liked the scene a lot. It was really touching. Especially when Brienne admitted that Cersei was Jaime's true love (it was bullshit but it was touching).

The part that slighly irritated me was that the book survived Dany's attack just like this.

This is going to sound like a distinction and not a difference, but for me who was heavily invested in the those characters and that relationship, it matters to me.

for me, that scene was about brienne. It was about the fact that she loved Jaime, and not whom Jaime loved.

 As for who Jaime 's true love was, I would argue not cersei. Based on the events in the show and the show runners opinions, he was merely addicted to her. And you are free to disagree on that score. Jaime may or may not have loved brienne (show runners said he did), but I don't believe he loved cersei.

As for the book surviving, another example of poor writing to force symbolism down viewers throats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RFL said:

Which is why this was a good story.  The ending, for most of the characters, was not really satisfying.  The story was about the story not about the fans.  

I would argue that's a very poor treatment of fans. Especially those paying for an HBO subscription just for GoT. And it made for really poor television. For me a story is as good as it's co conclusion, so I would argue it's a poor story as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Because it's true based on the evidence we have so far?? Prove me wrong if you think I made that up.

Ned's main arc was RR. Robb was never a POV character. Catelyn hasn't disappeared completely in the books. I never said they only kill characters whose story arc is finished. I said the main characters that were killed had finished their story arc.

As for Jaime, his redemption arc is unfulfilled, which is why I say spending so much time behind it was poor writing.

Well aside from the complete absence of evidence for what you’re saying—that It’s been suggested anywhere that it would be improper or unusual to record a KG’s fate in their entry, aside from the fact that I already provided two examples of individuals whose information was included after their separation from the KG, and aside from the fact that the entires for the vast majority of KG members are simply unknown, there is plenty of evidence that the entries are not limited to their actions while on the KG. Taking Selmy for example, nearly half of what’s included is information about what he did before he was named to the KG—when and why he was called “the bold,” who he killed, who when and why he was knighted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Because it's true based on the evidence we have so far?? Prove me wrong if you think I made that up.

Ned's main arc was RR. Robb was never a POV character. Catelyn hasn't disappeared completely in the books. I never said they only kill characters whose story arc is finished. I said the main characters that were killed had finished their story arc.

As for Jaime, his redemption arc is unfulfilled, which is why I say spending so much time behind it was poor writing.

As for the arc issue, you are being completely arbitrary.  Ned’s main arc was something that didn’t happen in the books? And the hundreds of pages about what this robust young man was doing in the prime of his life was just . . . I don’t even know what you would call it because I honestly can’t think in such an arbitrary manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Well aside from the complete absence of evidence for what you’re saying—that It’s been suggested anywhere that it would be improper or unusual to record a KG’s fate in their entry, aside from the fact that I already provided two examples of individuals whose information was included after their separation from the KG, and aside from the fact that the entires for the vast majority of KG members are simply unknown, there is plenty of evidence that the entries are not limited to their actions while on the KG. Taking Selmy for example, nearly half of what’s included is information about what he did before he was named to the KG—when and why he was called “the bold,” who he killed, who when and why he was knighted. 

My point of contention is where do you stop recording things for KG members, not where you start. With  the two examples you proivided, the entries stopped when they were executed for their crimes or dismissed for their crimes.

let's say Lucamore the lusty led some fantastic raids at the Nights watch. Would you say those would be recorded in the white book as well? My point is, entries would stop at dismissal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

As for the arc issue, you are being completely arbitrary.  Ned’s main arc was something that didn’t happen in the books? And the hundreds of pages about what this robust young man was doing in the prime of his life was just . . . I don’t even know what you would call it because I honestly can’t think in such an arbitrary manner.

Ned Stark, while an important figure in the first book, was never going to be a character that was a main character in the current series of events. You may have a different definition of a main character, but my point is, he wasn't central to the current story. Same as robert, although much more important than robert.

His role was essentially to die, and the current events in motion.

Share this post


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

Ned Stark, while an important figure in the first book, was never going to be a character that was a main character in the current series of events. You may have a different definition of a main character, but my point is, he wasn't central to the current story. Same as robert, although much more important than robert.

His role was essentially to die, and the current events in motion.

Can you be any more circular?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Can you be any more circular?

I can do everything under the sun!!

Jokes apart, can you explain to me how Ned Stark was a main character for the current set of events?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

My point of contention is where do you stop recording things for KG members, not where you start. With  the two examples you proivided, the entries stopped when they were executed for their crimes or dismissed for their crimes.

let's say Lucamore the lusty led some fantastic raids at the Nights watch. Would you say those would be recorded in the white book as well? My point is, entries would stop at dismissal.

First, you have no evidence that they stopped, or that others' did. 

Second, where the entries start, in addition to contradicting your claim that the entries only address actions while serving on the KG, gives us some information about what the purpose is, and where they would naturally stop.  The purpose is to provide an account of who was on the KG and the noteworthy things they did in their lives. 

And yes, it would be completely natural to note, for example, that Lucamore was ultimately slain in battle against some king beyond the wall.

Yet again, you have no shred of evidence to support he idea that you wouldn't. There's no law, no rules about the entries, no other bit of information, except the examples I've provided from the very few entries of which we have any evidence.  You've just made something up in your head to manufacture a complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Apoplexy said:

I can do everything under the sun!!

Jokes apart, can you explain to me how Ned Stark was a main character for the current set of events?

He was a main character and then he died, despite being brave, admirable, just, and strong, among other things. If you retroactively say that means he wasn't a main character, you are making a completely circular argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

First, you have no evidence that they stopped, or that others' did. 

 

I never said I had direct evidence. I say based on the entries for other members, it would be unusual to enter things happened after dismissal. Again, you don't have any evidence that entries were made for selmy or lucamore after their dismissal. Lucamore was disgraced and his heirs were forbidden from using his last name. I doubt the WB would record anything further.

11 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

 

Second, where the entries start, in addition to contradicting your claim that the entries only address actions while serving on the KG, gives us some information about what the purpose is, and where they would naturally stop.  The purpose is to provide an account of who was on the KG and the noteworthy things they did in their lives. 

 

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

13 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

 

And yes, it would be completely natural to note, for example, that Lucamore was ultimately slain in battle against some king beyond the wall.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. See above for reasons.

13 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

 

Yet again, you have no shred of evidence to support he idea that you wouldn't. There's no law, no rules about the entries, no other bit of information, except the examples I've provided from the very few entries of which we have any evidence.  You've just made something up in your head to manufacture a complaint.

If you provide me with evidence that Lucamore had his exploits at the wall recorded in the WB and it cannot be just manner of death, I'll concede. I don't think anything positive about lucamore would have been recorded in the WB, the way brienne did for Jaime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

He was a main character and then he died, despite being brave, admirable, just, and strong, among other things. If you retroactively say that means he wasn't a main character, you are making a completely circular argument.

Again, my question is how was Ned Stark important for the current set of events. I've said before, you may define main character differently, but that's not the point. I'm not speaking retroactively. My point is Ned Stark was there in the book with the sole purpose of dying. His death was supposed to be the catalyst for the war of the 5 kings from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the current set of events
  

I think this is the thing that is unique about this saga.  A story can only tell the events of the time it covers.  In this case it covered to just after the sacking of Kings Landing.  No more, no less.  Some stories for some people were not completed in that time.  Some people were killed before there stories could have a "satisfying" arc.  Some great evil people met their fate because ceilings caved in on them rather than being run through by the good and noble heros.  This story was not about telling the story the audience wanted it was telling the story that was the story.  

Share this post


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

Again, my question is how was Ned Stark important for the current set of events. I've said before, you may define main character differently, but that's not the point. I'm not speaking retroactively. My point is Ned Stark was there in the book with the sole purpose of dying. His death was supposed to be the catalyst for the war of the 5 kings from the beginning.

Can you prove he wasn't important in chapter 5 of GOT?

Edited by Forlong the Fat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Again, my question is how was Ned Stark important for the current set of events. I've said before, you may define main character differently, but that's not the point. I'm not speaking retroactively. My point is Ned Stark was there in the book with the sole purpose of dying. His death was supposed to be the catalyst for the war of the 5 kings from the beginning.

His son seceded and fought a war for Nothern independence, and his daughter followed through and achieved it.  His other son is king.  His other daughter saved humanity by killing the NK.  And his nephew saved it again by killing Dany.  All of them, at various points in time, remember their father and his values and attempt to live by them.  I could argue that Ned Stark is the foundational character for the entire series.

Share this post


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

His son seceded and fought a war for Nothern independence, and his daughter followed through and achieved it.  His other son is king.  His other daughter saved humanity by killing the NK.  And his nephew saved it again by killing Dany.  All of them, at various points in time, remember their father and his values and attempt to live by them.  I could argue that Ned Stark is the foundational character for the entire series.

Agreed. But again, HIS CHILDREN are central to the current set of events. The point I was making was that his story arc was pretty much complete when he died. He was central to RR. During the events that took place in 298 AC, his role was essentially to die and set events in motion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Can you prove he wasn't important in chapter 5 of GOT?

That is one chapter. I am speaking wrt to book 1.

If your contention is his story arc was incomplete, could you explain to me how was it incomplete? What more should have been included in his story arc?

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

×