What was the point of r+l=j

[John Meta]

On 5/29/2019 at 3:35 PM, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Again, exercise in discussing a theme we are emotionally involved in. And the comment in this case, as you said it, was about the system they chose. 

Bran, as a memory of the world, can choose to be an agent to 'steer' as you put it, the Six Kingdoms. To what end?

You say all mistakes of the past can be avoided. Well, of course they can, but since he is the only one in possession of that information, that implies that he will be the sole decisor. 

Call me cynical, but that is not a preferred scenario.

To further the discussion, by which point we do have to remove the 'Bran' element, we can always venture into a hipothetical future where Bran is no longer present. What then for our Westerosi experiment about progressing to representative government?

But again, we fall to the danger of posing ridiculous questions about how well Bran's knowledge serves him as an instrument to steer Westeros. How effectivelly he can do that and his will to do so. What he will do while he reigns over the Six and through mere presence and interaction, maybe the North as well.

And we return to aggressively invasive, as far as the integrity of the story we're shown, theories about where that will and effectiveness was before when so many were suffering.

If his will is the greater good? The good of the many, of nature, of everything?

I like to ask these questions, even if they are futile in the concept of a finished fantasy story I have no true background to conceptualize alterations, or hipothetical alternative iterations to. I can still imagine and idealize.

What we're shown was indeed the best case scenario. Because it was shown as such. Bran is king. He knows much. He knows best. All is good across the land. The end.

Most of your post is based, as you say, on hypotheticals, theory and speculation. I personally find these things to have no meaningful relationship to interpretive information. It's fun to speculate and theorize but, in the end, it's really just an exercise in an act (as related to a narrative) that has no narrative meaning.

Bear in mind I'm in no way trying to be dismissive of your post, it's just that I don't really have anything to offer of value in response. It's kind of like if while discussing the LotR narrative, someone says to me, "What if Frodo doesn't really have to leave Middle Earth at the end?" all I can really do is shrug and reply, "I have no meaningful way of discussing that hypothetical."

All I can really say is that, according to the known narrative information being conveyed, Frodo chooses to leave Middle Earth, and, Bran is the best choice to lead Westeros into the future.