Jump to content
Stannis is the man....nis

The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, divica said:

Show!bran is emotionally dead. Nothing matters to him… If he manipulating anything is his familly, danny, sam, etc in order to get the throne… So basically a super evil guy… You can t have it both ways...

Show-Bran is only superficially emotionally dead.  We don't know what is actually going on his  head, though.  It is very possible that this is merely a front he is putting up.

It is also possible that Bran has seen many possible futures, and has done what he has done because the one we saw unfold on screen was the least bad.  Bran does not necessarily have to be bad in order to make the choices he has made (even assuming he HAS a choice, which is very much open to debate..  We have been told that the "ink is dry" on the past, it's possible that is also true for the future.  If so, then I think people are blaming Bran for stuff that is beyond even his ability to control.)

21 hours ago, divica said:

Bran doesn t know the lords, as in he doesn t have any relation with them or vice versa. Other people in power know and understand each other… 

Bran doesn't know the lords???

Um, Bran knows anything he wants or needs to know.  He is just barely this side of omniscient.

Further, Bran is such a mystery at this point that it's nearly impossible for us (the audience) to know what he does or does not know.  For all we know, he's been studying all the other players intensely for months.  In fact, that seems likely to me.

21 hours ago, divica said:

And you are ignoring the problem. Nobody that met bran is inspired by him (meera even says he died in the cave)… Nobody has any reason to believe he knows how to rule… He hasn t proven anything! Nobody knows if he is mentally sane. Nobody knows what he thinks about the tax policies, brothels (stannis would banish these for exemple), religion or how they should rebuild… Bran doesn t have anything to show he has leadership abilities! electing bran as king because he can see the past and warg animals is insane because a king has very little use for these abilities. Any lord has a much better curriculum to be king! I don t think this can be argued...

Bran hasn't proven anything??? Um, he won the war for the Living against the Dead.  That's not proving anything??

Yes, he is a mystery, but that does NOT mean he is bad.   In fact, I maintain that all information we have been given that we can reliably judge says that he is fundamentally good.  Is it possible he has been corrupted somehow?  Sure, but I maintain we have NOT yet been given that information, and unless and until we are given such information, I am not going to assume he's bad for no reason,.

21 hours ago, divica said:

Again, as aemon said good people aren t necessarily good kings. Then in the books bran hasn become the 3ER yet so we don t know what effects that will have on him… However in the show he is either emotionally dead or a evil manipulator… Nothing points to him being good...

I think you are simply accepting what we have seen at superficial face value.

It is possible you are right, but I do not believe we have been given adequate information to conclusively believe things like "he is emotionally dead" or "he is bad" yet.  In my opinion, those are just theories, which can be fun to talk about, but which are NOT proven.

21 hours ago, divica said:

But the most important thing is that present bran has no qualifications to be king… Even you are almost saying it. It doesn t matter if future bran might be qualified. At the moment he isnt...

I'm not sure if you are talking about the show or books here.  In the books, I'd say you're right, Bran is still unproven.  In the show, however, I maintain that he IS proven.  In fact, so far, he seems to be infallible.  You may not like that characterization of his character, but I believe I am simply judging him based on the information we have been given.  Since Bran become the 3ER in the show, WHEN has he been wrong??  So far as I know, "never."  So far as we know. Again, is it possible he's been corrupted, or made a mistake?  Sure, but we have not been given that information, and I am not just going to assume it's true without foundation to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, he is stuck with how he made him at this point. And I don't think Tyrion is a particularly good ruler/Hand. He had good intentions but he was quickly absorbed by the game of thrones and the thrill intrigue and power gave him. Not to mention that he was a (not so good) man in service of a bad cause (keeping Joffrey and the Lannisters in power).

Oh, I just thought it was a clue that he’s making Tyrion the prime minister because if he’s worried about Tyrion’s perception among readers, he’s probably got a happy ending in store for him at the end. He may be expecting backlash? I agree that he SHOULDNT have a redemption arc but we’re talking grrm’s fav here...

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

At this point, it looks more and more that it will be Jon and Bran’s arcs to take on the WWs and all the AA or PtwP prophecy relate to them and Dany is just a big red herring.

As it should be, the two Targs being super special prophecy heroes never made sense to me. Also, Jon fans are diverse and some didn’t care if he was a big hero or not, didn’t care about the prophecy. They just wanted him to fight for his family in the end, which is satisfying if you’re a Stark loyalist, which I am. Arya getting the big hero moment instead of Jon was fine in my book, I just wanted Jon to not be SUCH a doormat around Dany and fall for her cult.

I accept the Bran/Tyrion ending as book canon and most complaints I have are directed at the author. I agree with the folks pointing out some of the massive flaws, but I sense this will be a flaw in the books too. I disagree with the idea that a Targ restoration makes more sense. @Cron I like your points, it’s helping me understand some things better.

Share this post


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

Show-Bran is only superficially emotionally dead.  We don't know what is actually going on his  head, though.  It is very possible that this is merely a front he is putting up.

It is also possible that Bran has seen many possible futures, and has done what he has done because the one we saw unfold on screen was the least bad.  Bran does not necessarily have to be bad in order to make the choices he has made (even assuming he HAS a choice, which is very much open to debate..  We have been told that the "ink is dry" on the past, it's possible that is also true for the future.  If so, then I think people are blaming Bran for stuff that is beyond even his ability to control.)

Bran doesn't know the lords???

Um, Bran knows anything he wants or needs to know.  He is just barely this side of omniscient.

Further, Bran is such a mystery at this point that it's nearly impossible for us (the audience) to know what he does or does not know.  For all we know, he's been studying all the other players intensely for months.  In fact, that seems likely to me.

Bran hasn't proven anything??? Um, he won the war for the Living against the Dead.  That's not proving anything??

Yes, he is a mystery, but that does NOT mean he is bad.   In fact, I maintain that all information we have been given that we can reliably judge says that he is fundamentally good.  Is it possible he has been corrupted somehow?  Sure, but I maintain we have NOT yet been given that information, and unless and until we are given such information, I am not going to assume he's bad for no reason,.

I think you are simply accepting what we have seen at superficial face value.

It is possible you are right, but I do not believe we have been given adequate information to conclusively believe things like "he is emotionally dead" or "he is bad" yet.  In my opinion, those are just theories, which can be fun to talk about, but which are NOT proven.

I'm not sure if you are talking about the show or books here.  In the books, I'd say you're right, Bran is still unproven.  In the show, however, I maintain that he IS proven.  In fact, so far, he seems to be infallible.  You may not like that characterization of his character, but I believe I am simply judging him based on the information we have been given.  Since Bran become the 3ER in the show, WHEN has he been wrong??  So far as I know, "never."  So far as we know. Again, is it possible he's been corrupted, or made a mistake?  Sure, but we have not been given that information, and I am not just going to assume it's true without foundation to support it.

It's like making a supercomputer the King.  The supercomputer can process a lot of information.  That doesn't make it a good King.

Bran can't fight, have sex, hunt, dance, make conversation, deliver speeches, etc. all the things that endear a ruler to his people.  He's just a weird teenager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord VarysI'd like Dany to win.  I just think that the weight of prejudice against her will be too great.  I think that's one thing the show actually got right.    She'll always be a foreign whore to most nobles.  Good enough (just about) to save their hides, but not good enough to be their ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 3:19 PM, teej6 said:

If Bran becomes ruler in the end, it might be him controlling the actual ruler through his divine powers or else it might be the actual ruler, perhaps Jon, handing over the Kingship to Bran and walking away or rather riding away to the far North.  GRRM has also mentioned that we’ll see many rulers sit the IT before we see the end-game King. Since we can safely assume that Bran will outlive all the other characters, we can also assume that it may be a much older Bran being crowned King after all the present contenders have ruled and gone.

Here are the ones who I think will sit the Iron Throne

1. Tommen (current)

2. Myrcella

3. Aegon

4. Euron

5/6. Jon/Daenerys

7. Bran

I'm not exactly sure how Daenerys and Jon will work out (I know they will be married at this point) but there's no reason to believe that after Euron is defeated, the two of them won't be picking up the slack and enact the tax policies and laws that Bran will eventually either revise or uphold once he comes to power.

I think the Starks in general will be the ones to rule the Seven Kingdoms. I can see Bran being the actual god-king ruling from the Isle of Faces with Sansa being the administrator who is actually doing all of the day-to-day work out of Harrenhal or something. Arya would be travelling about Westeros to enforce the law and maintain peace with her wolf pack which would include Nymeria, Nymeria's actual pack of wolves and the all-new, all-different Brotherhood Without Banners.

If Rickon survives the series (which is frankly very possible), I'd put him at Winterfell as its new Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Oh, I just thought it was a clue that he’s making Tyrion the prime minister because if he’s worried about Tyrion’s perception among readers, he’s probably got a happy ending in store for him at the end. He may be expecting backlash? I agree that he SHOULDNT have a redemption arc but we’re talking grrm’s fav here...

Oh, having a redemption arc (not seeing any for Tyrion at this point - his arc was one from decent to bad, and him hanging out with Penny or riding a pig right now doesn't make him good) and being the author's favorite doesn't mean one cannot die. George says he likes all his characters and he says he killed quite a few characters he actually liked.

Treating the author as if he was some sort of fan boy of characters he created is sort of stupid. He wants to write a tantalizing story, not caper to the non-existent needs of fictional characters ;-).

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

As it should be, the two Targs being super special prophecy heroes never made sense to me. Also, Jon fans are diverse and some didn’t care if he was a big hero or not, didn’t care about the prophecy. They just wanted him to fight for his family in the end, which is satisfying if you’re a Stark loyalist, which I am. Arya getting the big hero moment instead of Jon was fine in my book, I just wanted Jon to not be SUCH a doormat around Dany and fall for her cult.

Jon would basically be a pretty dull and mediocre character without any kind of fan following if he were just the Stark bastard and people weren't discussing his parentage for nearly three decades. As his own character he is not that bad, but if there was no prophecy stuff revolving around his true parentage and all that he would be as decent or important a guy as, say, Davos or Brienne.

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

@Lord VarysI'd like Dany to win.  I just think that the weight of prejudice against her will be too great.  I think that's one thing the show actually got right.    She'll always be a foreign whore to most nobles.  Good enough (just about) to save their hides, but not good enough to be their ruler.

It is not about winning, actually. My issue is that I cannot see a reasonable plot line that gets Dany even remotely in the same position as she is in the finale within the framework of the books. There are other characters much better suited for some holocaust nonsense than Daenerys - Euron, Cersei, even Jon Connington (who actually has an issue with bells and is not unlikely to become suicidal loose cannon if his illness progresses and starts to affect his sanity). And as I said - while Euron and Cersei are pretty much build up as mad maniacs by the time of ADwD they still have yet to commit large scale atrocities. Euron is mentally there already, of course, but he still lacks opportunity (although that's likely to change early in TWoW when he confronts the Redwynes) but I daresay Cersei will only reach this point once she has lost all her children and Jaime.

While chances are not that bad that Aegon is going to get a large following and become somewhat popular - and thus that there being a significant number of people preferring Aegon to Dany - chances that anyone is going to prefer Euron, Stannis, or Cersei to Dany are not that high, regardless how Dany is painted by Aegon's people.

Share this post


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

Treating the author as if he was some sort of fan boy of characters he created is sort of stupid. He wants to write a tantalizing story, not caper to the non-existent needs of fictional characters ;-).

When he says the Starks are his favorite House and Tyrion is his favorite character I believe he has winners and losers in mind for who makes it to the end. I think his #1 favorites survive. Simple as that. We have evidence for it now on the show.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon would basically be a pretty dull and mediocre character without any kind of fan following if he were just the Stark bastard and people weren't discussing his parentage for nearly three decades. As his own character he is not that bad, but if there was no prophecy stuff revolving around his true parentage and all that he would be as decent or important a guy as, say, Davos or Brienne.

I'm just explaining why I like Jon. It was always his emotional connections and relationships with people that I was interested in. I like him interacting with the Starks and Northerners, and I'm interested in his reaction to his parentage (which we were shafted on in the show). I dont need heroic swordfights, prophecy fulfillment, leading armies, dragon riding, any of that. I'm a simple bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Here are the ones who I think will sit the Iron Throne

1. Tommen (current)

2. Myrcella

3. Aegon

4. Euron

5/6. Jon/Daenerys

7. Bran

Yeah, the above list sounds plausible. I also wouldn’t rule out Stannis, although I know he’s a long shot. But can you imagine if GRRM does make Stannis sit the IT even temporarily, all the Stan Stans will come out of hibernation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, teej6 said:

Yeah, the above list sounds plausible. I also wouldn’t rule out Stannis, although I know he’s a long shot. But can you imagine if GRRM does make Stannis sit the IT even temporarily, all the Stan Stans will come out of hibernation. 

He's over a thousand miles away from the Iron Throne. Need I also mention that Stannis is bleeding followers/soldiers.

Even if he manages to take Winterfell, he still has to make sure his army rests. Then he make nice with the crannogmen and get to Moat Cailin. And then he has to work his way through the Riverlands passing the Vale to the east and the West to the west. And then he has to endure another siege at King's Landing. On top of all of that, this is winter and there already isn't enough food.

Whereas Cersei and her children are actually in King's Landing with a bunch of soldiers and Aegon is a hundred or so miles down the Kingsroad in the Stormlands.

No way.

I do think that after Myrcella dies, there will be a super brief period where Cersei will try to seat herself. It won't work because no one likes her and Aegon will be on their doorstep by then.

But we are much more likely to see Cersei sit the Iron Throne for 12 hours than we are to see Stannis sit the Iron Throne.

Personally, I don't see Stannis surviving past the prologue of A Dream of Spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

He's over a thousand miles away from the Iron Throne. Need I also mention that Stannis is bleeding followers/soldiers.

Even if he manages to take Winterfell, he still has to make sure his army rests. Then he make nice with the crannogmen and get to Moat Cailin. And then he has to work his way through the Riverlands passing the Vale to the east and the West to the west. And then he has to endure another siege at King's Landing. On top of all of that, this is winter and there already isn't enough food.

Whereas Cersei and her children are actually in King's Landing with a bunch of soldiers and Aegon is a hundred or so miles down the Kingsroad in the Stormlands.

No way.

I do think that after Myrcella dies, there will be a super brief period where Cersei will try to seat herself. It won't work because no one likes her and Aegon will be on their doorstep by then.

But we are much more likely to see Cersei sit the Iron Throne for 12 hours than we are to see Stannis sit the Iron Throne.

Personally, I don't see Stannis surviving past the prologue of A Dream of Spring.

That’s why I said a long shot. I don’t see Stannis surviving till the end either but if he ends up defeating the Boltons and Davos is successful in bringing back Rickon alive, Manderly will throw his support behind Stannis, and who’s to say the rest of the North won’t follow. He could have the support of the Vale through Sansa, and perhaps the RL also if the Brotherhood is successful in freeing Edmure. I’m not saying he will physically sit the IT, but half the realm could throw their lot behind him. 

Anyway, I’m not convinced either, so no point taking this debate any further :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, having a redemption arc (not seeing any for Tyrion at this point - his arc was one from decent to bad, and him hanging out with Penny or riding a pig right now doesn't make him good) and being the author's favorite doesn't mean one cannot die. George says he likes all his characters and he says he killed quite a few characters he actually liked.

Treating the author as if he was some sort of fan boy of characters he created is sort of stupid. He wants to write a tantalizing story, not caper to the non-existent needs of fictional characters ;-).

Jon would basically be a pretty dull and mediocre character without any kind of fan following if he were just the Stark bastard and people weren't discussing his parentage for nearly three decades. As his own character he is not that bad, but if there was no prophecy stuff revolving around his true parentage and all that he would be as decent or important a guy as, say, Davos or Brienne.

It is not about winning, actually. My issue is that I cannot see a reasonable plot line that gets Dany even remotely in the same position as she is in the finale within the framework of the books. There are other characters much better suited for some holocaust nonsense than Daenerys - Euron, Cersei, even Jon Connington (who actually has an issue with bells and is not unlikely to become suicidal loose cannon if his illness progresses and starts to affect his sanity). And as I said - while Euron and Cersei are pretty much build up as mad maniacs by the time of ADwD they still have yet to commit large scale atrocities. Euron is mentally there already, of course, but he still lacks opportunity (although that's likely to change early in TWoW when he confronts the Redwynes) but I daresay Cersei will only reach this point once she has lost all her children and Jaime.

While chances are not that bad that Aegon is going to get a large following and become somewhat popular - and thus that there being a significant number of people preferring Aegon to Dany - chances that anyone is going to prefer Euron, Stannis, or Cersei to Dany are not that high, regardless how Dany is painted by Aegon's people.

I don't expect Dany to incinerate hundreds of thousands of people because she's Satan.  That's just very poor story-telling.

I think someone will burn Kings Landing.  it could be Jon Con, Cersei, or Dany.  I could see Cersei, facing defeat, deciding to take the entire city down with her.  In the case of the Jon Con or Dany, I expect it would be more. of an accident, triggering caches of wildfire, while storming the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

I'm just explaining why I like Jon. It was always his emotional connections and relationships with people that I was interested in. I like him interacting with the Starks and Northerners, and I'm interested in his reaction to his parentage (which we were shafted on in the show). I dont need heroic swordfights, prophecy fulfillment, leading armies, dragon riding, any of that. I'm a simple bitch.

I never cared for the prophecy much and the only thing interesting me about his heritage is how Jon would feel about it. I like Jon as a character. I understand why some ppl would find him boring since his arc is isolated from the rest and it's not as sensational as battling slavers and birthing dragons. He's also too much of a good guy compared with the other characters which apparently makes not edgy enough. But for me, that is exactly why I like him - he starts as him trying to emulate Ned Stark (not a fan btw) but slowly realizes that holding on to honor so tightly is not feasible.

I don't understand ppl who asert the fact that his ending in the show is OK because he always wanted to be a ranger. He was a kid dazzled by his uncle's inflated stories about the NW, and he also thought he never had any other option to choose from. Jon dreamt about having a family and kids but thought that wasn't something he can have so no, him ending back in the NW at the end is bull. Anyway, I've read the books some time ago so the details might be a little fuzzy in my head now. It just feels like GRRM went with the secret prince just so he can have the opportunity to go in the opposite direction with it. So many king references added to his arc which now we know mean diddly squat. Meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I accept the Bran/Tyrion ending as book canon and most complaints I have are directed at the author. I agree with the folks pointing out some of the massive flaws, but I sense this will be a flaw in the books too. I disagree with the idea that a Targ restoration makes more sense. @Cron I like your points, it’s helping me understand some things better.

Glad to hear it.

One way or the other, it will be very interesting to see how all of this stuff plays out when the sequel is eventually made, especially since I highly doubt D&D will be the show runners.  (I'm not ripping them, just saying I think the odds are that it won't be them.  Personally, I think that over the course of the series D&D got a LOT more right than wrong, although of course there were some things I would have done differently.)

Share this post


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

It's like making a supercomputer the King.  The supercomputer can process a lot of information.  That doesn't make it a good King.

Bran can't fight, have sex, hunt, dance, make conversation, deliver speeches, etc. all the things that endear a ruler to his people.  He's just a weird teenager.

I'm not claiming Bran is perfect, just that he was by far the best available choice.

This is a fun subject to discuss, but I think anyone who disagrees that Bran was the best choice should let us know who was available and better.

If it's true that Bran is emotionless (and no longer "wants," as he said), then that could mean he's incapable of being corrupted, at least by the things that have corrupted so many other rulers.  Isn't that a good thing?

Bran is nearly infallible when it comes to "knowing" things.  How is that not an incredibly good thing for a ruler?

Bran is fundamentally good, possibly THE most fundamentally good characters in all of ASOIAF/GoT.  How is that not a huge point in his favor when it comes to picking a ruler?  Should I prefer Bronn because he can fight, have sex, hunt, dance and give speeches?? No thanks, not even remotely close, in my opinion.

Bran should be nearly impossible to overthrow.  How could anyone do it?  So far as we know, he pretty much cannot be taken by surprise, he knows the future, and, for all we know, may be able to review many possible futures.

All in all, I think Bran has the best qualifications to rule Westeros, but I would be happy to discuss the merits and/or demerits of other characters as well.  I think many of the other candidates would merely be figureheads though, routinely relying on Bran's judgment anyway.  How could they NOT?  Let's say Sansa, Jon, Arya, Davos, Brienne, or Sam was the ruler at the end.  Wouldn't they regularly consult Bran on many decisions anyway, and never go against his "advice"?  We've already seen them (wisely) defer to him completely, in Episode 803 (The Long Night), when Bran told them how the battle had to be fought (by using Bran himself as bait in the Godswood, and I believe Bran very likely told them many other things offscreen, too).  So, they followed his advice, even though it seemed to make no sense to at least some of them, and against enormous odds, they WON.  How could any of those other characters go against Bran's judgment and advice after that??

But hey, maybe that's what some people wanted:  A ruler who can fight, and have sex, and sing and dance and give speeches as a mere figurehead while the REAL work of ruling is done by Bran.  Not me, though.  I would have just voted for Bran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cron said:

I'm not claiming Bran is perfect, just that he was by far the best available choice.

This is a fun subject to discuss, but I think anyone who disagrees that Bran was the best choice should let us know who was available and better.

If it's true that Bran is emotionless (and no longer "wants," as he said), then that could mean he's incapable of being corrupted, at least by the things that have corrupted so many other rulers.  Isn't that a good thing?

Bran is nearly infallible when it comes to "knowing" things.  How is that not an incredibly good thing for a ruler?

Bran is fundamentally good, possibly THE most fundamentally good characters in all of ASOIAF/GoT.  How is that not a huge point in his favor when it comes to picking a ruler?  Should I prefer Bronn because he can fight, have sex, hunt, dance and give speeches?? No thanks, not even remotely close, in my opinion.

Bran should be nearly impossible to overthrow.  How could anyone do it?  So far as we know, he pretty much cannot be taken by surprise, he knows the future, and, for all we know, may be able to review many possible futures.

All in all, I think Bran has the best qualifications to rule Westeros, but I would be happy to discuss the merits and/or demerits of other characters as well.  I think many of the other candidates would merely be figureheads though, routinely relying on Bran's judgment anyway.  How could they NOT?  Let's say Sansa, Jon, Arya, Davos, Brienne, or Sam was the ruler at the end.  Wouldn't they regularly consult Bran on many decisions anyway, and never go against his "advice"?  We've already seen them (wisely) defer to him completely, in Episode 803 (The Long Night), when Bran told them how the battle had to be fought (by using Bran himself as bait in the Godswood, and I believe Bran very likely told them many other things offscreen, too).  So, they followed his advice, even though it seemed to make no sense to at least some of them, and against enormous odds, they WON.  How could any of those other characters go against Bran's judgment and advice after that??

But hey, maybe that's what some people wanted:  A ruler who can fight, and have sex, and sing and dance and give speeches as a mere figurehead while the REAL work of ruling is done by Bran.  Not me, though.  I would have just voted for Bran.

Bran can see events.  That's not at all the same thing as "knowing" things.  For example, in the books, Melisandre is very good at seeing events.  The problem is when she tries to interpret them (eg, she can see the various sigils of the lords at Barrowtown, but she needs Jon to tell her which Houses they represent.  She wouldn't know without Jon being on hand to interpret her information).  There's no reason at all to believe that Bran is infallible.

And, a king who has no emotions and no personality is a king who will not command the respect or affection of his lords, and a king who simply won't understand what motivates his people.

Share this post


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

This is a fun subject to discuss, but I think anyone who disagrees that Bran was the best choice should let us know who was available and better.

Based on the show, oh I don’t know, anyone on that GC that wasn’t a robot with no emotions, had empathy for humanity, and didn’t speak in cryptic one liners. Pick anyone, Sam, Edmure, Davos, or even Sandra. And if you wanted to pick someone not at that ridiculous council, how about Jon? One episode ago, we had Varys (who’s shown to be a good judge of character on the show) waxing on about how great a ruler Jon will be. Hmm, I wonder what happened to all those messages he was sending to the High Lords of Westeros? Puff, vanished! like every other stupid plot on the show. 

6 hours ago, Cron said:

All in all, I think Bran has the best qualifications to rule Westeros, but I would be happy to discuss the merits and/or demerits of other characters as well ... I believe Bran very likely told them many other things offscreen, too). 

The bolded is the problem with your arguments. You seem to assume a lot based on nothing. Your interpretation of how things transpired on the show is not how many others see it. For me, the whole thing is a giant mess. For one, to me, the show did NOT show us the extend of Bran’s powers or explain what he is capable of. He sees things but beyond that what else does he do? [Edited to add this bit: In the script of the finale, Tyrion refers to Bran as the “weird kid” from whom he expects “strange things” :bang: ...yeah those are the qualities of a good ruler]. 

If you assume Bran sees the future and therefore “cannot be taken by surprise”, then you’ve lost the argument that he is good or benevolent. Knowing the future, he just allowed a million or so people to get incinerated. How’s that a good thing? And let’s not stop there, if you take the argument a step further, he orchestrated events such that Dany would descend into  paranoia — he nudged Sam to tell Jon the truth about his heritage knowing well that Jon would then tell Dany who would not look favorably on another contender to the throne. What was the purpose of Bran insisting that Jon must urgently know the truth about his parents? Did the show-runners give us an explanation for that? No, another plot that made no sense. 

One can interpret that all his cryptic lines in the final episode — his line to Tyrion for his being in KL, or his line to Jon in the end — means that he manipulated events (even the massacre of thousands of people) so that he could be King. If that was D&D’s intent, Bran should be tried for orchestrating mass murder, not be handed a crown.

As to the books, as others have said, there is a lot GRRM needs to show (at this point I don’t what he can show to convince me that the King-Bran plot makes sense) if he needs to make Bran end-game King convincing and satisfying. As things now stand in the books, there are several obstacles (obstacles that GRRM himself introduced to Bran’s arc) for Bran being recognized King in Westeros. 

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cron said:

One way or the other, it will be very interesting to see how all of this stuff plays out when the sequel is eventually made, especially since I highly doubt D&D will be the show runners.  (I'm not ripping them, just saying I think the odds are that it won't be them.  Personally, I think that over the course of the series D&D got a LOT more right than wrong, although of course there were some things I would have done differently.)

Yes, if Jon is truly out of the running because he's a Targaryen - from the simple fact that no one trusts this House or wants them to breed -  and Sansa rules the North, I can see why Bran would be the only one left really. 

I think what a lot of people have a problem with is that GRRM promised them political realism and there is very little of that in a Bran ending. It skews traditional fantasy (he was the king Arthur all along!) with an art haus/literary fiction twist because of the chaoticness and unknown quantity that you bring up. People were drawn into the novel because of the political realism and thought it mattered, but Bran is more straight up fantasy and has too magical of an arc. He'll need to do a lot of work to get readers on board, but I'm pessimistic that he can. People want to feel like their curatorial knowledge, attention to foreshadowing, and knowledge of political realities paid off somehow. He's going to have (or is having?) a lot of backlash.

Having Tyrion as hand fits with that too. In any other story someone that dark wouldn’t end up as prime minister but apparently GRRM thinks Tyrion can leave his dirt in his personal life and not let it impede his job. LOL

Despite these complaints, what has helped me come to terms with the ending is this: reading ASOIAF is an exercise in realizing that many things that should happen... won't happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that, with the kind of story ASOIF is, you have to have certain things planned out. Although GRRM says he's a gardener, at the same time it's clear he wants to say something profound about human society with this story, which he calls his magnum opus. So certain characters and plot events may serve as a device for him to say what he wants to say. For example, Bran being king as a way of saying that for a society to move forward, it needs leaders who can examine history objectively and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

But on the other hand, he has made significant changes in the process of writing already; he decided to do away with the five year gap because he felt it didn't make sense anymore. If he could make a change that big, with such significant repercussions, you can't rule out anything being changed as a result of him getting there and deciding "wait a second, I just can't make this work in a believable way". So I think GRRM is digging himself into a hole by insisting he's not going to change anything about the ending.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, teej6 said:

If you assume Bran sees the future and therefore “cannot be taken by surprise”, then you’ve lost the argument that he is good or benevolent. Knowing the future, he just allowed a million or so people to get incinerated. How’s that a good thing? And let’s not stop there, if you take the argument a step further, he orchestrated events such that Dany would descend into  paranoia — he nudged Sam to tell Jon the truth about his heritage knowing well that Jon would then tell Dany who would not look favorably on another contender to the throne. What was the purpose of Bran insisting that Jon must urgently know the truth about his parents? Did the show-runners give us an explanation for that? No, another plot that made no sense. 

One can interpret that all his cryptic lines in the final episode — his line to Tyrion for his being in KL, or his line to Jon in the end — means that he manipulated events (even the massacre of thousands of people) so that he could be King. If that was D&D’s intent, Bran should be tried for orchestrating mass murder, not be handed a crown.

 

I agree with the above. 

For me the main issue I have with Bran is the idea of a supernatural/god being ruling over humans. I don’t care how well it is written, the message itself is the problem.

Humanity needs to get over its compulsion to hand power over to a messiah to clean up the mess they made. Even if the messiah is truly good, the resulting power structure is going to screw things up even more. Much better to rely on your own judgment, and your own mistakes. This whole idea of the infallible leader, especially one who does not share the humanity of his people, is faulty from the start because my view of history says that mistakes made by a leader (or made in a leader's name) are amplified by the numbers who follow without question.

Look how Dany was seen at the end – a mad queen for burning innocent ppl and planning to go on a righteous war across the land;at the end in her mind what she said was good for the simple fact that she said it was good. And that is precisely the concern I have with Bran - the only difference is that one is human and the other is not. Any god who allows thousands of people to suffer in this way and doesn’t care to help is evil in my opinion. And the idea that it was the best path that Bran could see, how do we know? Was it specified? No. Even more, as shown on screen it seems that Bran actually orchestrated the events in such a way that led to Dany going crazy.

I would rather have a flawed human rather than a perfect deity. A deity is not bound to human morality, therefore it can easily justify the slaughter of thousands of souls without batting an eye. You can protest against the actions of a human (Dany) but not so much against a god (Bran).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ruki88 said:

I agree with the above. 

For me the main issue I have with Bran is the idea of a supernatural/god being ruling over humans. I don’t care how well it is written, the message itself is the problem.

Humanity needs to get over its compulsion to hand power over to a messiah to clean up the mess they made. Even if the messiah is truly good, the resulting power structure is going to screw things up even more. Much better to rely on your own judgment, and your own mistakes. This whole idea of the infallible leader, especially one who does not share the humanity of his people, is faulty from the start because my view of history says that mistakes made by a leader (or made in a leader's name) are amplified by the numbers who follow without question.

Look how Dany was seen at the end – a mad queen for burning innocent ppl and planning to go on a righteous war across the land;at the end in her mind what she said was good for the simple fact that she said it was good. And that is precisely the concern I have with Bran - the only difference is that one is human and the other is not. Any god who allows thousands of people to suffer in this way and doesn’t care to help is evil in my opinion. And the idea that it was the best path that Bran could see, how do we know? Was it specified? No. Even more, as shown on screen it seems that Bran actually orchestrated the events in such a way that led to Dany going crazy.

I would rather have a flawed human rather than a perfect deity. A deity is not bound to human morality, therefore it can easily justify the slaughter of thousands of souls without batting an eye. You can protest against the actions of a human (Dany) but not so much against a god (Bran).

Making Bran King is like making some Geek King, because he spends 18 hours a day on his PC

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

×