The problem with Bran being king narrative wise

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, divica said:

Has he done really all of that? 

The problem is that he doesn t have targ blood... The claim to the IT mostly comes from that... 

Another big problem is who would support bran? Very few kingdoms have reasons to do it... 

Yes he has.

20 years ago, Martn said "He's the villain, but we all love a good villain".

[Darryk]

 

 

 

 

2

9 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Exactly.

That's why the idea of a King Stannis is so unattractive and, frankly, scary to a lot of people.

I don't think Tyrion, Sansa or Arya are going to have the same endings.

For one, Tyrion is the snarling lion pitting the dragons against each other. Moqorro has seen it in the fires and, unlike Melisandre, Moqorro is never wrong. Instead of charging Aegon to help Daenerys, Tyrion has already put Aegon in a position that makes him look like an enemy of Daenerys. And in the show, he manipulated Jon into killing Daenerys.

And Book Tyrion is three times as dark and twisted as TV Tyrion. Book Tyrion is actually exhibiting traits of a full-out villain. Raping slaves, killing people with poison, setting up people to be murdered by other people, mortgaging castles and gold that he doesn't have a claim on (aka fraud), beating innocent people black and blue, overindulging in alcohol, conniving to steal ownership of a sellsword company....

As for Bran? Um, do you realize that after Jon, Daenerys and Aegon (if he's not a fraud), the Iron Throne will legally pass to Bran. He is Jon's closest male blood relative (which is doubly important if Aegon is not a Targaryen and Daenerys joins her own independent claim to Jon's via marriage)

So, Bran Stark becoming king is very realistic.

The claim has to come through the royal line, which is through Rhaegar, not Lyanna. Bran has no blood relation to Rhaegar, hence no blood claim to the throne.

The manner in which he becomes king in the books will have to be something other than blood claim. 

[Ruki88]

9 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

 

As for Bran? Um, do you realize that after Jon, Daenerys and Aegon (if he's not a fraud), the Iron Throne will legally pass to Bran. He is Jon's closest male blood relative (which is doubly important if Aegon is not a Targaryen and Daenerys joins her own independent claim to Jon's via marriage)

So, Bran Stark becoming king is very realistic.

Actually, no. Robert Baratheon had a claim for the IT by right of conquest which was strengthen politically ("legally" so to speak) by him having blood ties with the Targs by way of his grandmother (Rhaella Targaryen). Bran has neither.

[Cron]

On 8/5/2019 at 1:04 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

That's an interesting thought about Jon being disqualified because he's Targaryen.  I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose I can add it to my list of reasons that if I had had a vote at the end, I would not have voted for Jon.

Sansa might have been a reasonable choice to me if we had been shown how smart she supposedly is, rather than being told (by Arya) it was true with, in my opinion, very little evidence to actually support it.

On 8/5/2019 at 1:04 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Political "realism" is often messy, chaotic and unpredictable, and in GoT, that goes all the way back to the beginning (Book One).

When they were reading Book 1, I think lots of people believed Ned was "the hero," and would win in the end.  Wrong.  "Realism" took over, and what we got was messy, chaotic and unpredictable, with Ned being executed in Book 1.

Or consider Khal Drogo, also in Book 1:  Many people, I think, believed he and Dany were going to storm Westeros with Dothraki.  Wrong.  "Realism" took over, and not only did those things not come to pass, but he got crossed off in Book 1, also, in a most ignoble way, no less (dying from an infection from a wound sustained while he was doing very terrible things to innocent people).

And I could go on and on.  GoT is chock full of unexpected twists and turns, so I'm not sure where any idea that GRRM promised things would be tied up in a neat little bow and make "sense" at the end has come from.  Actually, as I recall, the word GRRM used was "bittersweet," and I think that's exactly what we got, and that the sharply divided fan base proves it.   Some people really, really, dislike the "bitter" part.  (And there's nothing wrong with that, of course.  They are entitled to their opinions, and I respect them.  In fact, the differences in opinions were what made the books and show great, and what make conversation on these boards interesting.  If we all agreed about everything, I don't think these boards would be nearly as intellectually stimulating as they are.)

On 8/5/2019 at 1:04 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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

Well, I hear you, but of course show-Tyrion is sometimes called "Saint Tyrion" for good reasons:  A lot of his "badness" has been scrubbed off of him, so I think your point is a very good one for the books, but not necessarily for the show. (For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Tyrion and Cersei are much worse, morally, in the books than in the show, and Jaime is much worse, morally, in the show than in the books. Many, many examples can be given to support these conclusions for all 3 characters.)

On 8/5/2019 at 1:04 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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

I agree.

And don't get me wrong, there ARE things I didn't like, too.  (Most notably:  (1) Sansa being shoehorned into Jeyne Poole's storyline, (2) what happened to Shireen Baratheon, and (3) what happened to Lyanna Mormont.  And yes, I know Shireen burning will be book canon, and what happened to Lyanna may well be, too..)

[BlackLightning]

15 hours ago, divica said:

Has he done really all of that? 

Yes. All happened in A Dance with Dragons. A lot of people seem to ignore it, shrugging it off as Tyrion suffering from PTSD and depression. But it is what it is: Tyrion killed his father when there was literally no reason for him to do so. From that moment on, he's literally been sinking lower and lower.

He's not going to survive the book series. There has been a prophecy about a maiden (the same maiden prophesized to be present at the Purple Wedding with the snakes or poison in her hair) slaying a giant in a castle of snow. Everyone knows the maiden is Sansa. But who is the giant? Some people think it's referring to Littlefinger but the one character who is ascribed with all the giant imagery is actually Tyrion.

15 hours ago, divica said:

The problem is that he doesn t have targ blood... The claim to the IT mostly comes from that... 

Another big problem is who would support bran? Very few kingdoms have reasons to do it... 

Not necessarily.

Robert Baratheon and his brothers are related to the Targaryens by way of their grandmother, Rhaelle Baratheon. Although he took the Iron Throne by force and held it (i.e. right of conquest), that was the premise of the Baratheon dynasty. Blood claim via Princess Rhaelle.

Bran, Sansa and Arya are blood relatives of the current generation of Targaryens (i.e. Viserys, Daenerys, Aegon if he's real) by way of Jon Snow. It's the same thing; the same premise that got Robert Baratheon legitimized as king will work for Brandon Stark. Doubly so since proximity and sex works in Bran's favor. A still-living male first cousin who was the son of King Aerys II's firstborn versus a dead female grandparent who was the lastborn of King Aegon V.

And if Jon names Bran as his heir before he and Dany (whom I am 100% sure will be married halfway through Dream) are...

• able to have a child
• killed, exiled, imprisoned or otherwise removed from the line of succession

….then that makes Bran that much more likely to become the King of Westeros.

If Jon is the one true heir to the Iron Throne, then yes, if all his Targaryen relatives are dead or otherwise incapacitated, then his claim to the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms would pass on to his Stark relatives.

Take for example Riverrun.

If something was to happen to Edmure and his child, the Tully castle and the title of Lord Paramount of the Trident passes to Catelyn. But since Catelyn is already dead (she's not technically dead anymore but bear with me), then the Tully inheritance passes onto Catelyn's children, starting with Bran before flowing from Rickon (if he's alive), Sansa and finally Arya. If all of Catelyn's children are dead or otherwise incapacitated, then it goes to Lysa and then Lysa's son, Robert Arryn. If Robert Arryn can't inherit because he's dead or something, then Riverrun and the Trident would probably end up belonging to someone in the Vale or the Riverlands. Because House Whent (the house of Catelyn's mother) is extinct and Robert Arryn is the last living male of the head branch of House Arryn.

Now, I agree with @Darryk. Bran is going to have a bigger claim to fame than just his blood relation to Jon. But if he makes himself and his powers known in Westeros and if he is instrumental in defeating the Others, Euron Greyjoy or both....then yeah. King Bran makes sense.

[BlackLightning]

2 hours ago, Cron said:

And I could go on and on.  GoT is chock full of unexpected twists and turns, so I'm not sure where any idea that GRRM promised things would be tied up in a neat little bow and make "sense" at the end has come from.  Actually, as I recall, the word GRRM used was "bittersweet," and I think that's exactly what we got, and that the sharply divided fan base proves it.   Some people really, really, dislike the "bitter" part.  (And there's nothing wrong with that, of course.  They are entitled to their opinions, and I respect them.  In fact, the differences in opinions were what made the books and show great, and what make conversation on these boards interesting.  If we all agreed about everything, I don't think these boards would be nearly as intellectually stimulating as they are.)

The ending in the show was bittersweet?

Hahahahaaha

Toy Story 3 has a bittersweet ending. Lost in Translation has a bittersweet ending. A Tale of Two Cities has a bittersweet ending. Charlotte's Web has a bittersweet ending. Gladiator has a bittersweet ending. Red Dawn has a bittersweet ending.

The ending we got in this show was not bittersweet. Tell me what was the sweet part?

[Ruki88]

3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

 

The ending we got in this show was not bittersweet. Tell me what was the sweet part?

I think they kinda forgot....

[teej6]

11 hours ago, Cron said:

Political "realism" is often messy, chaotic and unpredictable, and in GoT, that goes all the way back to the beginning (Book One).

When they were reading Book 1, I think lots of people believed Ned was "the hero," and would win in the end.  Wrong.  "Realism" took over, and what we got was messy, chaotic and unpredictable, with Ned being executed in Book 1.

Or consider Khal Drogo, also in Book 1:  Many people, I think, believed he and Dany were going to storm Westeros with Dothraki...

And I could go on and on.  GoT is chock full of unexpected twists and turns, so I'm not sure where any idea that GRRM promised things would be tied up in a neat little bow and make "sense" at the end has come from.  Actually, as I recall, the word GRRM used was "bittersweet," and I think that's exactly what we got, and that the sharply divided fan base proves it.   

How can anyone argue that what D&D showed was “realism”? Please, do some very basic research on medieval history and explain to me how Bran being made King is remotely realistic in the context of medieval times. By the way, the books are referred to as ASOIAF, AGOT being the name of the first book. GOT is the name of the show. 

While Ned’s death was a shocking moment, once it happened, the moment made complete sense from a narrative perspective. Martin did connect the dots, everything that happened till Ned is executed leads perfectly to the event itself. That’s what good storytelling is all about and that’s what people expected on the show. Instead we get the rubbish plot of Bran (the cripple boy with no claim) being made King because a universally despised dwarf claims he has the best story. See the difference? As to Ned being the hero that was also a clever ruse on Martin’s part to make casual superficial readers think that Ned was the hero. Ned was never the hero, instead he was the father figure trope in fantasy... the story is about his kids and their growth not him. FYI, the father figure trope always dies in fantasy to trigger the the hero(es) journey.

As to Khal Drogo invading Westeros, none of the book fans I know actually thought that was going to happen. Khal Drogo was a secondary character at best in the books, and the Essos storyline was about Dany’s growth not Khal Drogo’s conquest of Westeros. 

ASOIAF is not “full of twists and turns” instead the books tend, at times, to give readers a different outcome than what they are hoping/rooting for. Twists and shocks are D&D’s MO, not Martin’s. Martin likes to surprise his readers but he has also repeatedly said that if he has put clues in the story for the butler to be the murderer, he is not going to change the ending and make the cook the murderer if his readers have figured it out. So if Bran is end-game King, his story in the next books will reflect that and lead to it. We are not going to get anything resembling Bran’s arc on the show, which is a travesty and extremely poor storytelling. From your posts, I can’t tell if you’ve read the books, cause if you have, you wouldn’t be arguing that GRRM would portray events in the books similar to the way they unfolded on the show. As GRRM says the broad strokes (meaning the ending for some characters) will be the same on the show and in the books, but the journey will be different. And the journey will make all the difference. Martin may not have the best prose, but he most certainly can weave a good story that is coherent and consistent. In the books, every event that happens neatly ties to thinks that’s shown in the past. It may not be evident before the event happens, but once it does, you will see that everything that went before led up to it. This is true for Ned’s execution, Robb’s death/the Red Wedding, Jon’s stabbing, etc.

As to his bittersweet ending, GRRM often refers to the LOTR ending as an example, especially the scouring of the shire. Bittersweet doesn’t mean pulling an ending out of thin air that makes no logical sense, which is what D&D did. When GRRM ends the books, there will probably be a lot of fans that will be disappointed (perhaps myself as well) that they didn’t get the ending they wanted for their favorite characters, but it won’t be because the ending doesn’t make sense to most of the readers. His ending, I’m sure, will resolve things in a manner that makes narrative sense to the story and the characters’ arc. And that’s what tying things up or connecting the dots mean for me as a reader, which is an essential part of good storytelling and for which Martin provided us with the analogy of the butler and the cook. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 8/8/2019 at 5:15 AM, Cron said:

That's an interesting thought about Jon being disqualified because he's Targaryen.  I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose I can add it to my list of reasons that if I had had a vote at the end, I would not have voted for Jon.

I would not have voted for Show!Jon, that's for sure. What an idiot, even dumber than Ned and Robb. At least Robb didn't hook up with someone who had ALWAYS planned to subjugate the North and threaten his family. Even though Jon and Sansa had just fought (the second!!) war for independence, he couldn't foresee that his sister wants it to stay that way, and Dany doesn't want that?? Him stabbing her was him having to clean up his own mess. At least Bran steered clear of this idiocy. 

On 8/8/2019 at 5:15 AM, Cron said:

Well, I hear you, but of course show-Tyrion is sometimes called "Saint Tyrion" for good reasons:  A lot of his "badness" has been scrubbed off of him, so I think your point is a very good one for the books, but not necessarily for the show.

But why is he a saint? My theory is that D&D scrubbed him clean to match the endgame for him, so audiences wouldn't revolt. I still think it's what GRRM is planning. He's been talking non-stop for years about good rulers being awful people, and he even baked that concept into F&B with Jaehaerys (who was a real asshole to his wife).

Could this apply to Bran? Why was he so shitty to Meera? Why did he use Jon? Is that going to happen in the books? He's so unlikable. I guess kings who treat their closest supporters like shit are good rulers now? I'm all for a Stark-centric endgame, but this is a bit much.

This endgame shows us who GRRM really likes:

• Sam, who GRRM has said he most resembles IRL, gets the only loving relationship in the series
• Bran, the character who GRRM said he would most like to have as a son, is king
• Tyrion, whose endgame GRRM has known since the beginning, ends up in his dream job

[Cron]

On 8/6/2019 at 10:18 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Bran said that it was built on a lie. It was built on the fact that Aerys Targaryen made a mockery of trial by combat by burning Rickard Stark alive, had Brandon Stark strangled and threatened the lives of Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark. That makes Bran a liar.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to that Bran said was built on a lie.

 

I thought that comment related to Jon's heritage, and the lie that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna Stark (in fact, I thought Bran followed that comment by saying "He loved her," or something like that), but maybe I'm not thinking of the reference you're making.  

[Cron]

On 8/8/2019 at 11:42 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

The ending in the show was bittersweet?

Hahahahaaha

Toy Story 3 has a bittersweet ending. Lost in Translation has a bittersweet ending. A Tale of Two Cities has a bittersweet ending. Charlotte's Web has a bittersweet ending. Gladiator has a bittersweet ending. Red Dawn has a bittersweet ending.

The ending we got in this show was not bittersweet. Tell me what was the sweet part?

To me, the sweet parts were:

Brienne and Jaime got together.  Sandor crossed off Gregor.  The Night King was defeated.  Bran lived.  Sansa lived. Jon lived. Arya lived (and had a great Season 8).  Peace was restored to Westeros.  Grey Worm lived.  Davos lived. Sam lived. A person (Dany) who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people was stopped, at least temporarily.

 

And I could go on.

[Cron]

18 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I would not have voted for Show!Jon, that's for sure. What an idiot, even dumber than Ned and Robb. At least Robb didn't hook up with someone who had ALWAYS planned to subjugate the North and threaten his family. Even though Jon and Sansa had just fought (the second!!) war for independence, he couldn't foresee that his sister wants it to stay that way, and Dany doesn't want that?? Him stabbing her was him having to clean up his own mess. At least Bran steered clear of this idiocy. 

Sounds like we agree Jon would not have been a good choice to be king.

18 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

But why is he a saint? My theory is that D&D scrubbed him clean to match the endgame for him, so audiences wouldn't revolt. I still think it's what GRRM is planning. He's been talking non-stop for years about good rulers being awful people, and he even baked that concept into F&B with Jaehaerys (who was a real asshole to his wife).

Hmm, interesting, I did not know that.  I haven't read Fire and Blood yet, but I hope to get to it soon.  How did you like it overall?

18 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Could this apply to Bran? Why was he so shitty to Meera? Why did he use Jon? Is that going to happen in the books? He's so unlikable. I guess kings who treat their closest supporters like shit are good rulers now? I'm all for a Stark-centric endgame, but this is a bit much.

My belief is that when Bran is able to make choices, he chooses the path that his knowledge of the future tells him is the "least bad."I'm very skeptical that he is totally emotionless and uncaring, though, as some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe.  If that were true, why does Bran bother to interact with humanity at all?  Why not just go live in a cave and morph into a tree like his predecessor was doing?

Hopefully the sequel (yes, "sequel") will tell us a lot more about what is really going on with Bran, and I think it will.

18 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This endgame shows us who GRRM really likes:

• Sam, who GRRM has said he most resembles IRL, gets the only loving relationship in the series
• Bran, the character who GRRM said he would most like to have as a son, is king
• Tyrion, whose endgame GRRM has known since the beginning, ends up in his dream job

Good stuff, I never thought about those things that way (especially the part about Sam)

So, in light of all that, what are the odds that Bran has actually become a soulless monster who let hundreds of thousands of innocent people perish just so he could become king as some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe? Those odds are pretty low, in my opinion, and I think it's far more likely that time will show that actually Bran has a lot more going on in his story than just what we see on the surface.

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, Cron said:

Hmm, interesting, I did not know that.  I haven't read Fire and Blood yet, but I hope to get to it soon.  How did you like it overall?

If you read it as a history of the rise and downfall of House Targaryen, it makes a lot of sense and adds depth to why Dany destroys their legacy. You get an understanding of why this house went extinct in ASOIAF and how they were always doomed to fail. I didn't necessarily "enjoy" it but I can appreciate how it sets up a model for what ruling with WMD would look like.

3 hours ago, Cron said:

My belief is that when Bran is able to make choices, he chooses the path that his knowledge of the future tells him is the "least bad."I'm very skeptical that he is totally emotionless and uncaring, though, as some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe.  If that were true, why does Bran bother to interact with humanity at all?  Why not just go live in a cave and morph into a tree like his predecessor was doing?

Have you read the Foundation series? Hari Seldon's psychohistory is probably what Bran is modeled after. Psychohistory wouldn't involve using one individual to affect events (like Jon for instance) but would look at thousands of historical events and make informed predictions based on these. Book Bran's ability to see the future will probably be very limited. They had him have a vision of a dragon flying over KL in the show - that's about as much info he should really know. I dont like the idea of him becoming less human. It's better if he is simply dispassionate. Maybe D&D confused the two concepts. 

[SeanF]

On 8/8/2019 at 10:38 PM, teej6 said:

How can anyone argue that what D&D showed was “realism”? Please, do some very basic research on medieval history and explain to me how Bran being made King is remotely realistic in the context of medieval times. By the way, the books are referred to as ASOIAF, AGOT being the name of the first book. GOT is the name of the show. 

While Ned’s death was a shocking moment, once it happened, the moment made complete sense from a narrative perspective. Martin did connect the dots, everything that happened till Ned is executed leads perfectly to the event itself. That’s what good storytelling is all about and that’s what people expected on the show. Instead we get the rubbish plot of Bran (the cripple boy with no claim) being made King because a universally despised dwarf claims he has the best story. See the difference? As to Ned being the hero that was also a clever ruse on Martin’s part to make casual superficial readers think that Ned was the hero. Ned was never the hero, instead he was the father figure trope in fantasy... the story is about his kids and their growth not him. FYI, the father figure trope always dies in fantasy to trigger the the hero(es) journey.

As to Khal Drogo invading Westeros, none of the book fans I know actually thought that was going to happen. Khal Drogo was a secondary character at best in the books, and the Essos storyline was about Dany’s growth not Khal Drogo’s conquest of Westeros. 

ASOIAF is not “full of twists and turns” instead the books tend, at times, to give readers a different outcome than what they are hoping/rooting for. Twists and shocks are D&D’s MO, not Martin’s. Martin likes to surprise his readers but he has also repeatedly said that if he has put clues in the story for the butler to be the murderer, he is not going to change the ending and make the cook the murderer if his readers have figured it out. So if Bran is end-game King, his story in the next books will reflect that and lead to it. We are not going to get anything resembling Bran’s arc on the show, which is a travesty and extremely poor storytelling. From your posts, I can’t tell if you’ve read the books, cause if you have, you wouldn’t be arguing that GRRM would portray events in the books similar to the way they unfolded on the show. As GRRM says the broad strokes (meaning the ending for some characters) will be the same on the show and in the books, but the journey will be different. And the journey will make all the difference. Martin may not have the best prose, but he most certainly can weave a good story that is coherent and consistent. In the books, every event that happens neatly ties to thinks that’s shown in the past. It may not be evident before the event happens, but once it does, you will see that everything that went before led up to it. This is true for Ned’s execution, Robb’s death/the Red Wedding, Jon’s stabbing, etc.

As to his bittersweet ending, GRRM often refers to the LOTR ending as an example, especially the scouring of the shire. Bittersweet doesn’t mean pulling an ending out of thin air that makes no logical sense, which is what D&D did. When GRRM ends the books, there will probably be a lot of fans that will be disappointed (perhaps myself as well) that they didn’t get the ending they wanted for their favorite characters, but it won’t be because the ending doesn’t make sense to most of the readers. His ending, I’m sure, will resolve things in a manner that makes narrative sense to the story and the characters’ arc. And that’s what tying things up or connecting the dots mean for me as a reader, which is an essential part of good storytelling and for which Martin provided us with the analogy of the butler and the cook. 

There was nothing "realistic" about the ending of the series.

In a medieval world, no commander would have given two hoots about the sack and burning of Kings Landing.  They may have thought Daenerys was unwise to destroy an important commercial centre, but no one would have disputed that she was entitled to sack and burn a city that offered resistance.  

Bronn would never have been given Highgarden or made Master of Coin.

Samwell, who has never qualified as a Maester, would not be made Grand Maester.

Brann, who has no qualifications for kingship, would not be made king.

Jon would have been cut down on the spot by Grey Worm, as would Tyrion, unless they were reserved for a more brutal form of execution.

etc. etc.

 

 

[Cron]

On 8/10/2019 at 12:59 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

If you read it as a history of the rise and downfall of House Targaryen, it makes a lot of sense and adds depth to why Dany destroys their legacy. You get an understanding of why this house went extinct in ASOIAF and how they were always doomed to fail. I didn't necessarily "enjoy" it but I can appreciate how it sets up a model for what ruling with WMD would look like.

Yeah, I guess that's why I've been putting off reading Fire and Blood:  I seem to be getting the vibe that it's more like "work" (or doing background history research) than the highly personal, character driven, story-telling of ASOIAF.  I might be jaded by my Silmarillion experience, too (I loved LotR, and when I was done I couldn't wait to get my hands on Silmarillion, and then could not even bring myself to finish Silmarillion, because it was like reading a dry history book)i 

On 8/10/2019 at 12:59 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Have you read the Foundation series? Hari Seldon's psychohistory is probably what Bran is modeled after. Psychohistory wouldn't involve using one individual to affect events (like Jon for instance) but would look at thousands of historical events and make informed predictions based on these. Book Bran's ability to see the future will probably be very limited. They had him have a vision of a dragon flying over KL in the show - that's about as much info he should really know. I dont like the idea of him becoming less human. It's better if he is simply dispassionate. Maybe D&D confused the two concepts. 

Yes, I've read all of the Foundation books (albeit a few decades ago), and loved it all.  I think it's interesting to compare Bran with that, but of course Bran's powers are vastly greater, because he has complete access to 100% accurate information from the past and future (I always thought a major flaw in psychohistory is that SO MUCH "history" is actually inaccurate.  How can precise predictions about the future be given based on "history' that is so often inaccurate because it was "written by the winners" and is thus so often highly biased, or flat out untrue?  Bran does not have this problem, though, because so far as we know his knowledge of past and present are 100% accurate)

Regarding Bran's knowledge of the future, there seem to be some huge unanswered questions.  How extensive is his knowledge?  Can he decide what he is viewing, or does he just have to wait until a vision comes and hope it is something useful?  Is he seeing many possible futures, or just one future that he can't change?  I think the GoT sequel ("sequel," not "prequel") will shed a lot of light on these issues, and, if the sequel is well done, hopefully allow people to then go back to re-watch Season 8 and conclude that the pieces of the puzzle do fit together well after all.

[Mystical]

11 hours ago, Cron said:

I think the GoT sequel ("sequel," not "prequel") will shed a lot of light on these issues, and, if the sequel is well done, hopefully allow people to then go back to re-watch Season 8 and conclude that the pieces of the puzzle do fit together well after all.

People should not be required to watch/read an entirely different work in order to understand the story. It was D&D's job to explain it to us, not the people writing the prequel. This was D&D's story, plain and simple. It was up to them to explain to us what a 3ER is, how it works, who the previous 3ER was, the involvement of the children and the extend of the 3ER's powers, Bran's/3ER's weird behavior etc..

[BlackLightning]

On 8/16/2019 at 7:48 PM, Mystical said:

People should not be required to watch/read an entirely different work in order to understand the story. It was D&D's job to explain it to us, not the people writing the prequel. This was D&D's story, plain and simple. It was up to them to explain to us what a 3ER is, how it works, who the previous 3ER was, the involvement of the children and the extend of the 3ER's powers, Bran's/3ER's weird behavior etc..

Thank you for saying this!

 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

If Winter happened as promised: a HELE with bold letters the likes of a Terminator style nuclear winter with add-on DayAfterTomorrow speed of onset?

I would accept a 'council of surviving characters' situation, with the honestly few people left alive deferring to Creepy Magic Kid on the basis of last chance survival panic mode.

This would also necessitate all the idiots fighting over the Iron Throne to have gone full scale Battle Royale, further depleting the available resources and indiscriminately slaughtering people left right and center to the point where an already endangered continent faced with a bad Winter will be basically defenceless against a legendary foe that seems pretty determined to end humanity.

Then, and only then, with so few survivors that everyone knows everyone pretty damn directly, running from the utter destruction wrought by the Others, would I believe Bran could be chosen as a leader. And even that possibility would be more the actual Lord Protector role than the traditional kingship we were shown.

[Mystical]

14 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Thank you for saying this!

 

It's such a simple concept that you would think it wouldn't need to be said. But apparently it does.

13 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

If Winter happened as promised: a HELE with bold letters the likes of a Terminator style nuclear winter with add-on DayAfterTomorrow speed of onset?

I would accept a 'council of surviving characters' situation, with the honestly few people left alive deferring to Creepy Magic Kid on the basis of last chance survival panic mode.

This would also necessitate all the idiots fighting over the Iron Throne to have gone full scale Battle Royale, further depleting the available resources and indiscriminately slaughtering people left right and center to the point where an already endangered continent faced with a bad Winter will be basically defenceless against a legendary foe that seems pretty determined to end humanity.

Then, and only then, with so few survivors that everyone knows everyone pretty damn directly, running from the utter destruction wrought by the Others, would I believe Bran could be chosen as a leader. And even that possibility would be more the actual Lord Protector role than the traditional kingship we were shown.

Even then I can't see it. Because lets say that in the books the Others make it past The North, everyone still alive flees south and then they devastate everything there as well before they are stopped. The status in the books is that a lot of Kingdoms are currently having their own problems of power. The War of the 5 Kings had previously ravaged several Kingdoms. You have Targ 1 invading, probably soon to be followed by Targ 2. Most of the continent will be depleted in both manpower and food once all these conflicts/wars/invasions and a mythical ice threat are over.

After all that why in God's name would people chose to follow a crippled 12 year old who has no experience in governing? Sure Bran did a few weeks (with advisors) while Robb went to war but what people will know about that time is that the Ironborn invaded and won while he was 'ruling'. After so much devastation people will want someone who is a people person who can inspire them to rally around, Bran spend the last few years with a handful of people away from society. And lets not forget that he is freaking 12 years old, people would want an adult to shoulder so much responsibility. And even if Bran was instrumental in defeating the Others with his magical abilities, this is still a continent full of religious people. Most of them would be fearful of Bran because he got his powers from the Old Gods. Other than The North, the rest of the continent worships the Faith of the 7 who would see any other religion as evil. I just can't see any believable way in the books for Bran to be King of the entire continent.

And if GRRM still forces this endgame somehow, what does that say about the moral of his story? In the end there is still only one King, the same as in the beginning of the story. That humans are too corrupt, immoral, imperfect, selfish and stupid to be allowed to rule? They need a literal God (with all the knowledge from thousands of years of previous governments) to preside over them to show them how to do it right. That's downright infantilizing.

[Crona]

just wondering, do we know when GRRM told them it was Bran? Was it the beginning or during season 5?