What are the most contentious subjects on the forum?

[Lollygag]

Going a bit more general here:

Very heated discussions result when people have some expectations of medieval realism and are applying that to a fantasy novel and have trouble with the gray area of a story based very heavily on medieval history, but is not bound to that.

It feels like some on the forum have some sort of attachment to the structure of Westeros and mostly want to see it return to the way it was and it seems to really bug them to see the structure get undermined in any significant way, even when GRRM has already written this into ASOIAF. Then there's people like me who think this story is about massive changes and never going back. This leads to heated discussions about current plotlines and the future of the books.

I think a lot of problems come from just being so long between books and memories fading plus the show mucking that up further. It's hard to keep track of 5000+ pages without adding time and the show into it. So we get headcanons and distorted views.

I think GRRM leads the readers to make the same mistakes as the characters to school us and he's doing that with tribalism and the Game. It's hard not to fall into that trap (I have to keep checking myself) of raising a character/family from one we like and relate to well to one we become a fan of which means investment and all too often, us vs them-ism. Readers then feel some personal need to bring down characters who are opposed to their anointed favorite who has become an extension of themselves and this requires more than a little blindness to faults and strengths. There's a reason the chapter names are first name only without the family name. I'm guessing this will be thrown back into our faces later. We've already been warned about who we make a hero and who we make a villain.

This is a bit more technical and not definitely not exclusive to this board, but GRRM writes realistic character motivations which are usually multi-faceted and complex, but a lot of heated discussions happen over trying to pinpoint single (unrealistic) motivations which actually aren't mutually exclusive at all.

 

[Miss_Saffron]

2 hours ago, Megorova said:

 

17 hours ago, zandru said:

Azor Ahai: who or what it is (and strong rejection that "red herring" is the answer)

You're the first person here I see even floating the idea that AA may be a red herring. Thank you, because you've just validated my entire ASOIAF reading experience.

13 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Put it on the main post, hope you don't mind. Pretty much sums it up when talking about Aegon

I don't mind at all. I feel flattered  

11 hours ago, Sigella said:

Also the characters are written so expertly so readers are bound to form attachments to them and are then set to bring more heat into discussions.

Agreed. But the thing is, almost all those brilliantly crafted characters are deliberately made nuanced and gray - they're not paragons of virtue nor the devils incarnate. Yet many (all?) the dumpster fires seem to be fueled at least in part, because some subsections of the fans insist on seeing those characters in black&white terms. 

2 hours ago, Megorova said:

whether there will be a second Nissa Nissa

And on that subjects - the ethics of 'using' this second Nissa Nissa. The opinions vary from the idea that it's perfectly ok to kill one innocent person to save millions to the idea that whoever would do such a thing deserves eternal damnation and it would cement that character as the unredeemable villain worse than Joff and Ramsay and everything in between and there is 0 consensus here.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Mirri Maz Duur and Dany's role in the fate of the Lhazareen. Saying that Dany has her bit of responsibility there, is asking for trouble.

And the other side of that coin - that Mirri didn't owe Dany any gratitude for being 'saved' and therefore killing Drogo and Rhaego wasn't right but also not an act of heinous betreyal of Mirri's savior.

39 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

It feels like some on the forum have some sort of attachment to the structure of Westeros and mostly want to see it return to the way it was and it seems to really bug them to see the structure get undermined in any significant way, even when GRRM has already written this into ASOIAF. Then there's people like me who think this story is about massive changes and never going back. This leads to heated discussions about current plotlines and the future of the books.

 and since in that instance the two groups come at the story from completely different angles at the very basis of the story interpretation, the chances of them seeing validity in the opposing arguments are very slim. So the debates not only get heated, but also last into perpetuity.

39 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I think GRRM leads the readers to make the same mistakes as the characters to school us and he's doing that with tribalism and the Game.

Once again, I fully agree with your observation.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Could we, for the love of God, not debate this stuff here? Like we already mentioned Dany, Aegon as well as Tyrion and Sansa. Do you want debates of those too? Let's not discuss said triggery subjects here and just list them and maybe debate if they really are triggery. Thanks!

Very well. 

The subject that brings out the worst in the opposition (Jon's fans) happens when I or some other Jon critic (or Jon-hater, if you prefer that term)  condemns him for his decisions at the wall.

[Lord Lannister]

If we will ever see Winds of Winter

[Many-Faced Votary]

Goodness! How could I forget J+D=T? 

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Goodness! How could I forget J+D=T? 

Who?

[Many-Faced Votary]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Who?

Jeor + Daario = Timett

[Bronn Urgandy]

A boring one that can crop up is who is the best general, etc. People go on about battles, feats, feats, feats, feats and more feats, so and so was unbeaten, so and so lost this battle, Robb Stark was unbeaten! But did Robb ever fight a pitched battle? Either you’re the best or you’re shite.

 

Hannibal, much like Rob did Tywin, pushed the Romans to brink, but had to go home before he could finish the job and then ended up getting soundly defeated. Soundly defeated. Robb got Red Wedding’d instead but it can happen to anyone. Suleiman the Magnificent increased the Ottoman Empire hugely, but one angry Croat and three thousand of his comrades ruined his campaign to conquer all Europe. But you lose one skirmish in ASOIAF and you are a crap general. This gets even worse for the Tarlys and Arthur Daynes. It’s just not worth arguing, yeah we have no real textual evidence of Arthur Daynes prowess as a warrior or leader through feats, so it’s a boring debate to read

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

Here is one for the Op.  The consequences of what Robb might have written in his will.  I don't think anything Robb intended is legitimate.  

[SeanF]

Do Balrogs have wings?

[Texas Hold Em]

On 7/10/2020 at 10:51 PM, GoldenGail3 said:

I love Arya and all her flaws man fam, you must be referring to Arya the Great Mary Sue of the show, in the books Arya is really deeply sad over the deaths of her family and goes running to the faceless men cus she has nowhere else to go.. 

Arya is likely not gonna kill the NK in the books, and it’s okay. 

Sorry for ranting about this, we ain’t all like the fans of whatever Arya was in the TV show.

I don't have a problem with anybody being a fan of a character even if I am not a fan of that character.  Be a fan of whoever appeals to you.  We may end up disagreeing on some topic about that person in the future.  But that is an opening for a good discussion.  

[Alyn Oakenfist]

On 7/15/2020 at 2:41 AM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Here is one for the Op.  The consequences of what Robb might have written in his will.  I don't think anything Robb intended is legitimate.  

I mean I don't think being legitimate is the point here. The question is will the Northern lords find it legitimate

[Rose of Red Lake]

I guess taking what the author has said in interviews and connecting that to plot points in the story always makes people froth at the mouth.

Case in point: I'm still curious by what he means when he says some readers "didn't get what he was trying to do" with Dany's arc in Meereen and that he "blames himself" when "people don't get it." So for all of his talk about wanting us to debate moral dilemmas and ethical quandaries, there is something objective he is trying to show here? Also, its kind of hard to debate the ethics of something if he admits that people have misread his intent. 

[Back door hodor]

Purple wedding.....Pie or wine?

I'll see myself out

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Back door hodor said:

Purple wedding.....Pie or wine?

I'll see myself out

Contentious? Maybe. But bloody repetitive for sure!

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 7/10/2020 at 4:24 PM, Miss_Saffron said:

I must admit that I've yet to see condemning Dany for the morality of her actions and excusing Tywin sicking Gregor on the Riverlands in the same sentence (not that I ever wish too, my brain would've BSOD from the dissonance).

I havent seen this either. I have seen " Dany is just doing what any of wanna-be ruler of Westeros would do" ...but if that's the case, I guess we should prepare for her to die, being stabbed by a family member, pushed off her dragon, or dismembered by a shadowcat?

 

[The Commentator]

On 7/14/2020 at 7:41 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Here is one for the Op.  The consequences of what Robb might have written in his will.  I don't think anything Robb intended is legitimate.  

It's not legit, because he failed in his efforts to set up an independent north.  Westeros already had a king.  Robb was not a king of anything.  His will is not going to have any force south of the Neck.  But I can believe it if the northern families decided to honor the will to defy the Iron Throne. 

We do not have the exact words of the will but it removed the status of bastard from Jon at the minimum.  It could go so far as to leave Winterfell to Jon.  Once that has been done, as in the removal of bastard status, there is no going back.  The same thing apply here as it did with King Viserys III and his coronation.  It is a permanent transfer once the bastard status is removed and Winterfell has been given to Jon Stark.  He remains Lord of Winterfell even if Rickon were to turn up.  The most grim possibility of all, Robb despite not being a real king, willed the north to Jon Stark.  The most staunch separatists of the north might bite that bait and go along with taking him their new king in the north.  Only the sitting monarch on the Iron Throne can change this and only through the use of force by preventing the north from separating.  Which is sadly going to be tough to do until they figure out the trick of getting past Moat Cailin.  (An unhappy Karstark leading the crown's forces through a safe path around the fortress can solve the problem).  I do not agree with the legitimacy of the Will but if the north decided to honor it and the Iron Throne is unwilling to contest it, it will stick. 

Jon has major public relations issues to overcome.  Mance Rayder was acting on Jon's orders and got caught.  He also arranged to marry a noble woman to a wildling man.  That will not go over well at all with the north.  But it's not impossible to jump this hurdle.  He will be legitimized and inherit the north if he can overcome his own very serious f-ckups.  So what if his hands are cold and his heart ain't beating.  Who will know.  They don't shake hands.  The north is not the huggy, touchy, kissing types.  Lack of bathing and fleas forced them to practice social distancing long ago.  Like, how far can fleas jump is the minimum social distance between the northern people.  Lots of goth make up to cover the paleness, clay putty to seal up the holes from Bowen's knives, he has a chance. 

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

Purple wedding.....Pie or wine?

I'll see myself out

 

On 7/11/2020 at 4:12 PM, Lollygag said:

This is a bit more technical and not definitely not exclusive to this board, but GRRM writes realistic character motivations which are usually multi-faceted and complex, but a lot of heated discussions happen over trying to pinpoint single (unrealistic) motivations which actually aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Ah! Perfect example of making something mutually exclusive when it's not. (It's both )

[TheLastWolf]

On 7/11/2020 at 7:25 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

about Nero. Caligula was almost as insane, he was the og Targaryen

You forgot Commodus. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

You forgot Commodus.

I mean compared to the others Commodus was really tame. Bonus points for probably the most shameful death of all the Roman Emperors though, strangled in the bath by his trainer because he misplaced a death list. That's like Tywin levels of humiliating death. Just imagine Russel Crowe strangling a nude Joaquin Phoenix in a bath.