Jump to content

Who will detonate the wildfire, and why? Please stop and let this thread die...


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I always wondered, what exactly sustains the Dothraki economy and slave trade. Their only real target is the Lazareen, so how on Earth can they sustain the Dothraki economy and slave trade.

And why on Earth did the Volantenese or anyone else really (the Sarnori for example) never create a Western Protectorate in the Lazareen with the purposes of starving the Dothraki out of raiding and tribute, like the OG Western Protectorate.

The Sarnori were mad, fighting each other even in the face of growing peril.  The Dothraki have their massive herds, and extort protection money.  TBH, though, I don’t think the economics of Essos really work.  You have vastly rich coastal cities, while the interior is a cross between Mad Max and Mordor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It only looks hypocritical if you view every form of power in the same way. Bran's warg powers are the ones that are portrayed as corruptible (not his sight powers), but this isn't on the same level as Dany's which can kill millions of people in an instant. Let's pit the worst possible warg against a dragonrider - Varamyr against Dany. We saw how difficult it was to take over Thistle's mind. He'd be cripsed up in the interim. There are more limitations to Bran's powers than Dany's. She can fly anywhere she wants and kill anyone she wants without an epic mind-struggle with one person at a time. 

 

How is an omnipresent telepath who can mind control people less of a danger and threat to society than a girl with a flying flamethrower? A helicopter with a few napalm barrel bombs is equivalent to what a dragon can do; its a huge exaggeration to say they can kill millions in an instant. Bran hasn’t peaked in terms of power and he could very well be a professor Xavier/God Emperor Dune style character by the end. I am sure George said that if an eleven year old had to rule the world then so be it. For all we know the resolution is Bran taking over the Others and their Undead army for his own.

Dany isn’t that powerful by comparison and so she isn’t as much of a “threat” as an undead army led by Ice Demons or an eternal winter. Its hypocritical to view Dany as this great threat to Westeros on a level with the Others. Whilst saying a telepath ruling the world like Paul Atrades is okay. 

Plus the sentiment and core message is important. If you bring it down to a question of scale then that’s a bit off. Like it’s okay for the Starks to take back half the country because it’s their birthright but Danys the monstrous villain for wanting both? Why would it be okay for Bran to mind dominate any Lord who disagrees with him and create a Stalinist state where everyone lives in terror of this Leviathan in their midst? That’s far more dangerous than a targaryen on a dragon, Dany can’t invade the minds of people and kill them dead with a thought.

 

Also, George completely dismisses the issues of if Dany had the opposite worldview. Let’s say Dany didn’t give a damn. I am just going to travel the world with my dragons in an endless circus show. Aerial acrobatics and stuff like that. Loads of money, none of this chair, crown and messy helping people business. By Georges reasoning that makes Dany a good person because she would have that power but not be corrupted by delusions of saving people or her ego. However this would result in at least Westeros being destroyed by the Undead or ruled by God Emperor Bran in a dystopian nightmare; without George having a Stark ex machina to let the Wolves win. Would leave eighty percent of Essos in chains for the next few hundred years if we are being generous. Dany has a responsibility to others and if you have the ability to do something positive about these things you probably should. If you’re able to do that why wouldn’t people want to put the crown on your head as a way of morally obliging you to save them? Let’s go further with this scenario and say that a few years into the Others Invasion some Nobles rock up and ask Dany to come to Westeros to help with her dragons. Well by Georges logic the right thing to do is to say no because she doesn’t have the experience, training and worldly experience to make that work and that sort of power would just make things worse. In general George repeatedly depicts headstrong and egotistical characters causing problems for the world; I am not seeing a lot of the opposite. This is why Bran is being held up as this perfect King. Because he has no “ego” or “theatrics” but is apparently this rational technical expert. A civilised aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional general elections; that’s what Bran is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

For all we know the resolution is Bran taking over the Others and their Undead army for his own.

I think you might enjoy the "Starks Rule Over a Frozen Hell" threads and other wild tales people spin, about the Starks Being The Big Evil.

6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Dany isn’t that powerful by comparison and so she isn’t as much of a “threat” as an undead army led by Ice Demons or an eternal winter. Its hypocritical to view Dany as this great threat to Westeros on a level with the Others. Whilst saying a telepath ruling the world like Paul Atrades is okay. 

Dany as a threat AFTER the Others, is covered in the outline. The threats in ranked order are 1) Others, 2) Dany, 3) the game of thrones that keeps them from focusing on #1 and #2.  It's also mentioned in the Al Jazeera interview - he talks about the two outlying threats, Dany and the Others on the periphery of the kingdoms.  It's also in the S3 Episode that GRRM wrote where Joffrey was concerned about Daenerys as a threat and Tywin ignorantly dismissed him. Bran doesn't come up in any of these clues, at all.

6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Plus the sentiment and core message is important. If you bring it down to a question of scale then that’s a bit off. Like it’s okay for the Starks to take back half the country because it’s their birthright but Danys the monstrous villain for wanting both? 

What Stark is as obsessed with their birthright as much as Dany is? I don't see evidence for that. I think you're drawing a false equivalency. And maybe Dany is a villain because she would force 7 kingdoms to accept her, no matter what?  It's quite Mary Sue writing for her to get a massive following on both continents. I dont see it being easy for her in Westeros. And she wants all 7 kingdoms remember? The Starks just have one. The equivalencies you draw are really something.

Quote

Why would it be okay for Bran to mind dominate any Lord who disagrees with him and create a Stalinist state where everyone lives in terror of this Leviathan in their midst? That’s far more dangerous than a targaryen on a dragon, Dany can’t invade the minds of people and kill them dead with a thought.

If you can provide some evidence from the author's copious interviews where he talks about fearing a Stalinist state led by a mind controlling dictator, that would be helpful for your arguments.

I think you have a lot of assumptions about Bran that are kinda out there. Bran entering Hodor's mind is the only thing that is brought up as a warning sign. But this is a power that again, Bran can only affect in limited ways. He is very close geographically to the people who have established norms about what should/shouldn't be done with skinchaning powers. Dany has no guidance about dragons except for Tyrion who fetishizes them. Dany can destroy cities if she wanted - mentioned in 2-3 interviews. Fear of nuclear weapons is also brought up in interviews. Nukes only having power to destroy is also mentioned in interviews. These sentiments about the power of dragons are reiterated in Dany's thoughts and in Fire and Blood. Compare this to the interview where he talks about time binding as a power.

6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Dany has a responsibility to others and if you have the ability to do something positive about these things you probably should. If you’re able to do that why wouldn’t people want to put the crown on your head as a way of morally obliging you to save them?

Maybe because swooping in to a place she's never set foot in, and expecting the whole populace to kneel to her, just because she did something she should be doing anyway, is kind of imperialist and smacks of entitlement? Dany has no clue what the North or the Starks have been through. She has no interest in their people or history, otherwise she'd be studying up. From what I can tell, her only real interest and passion is her dragons. I think Westerosi will be able to see through that. I do think it's sad that her dragons will always be her albatross. People will be afraid of her, and that in turn will make her angry that they aren't kneeling out of adoration. I don't think she will be satisfied with people who are kneeling out of fear. She will want to be loved/adored because that's all she's been surrounded by in Essos (her mother cult). And I can't really blame the people for wanting the Starks over her, because they have been putting in work that doesn't just involve riding dragons all day (something Dany loves doing - so I dont know how it's "work"). I think Dany will get very impatient with everything. She already hates the Meereenese people and she's only been there for what? 6 months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think you might enjoy the "Starks Rule Over a Frozen Hell" threads and other wild tales people spin, about the Starks Being The Big Evil.

Dany as a threat AFTER the Others, is covered in the outline. The threats in ranked order are 1) Others, 2) Dany, 3) the game of thrones that keeps them from focusing on #1 and #2.  It's also mentioned in the Al Jazeera interview - he talks about the two outlying threats, Dany and the Others on the periphery of the kingdoms.  It's also in the S3 Episode that GRRM wrote where Joffrey was concerned about Daenerys as a threat and Tywin ignorantly dismissed him. Bran doesn't come up in any of these clues, at all.

What Stark is as obsessed with their birthright as much as Dany is? I don't see evidence for that. I think you're drawing a false equivalency. And maybe Dany is a villain because she would force 7 kingdoms to accept her, no matter what?  It's quite Mary Sue writing for her to get a massive following on both continents. I dont see it being easy for her in Westeros. And she wants all 7 kingdoms remember? The Starks just have one. The equivalencies you draw are really something.

If you can provide some evidence from the author's copious interviews where he talks about fearing a Stalinist state led by a mind controlling dictator, that would be helpful for your arguments.

I think you have a lot of assumptions about Bran that are kinda out there. Bran entering Hodor's mind is the only thing that is brought up as a warning sign. But this is a power that again, Bran can only affect in limited ways. He is very close geographically to the people who have established norms about what should/shouldn't be done with skinchaning powers. Dany has no guidance about dragons except for Tyrion who fetishizes them. Dany can destroy cities if she wanted - mentioned in 2-3 interviews. Fear of nuclear weapons is also brought up in interviews. Nukes only having power to destroy is also mentioned in interviews. These sentiments about the power of dragons are reiterated in Dany's thoughts and in Fire and Blood. Compare this to the interview where he talks about time binding as a power.

Maybe because swooping in to a place she's never set foot in, and expecting the whole populace to kneel to her, just because she did something she should be doing anyway, is kind of imperialist and smacks of entitlement? Dany has no clue what the North or the Starks have been through. She has no interest in their people or history, otherwise she'd be studying up. From what I can tell, her only real interest and passion is her dragons. I think Westerosi will be able to see through that. I do think it's sad that her dragons will always be her albatross. People will be afraid of her, and that in turn will make her angry that they aren't kneeling out of adoration. I don't think she will be satisfied with people who are kneeling out of fear. She will want to be loved/adored because that's all she's been surrounded by in Essos (her mother cult). And I can't really blame the people for wanting the Starks over her, because they have been putting in work that doesn't just involve riding dragons all day (something Dany loves doing - so I dont know how it's "work"). I think Dany will get very impatient with everything. She already hates the Meereenese people and she's only been there for what? 6 months?

I could see Bran being King in the North as Robb's eldest legitimate brother but I don't really see how he's going to end up as King of the Seven Kingdoms. On what basis could he claim it?  The rationale in the show was laughable.

Dany at least has an arguable claim to be recognised as Queen of a throne her father and ancestors occupied. Aegon would seem to be her likely rival for the position. He does have a lot of advantages over her as a claimant, except for the fact that he is likely a fake.

Unless I've somehow stumbled on a misplaced show thread, Dany has only ridden her dragon once. Quite a lot of people that she has encountered in Essos haven't adored her, largely because she's disrupting their profits from the slave trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I could see Bran being King in the North as Robb's eldest legitimate brother but I don't really see how he's going to end up as King of the Seven Kingdoms. On what basis could he claim it?  The rationale in the show was laughable.

Dany at least has an arguable claim to be recognised as Queen of a throne her father and ancestors occupied. Aegon would seem to be her likely rival for the position. He does have a lot of advantages over her as a claimant, except for the fact that he is likely a fake.

Unless I've somehow stumbled on a misplaced show thread, Dany has only ridden her dragon once. Quite a lot of people that she has encountered in Essos haven't adored her, largely because she's disrupting their profits from the slave trade.

There was no rationale at all in the show.  Bran essentially did bugger all against the Others, yet had “the best story”, or something. The threat was solved by Arya springing out of a tree.

On the face of it, having a king who can warg into people, “an obscenity” in the author’s own words, might not be ideal.  

Of the six main characters, Bran is the least interesting, so I find it hard to get invested in his story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Dany isn’t that powerful by comparison and so she isn’t as much of a “threat” as an undead army led by Ice Demons or an eternal winter. Its hypocritical to view Dany as this great threat to Westeros on a level with the Others. Whilst saying a telepath ruling the world like Paul Atrades is okay. 

Also remember how GRRM keeps telling us about the danger of Paul Atreides like figures? Bran is even worse, he's literally Leto Atreides the Second, an all powerful, half human magical creature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

The heavy horse of Qohor got wiped out, and really, the free cities’ sell swords ought to make short work of them.  Professional cavalry, and Summer Islander bowmen combined, should be lethal.

Not all heavy horse is created equal, though it is questionable whether GRRM understands the difference. Roman clibanarii are not the same as 11th century knights, who are not the same as Byzantine kataphraktoi, and these are not the same as 15th century heavy cavalry. Latter two would have no issue in dealing with Dothraki due to having high degree of organic missile support; former two would have, though that again depends on the period.

Although, it should be noted that it was the Mongols who proved unable to deal with 13th century heavy cavalry supported by infantry crossbowmen. Westeros is generally in 15th century and have longbowmen instead of wooden-bow crossbowmen. They should be able to curbstomp even actual Mongols so long as they utilize proper tactics - though given how stupid everybody in Planetos generally is, I would bet on the Mongols here. Unarmoured, lightly armed and mentally retarded Dothraki should be shredded into tiny bits by any Westerosi army not consisting of peasants with pitchforks. And from what we have seen in Daznak's Pit, I think that is exactly what Martin is planning to do - scene even includes the "no true Scotsman" argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think you might enjoy the "Starks Rule Over a Frozen Hell" threads and other wild tales people spin, about the Starks Being The Big Evil.

Dany as a threat AFTER the Others, is covered in the outline. The threats in ranked order are 1) Others, 2) Dany, 3) the game of thrones that keeps them from focusing on #1 and #2.  It's also mentioned in the Al Jazeera interview - he talks about the two outlying threats, Dany and the Others on the periphery of the kingdoms.  It's also in the S3 Episode that GRRM wrote where Joffrey was concerned about Daenerys as a threat and Tywin ignorantly dismissed him. Bran doesn't come up in any of these clues, at all.

What Stark is as obsessed with their birthright as much as Dany is? I don't see evidence for that. I think you're drawing a false equivalency. And maybe Dany is a villain because she would force 7 kingdoms to accept her, no matter what?  It's quite Mary Sue writing for her to get a massive following on both continents. I dont see it being easy for her in Westeros. And she wants all 7 kingdoms remember? The Starks just have one. The equivalencies you draw are really something.

If you can provide some evidence from the author's copious interviews where he talks about fearing a Stalinist state led by a mind controlling dictator, that would be helpful for your arguments.

I think you have a lot of assumptions about Bran that are kinda out there. Bran entering Hodor's mind is the only thing that is brought up as a warning sign. But this is a power that again, Bran can only affect in limited ways. He is very close geographically to the people who have established norms about what should/shouldn't be done with skinchaning powers. Dany has no guidance about dragons except for Tyrion who fetishizes them. Dany can destroy cities if she wanted - mentioned in 2-3 interviews. Fear of nuclear weapons is also brought up in interviews. Nukes only having power to destroy is also mentioned in interviews. These sentiments about the power of dragons are reiterated in Dany's thoughts and in Fire and Blood. Compare this to the interview where he talks about time binding as a power.

Maybe because swooping in to a place she's never set foot in, and expecting the whole populace to kneel to her, just because she did something she should be doing anyway, is kind of imperialist and smacks of entitlement? Dany has no clue what the North or the Starks have been through. She has no interest in their people or history, otherwise she'd be studying up. From what I can tell, her only real interest and passion is her dragons. I think Westerosi will be able to see through that. I do think it's sad that her dragons will always be her albatross. People will be afraid of her, and that in turn will make her angry that they aren't kneeling out of adoration. I don't think she will be satisfied with people who are kneeling out of fear. She will want to be loved/adored because that's all she's been surrounded by in Essos (her mother cult). And I can't really blame the people for wanting the Starks over her, because they have been putting in work that doesn't just involve riding dragons all day (something Dany loves doing - so I dont know how it's "work"). I think Dany will get very impatient with everything. She already hates the Meereenese people and she's only been there for what? 6 months?

 

Bran really should come up as a threat. George not seeing any issue with a emotionless telepath becoming God Emperor is quite telling.

You’re confusing theatrics with actions. If the Starks instigate Wars and desolation with the full expectation that their birthright should be returned it’s irrelevant that they don’t talk about it. That just makes them conceited and dishonest. Rob didn’t make any speeches about his blood right to rule half the country but he did it and even tried to conquer the Riverlands. Jon bringing wildlings to take Winterfell and just being handed the crown isn’t any different than Dany rocking up with dragons at Kings Landing. In the show Sansa is a perfect example of this kind of double standard with her making herself Queen in the same scene about democracy.

You could say Danys dragons won’t fully grow during the series if we’re going to say Brans powers won’t increase at all. George is making a false equivalence with nuclear weapons. Nukes are a problem because of the radiation and the world ending thing. To fixate on Dragons as world ending for killing a few hundred people whilst Rob started a war that devastated the Riverlands a heroic struggle is ridiculous. I mean the show actually has the balls to present besieging Kings Landing and starving the population as a good thing compared to any use of the dragons. Again, it’s hypocritical and concerned with form not substance. 

Why wouldn’t the people of Westeros love Dany? You mention that she would be a Mary Sue if that happened, but the only reason she would be opposed is the writer wanting to create conflict and obstacles for her to overcome. Oh she has to win them over, they see they were wrong etc etc. What George and the show did is to railroad the character with all of Westeros suddenly becoming concerned about democracy and the rule of law and fanatic nationalists willing to die for the Fatherland and good Queen Cersei. They know nothing about Dany, they form this impression out of nowhere and then decide it’s a smart idea to have a fanatical fight to the death rather than step down. It’s an absurd situation and can’t be taken seriously. Why would the beautiful Queen who freed all the slaves in  Essos and saves the world from the Others be seen in anything other than a positive light? I don’t believe that the people of Westeros would oppose her and get all weepy because she executed two traitors but were okay with Tywin running a torture factory on civilians or Jon chopping off heads because people don’t respect his authority. He actually hanged a child. I didn’t see a Mirri Maz Duur chasing him for that.

What have the Starks actually done that would merit them being put on the throne of Westeros? Bran has literally been dragged around by the Reeds; he’s there for the ride. Sansa has actually been a pawn the whole time. Rob devastated the North and the Riverlands in his hubris. Jon was a fool who got elected on his blood and then drove the NW into the ground. In the show he loses the battle of the bastards and takes the credit for almost getting everyone killed. He then takes credit for beating the Night King and Dany and her armies role gets dismissed entirely. Arya did what? Fail to kill Cersei and resolve the whole war whilst she indulged in her own whims and kept her own counsel out of arrogance. They aren’t heroes and they aren’t impressive. They’re a cluster of mediocre clowns who are blundering through the story and being carried by everyone’s  expectation that they’re special. Jeor would never have given Jon the time of day if he was just some peasant son. Dany is important because of what she’s done and who she is. That should impact people’s opinions in the world.  None of this Bran having an amazing story that would heal the realm nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Bran really should come up as a threat. George not seeing any issue with a emotionless telepath becoming God Emperor is quite telling.

You’re confusing theatrics with actions. If the Starks instigate Wars and desolation with the full expectation that their birthright should be returned it’s irrelevant that they don’t talk about it. That just makes them conceited and dishonest. Rob didn’t make any speeches about his blood right to rule half the country but he did it and even tried to conquer the Riverlands. Jon bringing wildlings to take Winterfell and just being handed the crown isn’t any different than Dany rocking up with dragons at Kings Landing. In the show Sansa is a perfect example of this kind of double standard with her making herself Queen in the same scene about democracy.

You could say Danys dragons won’t fully grow during the series if we’re going to say Brans powers won’t increase at all. George is making a false equivalence with nuclear weapons. Nukes are a problem because of the radiation and the world ending thing. To fixate on Dragons as world ending for killing a few hundred people whilst Rob started a war that devastated the Riverlands a heroic struggle is ridiculous. I mean the show actually has the balls to present besieging Kings Landing and starving the population as a good thing compared to any use of the dragons. Again, it’s hypocritical and concerned with form not substance. 

Why wouldn’t the people of Westeros love Dany? You mention that she would be a Mary Sue if that happened, but the only reason she would be opposed is the writer wanting to create conflict and obstacles for her to overcome. Oh she has to win them over, they see they were wrong etc etc. What George and the show did is to railroad the character with all of Westeros suddenly becoming concerned about democracy and the rule of law and fanatic nationalists willing to die for the Fatherland and good Queen Cersei. They know nothing about Dany, they form this impression out of nowhere and then decide it’s a smart idea to have a fanatical fight to the death rather than step down. It’s an absurd situation and can’t be taken seriously. Why would the beautiful Queen who freed all the slaves in  Essos and saves the world from the Others be seen in anything other than a positive light? I don’t believe that the people of Westeros would oppose her and get all weepy because she executed two traitors but were okay with Tywin running a torture factory on civilians or Jon chopping off heads because people don’t respect his authority. He actually hanged a child. I didn’t see a Mirri Maz Duur chasing him for that.

What have the Starks actually done that would merit them being put on the throne of Westeros? Bran has literally been dragged around by the Reeds; he’s there for the ride. Sansa has actually been a pawn the whole time. Rob devastated the North and the Riverlands in his hubris. Jon was a fool who got elected on his blood and then drove the NW into the ground. In the show he loses the battle of the bastards and takes the credit for almost getting everyone killed. He then takes credit for beating the Night King and Dany and her armies role gets dismissed entirely. Arya did what? Fail to kill Cersei and resolve the whole war whilst she indulged in her own whims and kept her own counsel out of arrogance. They aren’t heroes and they aren’t impressive. They’re a cluster of mediocre clowns who are blundering through the story and being carried by everyone’s  expectation that they’re special. Jeor would never have given Jon the time of day if he was just some peasant son. Dany is important because of what she’s done and who she is. That should impact people’s opinions in the world.  None of this Bran having an amazing story that would heal the realm nonsense.  

I think one should try to avoid mixing up books and show.  D & D turned out to be a pair of useless hacks. 

Martin has never shied away from showing that the Northern and Riverlands soldiers were only slightly better than the Lannisters in their treatment of civilians.  Nor is he writing Tyrion as the hero of the tale, and Cersei as its tragic heroine, and Jaime as a dumb guy who just swings a sword and can't get over his love for Cersei. He's not writing Arya as a gleeful sadist, or Jon as a moron, or Tywin as "lawful neutral" or Ramsay Bolton as a badass, or Stannis as a villain, or LF as Sansa's mentor.  The Starks, like Daenerys and every other sympathetic character, are portrayed as both morally and intellectually fallible, which is at it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think one should try to avoid mixing up books and show.  D & D turned out to be a pair of useless hacks. 

Martin has never shied away from showing that the Northern and Riverlands soldiers were only slightly better than the Lannisters in their treatment of civilians.  Nor is he writing Tyrion as the hero of the tale, and Cersei as its tragic heroine, and Jaime as a dumb guy who just swings a sword and can't get over his love for Cersei. He's not writing Arya as a gleeful sadist, or Jon as a moron, or Tywin as "lawful neutral" or Ramsay Bolton as a badass, or Stannis as a villain, or LF as Sansa's mentor.  The Starks, like Daenerys and every other sympathetic character, are portrayed as both morally and intellectually fallible, which is at it should be.

 

I think George has to have told DND the broad strokes and themes of his story. So, Dany is my take on ultimate power corrupts and Bran is the Fisher King who sets the world to rights. Knowing Dany is destined to crash and burn whilst the Stark vs Targaryen conflict is set up throws the books into sharp relief. Danys obstacles aren’t conflicts for her to resolve and overcome her darker nature but absurd railroading to drive the character into the ground and then point at the Starks as amazing because they don’t screw their sisters and have the good fortune to live in a country where everybody likes them anyway.

Oh he does shy away from it. If half of any country in the real world broke away because of nationalism and then tried to invade and annex another piece of real estate this would result in far, far more brutal and sinister consequences than what George presents. He heavily sanitises that situation and rigs the game to make the Starks/North the good guys. If he actually let the situation play out naturally the Starks/North would be unsympathetic: either a bunch of cynical Nobles out for land/petty revenge or they would be massacring their religious and ethnic rivals because they want their land for their people. Avoiding those grim topics would be fine for a High Fantasy novel if he weren’t getting on his high horse about Dany when the Dothraki ride into a village; where suddenly it becomes a moral pantomime. He is far more ambivalent and avoids direct blame being hurled at the Northern cause whilst being direct and blunt with every time Dany steps on an ant. Even characters that make accusations against the North are undermined and depicted as untrustworthy sources. Or it’s the bad apples who join the Lannister’s anyway and not the proper Northerners. George would probably claim he’s being neutral and morally grey with all the factions as you say but I don’t think that can be taken at face value. He is definitely framing the Starks/North in a positive light even if it’s not Gondor or Rohan levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

I think George has to have told DND the broad strokes and themes of his story. So, Dany is my take on ultimate power corrupts and Bran is the Fisher King who sets the world to rights. Knowing Dany is destined to crash and burn whilst the Stark vs Targaryen conflict is set up throws the books into sharp relief. Danys obstacles aren’t conflicts for her to resolve and overcome her darker nature but absurd railroading to drive the character into the ground and then point at the Starks as amazing because they don’t screw their sisters and have the good fortune to live in a country where everybody likes them anyway.

Oh he does shy away from it. If half of any country in the real world broke away because of nationalism and then tried to invade and annex another piece of real estate this would result in far, far more brutal and sinister consequences than what George presents. He heavily sanitises that situation and rigs the game to make the Starks/North the good guys. If he actually let the situation play out naturally the Starks/North would be unsympathetic: either a bunch of cynical Nobles out for land/petty revenge or they would be massacring their religious and ethnic rivals because they want their land for their people. Avoiding those grim topics would be fine for a High Fantasy novel if he weren’t getting on his high horse about Dany when the Dothraki ride into a village; where suddenly it becomes a moral pantomime. He is far more ambivalent and avoids direct blame being hurled at the Northern cause whilst being direct and blunt with every time Dany steps on an ant. Even characters that make accusations against the North are undermined and depicted as untrustworthy sources. Or it’s the bad apples who join the Lannister’s anyway and not the proper Northerners. George would probably claim he’s being neutral and morally grey with all the factions as you say but I don’t think that can be taken at face value. He is definitely framing the Starks/North in a positive light even if it’s not Gondor or Rohan levels. 

We never got Robb's POV, something the author himself regrets.  A feature of Dany is self-criticism, which is a point in her favour. We see the behaviour of Northern/Tully soldiers through the POV's of Arya, Jaime,  and Catelyn. I don't believe for one moment that Robb ever explicitly gave orders as cruel as those given by Tywin and Kevan, but the treatment his commanders and soldiers meted out was clearly brutal.  If Catelyn is aware that atrocities are being carried out, (even if they are considered routine) then it follows that Robb is aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Most likely Cersei who will detonate the wildfire. Or JonCon. 

I'm also seeing the usual lot claiming the Starks are big bads, and that Arya will set off the wildfire, I believe the phrase "going postal" was used. Let me explain my opinion as to why this will not happen. 

First off, even the Mad King didn't consider blowing KL to seven hells until after the Trident, when everything was screwed up for House Targaryen and such. Furthermore, Arya's grudge is with a few people (she helpfully provides us this list in AFFC), not the city. Arya burning the entire city is as irrational and idiotic as Dany burning the city (at least in the books it would be more plausible). In closing, Tommen's kittens are more likely to detonate the wildfire than Arya is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Most likely Cersei who will detonate the wildfire. Or JonCon. 

I'm also seeing the usual lot claiming the Starks are big bads, and that Arya will set off the wildfire, I believe the phrase "going postal" was used. Let me explain my opinion as to why this will not happen. 

First off, even the Mad King didn't consider blowing KL to seven hells until after the Trident, when everything was screwed up for House Targaryen and such. Furthermore, Arya's grudge is with a few people (she helpfully provides us this list in AFFC), not the city. Arya burning the entire city is as irrational and idiotic as Dany burning the city (at least in the books it would be more plausible). In closing, Tommen's kittens are more likely to detonate the wildfire than Arya is. 

I don’t think the Starks are the big bads.  But, they aren’t sinless, either.  There must be a reason why the author depicts Northern soldiers committing (in modern eyes) atrocities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think the Starks are the big bads.  But, they aren’t sinless, either.  There must be a reason why the author depicts Northern soldiers committing (in modern eyes) atrocities. 

I know that. However there are some people (wink, wink, Arya's Mental Illness) that think that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think the Starks are the big bads.  But, they aren’t sinless, either.  There must be a reason why the author depicts Northern soldiers committing (in modern eyes) atrocities. 

They are no better and probably no worse than most of the great houses. 

1 minute ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I know that. However there are some people (wink, wink, Arya's Mental Illness) that think that. 

I am one of those who think the Starks are not evil but their selfish desires are very destructive and Westeros would be better off with them taking a dirt nap.  I also happen to believe Arya is mentally ill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

I am one of those who think the Starks are not evil but their selfish desires are very destructive and Westeros would be better off with them taking a dirt nap.  I also happen to believe Arya is mentally ill. 

Would not "selfish desires are very destructive" and evil go hand in hand? Besides, the reference to AMI is the thread that has an adundance of hate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

They are no better and probably no worse than most of the great houses. 

I am one of those who think the Starks are not evil but their selfish desires are very destructive and Westeros would be better off with them taking a dirt nap.  I also happen to believe Arya is mentally ill. 

Without question, the Starks are better than the Lannisters.  Neither Ned, nor Robb, nor Jon, ever order rape as a punishment, or drown children, or think to reduce a valley to a smoking wasteland because of a grudge against its lord, or send people for vivisection.

But, they're all prepared to make the smallfolk suffer to fulfill their war aims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the brotherhood without banners?

 

They were founded in King’s Landing and they were soon bewildered by the actual representatives. With Brienne in their service they have a brand new mandate, since Tommen‘s letter gives her full directive. Time for a power grab by our dear broken men?

 

Now with Aegon another dynastic war is at horizon, whilst winter and many creepy things aside from that (re)appear. There isn’t much time. I can’t picture this partisan network just leaning back and enjoying the view of what comes for them plus their smallfolk. This region offers not much and regarding that - any way apt to prevent a war seems probably legit.

 

Brienne knows a bit too much from Jaime, who killed a king to save a town. Maybe to save the land you would consider to blow up its capital? No, of course Brienne wouldn’t want that, but who says she is in charge? Maybe an ultimatum meant to clear the political centre doesn’t do the trick and someone thinks it then should be done for real? Rebellion, a real one, instead of this Harrenhal-scam two decades ago.

 

Think back how poorly Brienne thinks about the gold cloaks when Jaime offered her a post or that she supported Renly. There could be potential for revolution if the stress level increases. GRRM constructed a Jeanne d‘Arc character here and I expect some fire swallowing the girl we knew.

 

Whatever happened in Summerhall - Ser Duncan the Tall‘s relative likely mirrors that event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...