Why Bran as King would be a terrible idea

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 minutes ago, frenin said:

Accepted by whom?? The fandom?? They'll never agree anyway, Bran has the same problem Young G has, he has come too late to the party and a lot of people have spent  more years than I am alive rooting for them to get the throne and cannot accept any other contender.

True. GRRM don't write fanservice. For this reason Bran makes sense.

Quote

If it's by the people of Westeros... Well, he's already the legit heir of half of it, so long he does not force their traditions, everything would be fine.

I was talking about the people of Westeros getting over their disability phobias. Like that's the last thing they'll be worrying about when the other contenders become untenable, or dead.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

14 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

Accepted by whom?? The fandom?? They'll never agree anyway, Bran has the same problem Young G has, he has come too late to the party and a lot of people have spent  more years than I am alive rooting for them to get the throne and cannot accept any other contender.

True. GRRM don't write fanservice. For this reason Bran makes sense.

Yes and no.

Put it this way, most of the fandom (I think) wants Dany as Queen. Now she's a perfectly good alternative so no problem with that. Those people would be pissed if say Jon became King, but it would be more a matter of preference then narrative logic. Both are equally serviceable options as ruler by the end.

Bran however is ten different logical, narrative, character and thematic problems rolled into one.

[Mithras]

All the criticism of the show’s ending about how King Bran was not set up properly and came out of the blue is valid for the 5 published books so far. GRRM could not write more than 3 Bran chapters in the last 20 years. These 3 chapters in ADwD and the previous 4 chapters in ASoS are mostly travelogue. Bran is barely present in the overall story and he is one of the least connected POVs. GRRM is clearly having a problem with Bran’s POV as he confessed several times.

I always use the titles “Game” and “Song” to explain ASOIAF. Game is the political side of the story and Song sums up the magical aspect. Since the beginning of the story, the basic question about Game is presented as “Who will rule Westeros in the end?” As for the Song, the corresponding question is “How will the Others be defeated?” Both the Game and the Song will need to be resolved to conclude ASOIAF satisfactorily.

Bran has only been involved with the Song. There is no Game in Bran’s trajectory so far. Bran is the Last Hero-equivalent of the story, doing magic things to save the world and possibly remain anonymous just the same. By GRRM’s philosophy, greenseers can only have brief regular lives, after which they leave the realm of the mortals and merge with the weirnet. Bran is the Frodo of ASOIAF, not its Aragorn. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Magic is dangerous per GRRM. Bran is playing with fire. Just like Frodo, Bran should end up permanently broken by magic. The trajectory of Bran’s story in the books is the complete opposite of a ruling position.

As for the Aragorn of ASOIAF, look no further than Jon. The 5 books are full of setup for King Jon. Although Jon’s story seems to be about the Song at the surface level, Jon is being fed learning to lead arc for most of the time. There are a lot of leader and father figures Jon met on the way and took some lessons from them to heart. With the upcoming introduction of RLJ, Jon will be positioned at the heart of both the Game and the Song. The problem of ruling will not be decided without taking Jon’s claim into account. The Others will not be defeated without Jon playing a big part according to prophecies and also per the narrative investment in the books. The massive setup for RLJ and Jon’s learning to lead arc require a natural culmination that he should be in a ruling position in the end. I am not even talking about mountains of carefully planted foreshadowing quotes for King Jon.

A lot of readers deceive themselves by believing that the failure with the show’s finale lies with the execution and not the ending. King Bran is not one of those cases. There is no reasonable way to execute King Bran with the source material we have so far. How do you expect D&D to set up King Bran which GRRM could not do in 5 books?

To conclude, the setup and the direction of the 5 published books do not match with the King Bran ending in GRRM’s mind. No one can deny that. Either GRRM will follow the natural flow and the organic growth of the story so far or there will be a sharp twist at the end with the readers suddenly hitting a massive Wall.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, Mithras said:

All the criticism of the show’s ending about how King Bran was not set up properly and came out of the blue is valid for the 5 published books so far. GRRM could not write more than 3 Bran chapters in the last 20 years. These 3 chapters in ADwD and the previous 4 chapters in ASoS are mostly travelogue. Bran is barely present in the overall story and he is one of the least connected POVs. GRRM is clearly having a problem with Bran’s POV as he confessed several times.

I always use the titles “Game” and “Song” to explain ASOIAF. Game is the political side of the story and Song sums up the magical aspect. Since the beginning of the story, the basic question about Game is presented as “Who will rule Westeros in the end?” As for the Song, the corresponding question is “How will the Others be defeated?” Both the Game and the Song will need to be resolved to conclude ASOIAF satisfactorily.

Bran has only been involved with the Song. There is no Game in Bran’s trajectory so far. Bran is the Last Hero-equivalent of the story, doing magic things to save the world and possibly remain anonymous just the same. By GRRM’s philosophy, greenseers can only have brief regular lives, after which they leave the realm of the mortals and merge with the weirnet. Bran is the Frodo of ASOIAF, not its Aragorn. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Magic is dangerous per GRRM. Bran is playing with fire. Just like Frodo, Bran should end up permanently broken by magic. The trajectory of Bran’s story in the books is the complete opposite of a ruling position.

As for the Aragorn of ASOIAF, look no further than Jon. The 5 books are full of setup for King Jon. Although Jon’s story seems to be about the Song at the surface level, Jon is being fed learning to lead arc for most of the time. There are a lot of leader and father figures Jon met on the way and took some lessons from them to heart. With the upcoming introduction of RLJ, Jon will be positioned at the heart of both the Game and the Song. The problem of ruling will not be decided without taking Jon’s claim into account. The Others will not be defeated without Jon playing a big part according to prophecies and also per the narrative investment in the books. The massive setup for RLJ and Jon’s learning to lead arc require a natural culmination that he should be in a ruling position in the end. I am not even talking about mountains of carefully planted foreshadowing quotes for King Jon.

A lot of readers deceive themselves by believing that the failure with the show’s finale lies with the execution and not the ending. King Bran is not one of those cases. There is no reasonable way to execute King Bran with the source material we have so far. How do you expect D&D to set up King Bran which GRRM could not do in 5 books?

To conclude, the setup and the direction of the 5 published books do not match with the King Bran ending in GRRM’s mind. No one can deny that. Either GRRM will follow the natural flow and the organic growth of the story so far or there will be a sharp twist at the end with the readers suddenly hitting a massive Wall.

Thank you man for putting into words better then I could. I agree 100%

[Moiraine Sedai]

The entire only way it makes sense to have a king Bran is if the story ended during the middle of the long night and Bran is ruling over wolves and wights.  Bran will serve as the interim ruler of a land without warm bodies until the Snow's recede and the people can return from Essos.  

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Both are equally serviceable options as ruler by the end.

How do we know they will be serviceable though? Jon will be changed by death and Dany is gaining every more power. Maybe they won't be reasonable options by that point, Dany being corrupted by the quest for power, Jon having a Sansa/Joffrey arc with her. 

Maybe GRRM doesn't want a Targaryen or even a half Targaryen to rule in the end, for certain thematic reasons?

Some kind of Stark male ruling in the South makes sense to me. It's what the narrative hinted at every time Cregan, Ned, Jon, and Robb, went south.

*a Stark male would be really good here*...if only they were smarter. 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

29 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

True. GRRM don't write fanservice. For this reason Bran makes sense.

Depends on your POV. It's true that Bran himself doesn't have a huge, enthusiastic fan base, but if you're a fan of House Stark, an ending where one Stark rules an independent North and another rules over all the other kingdoms is pretty fan servicey. 

I really hope the North being independent at the end of the show was not something from the books. I'm not a fan of the concept of King Bran, but I'm willing to give Martin a chance to convince me otherwise. However, the combination of King Bran and an independent North under Sansa just makes no sense under any circumstance IMO.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

How do we know they will be serviceable though? Jon will be changed by death and Dany is gaining every more power. Maybe they won't be reasonable options by that point, Dany being corrupted by the quest for power, Jon having a Sansa/Joffrey arc with her. 

Here's the problem though, even if both characters have let's say movable and shaky characters at times, the foundations for both characters are immovable. Dany ever since AGOT, is a person who's core is based on her getting power and using it to help others. Jon on the other hand is at his core a man driven by his duty.

The two of them have problems dealing with the conflict between the outside world and those core values, but those core values never change, so sure Dany might do something awful for what she believes to be the greater good, and Jon might say fuck Dany, but Dany will never go evil or use power for her own sake, and Jon will never truly abandon duty.

11 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The entire only way it makes sense to have a king Bran is if the story ended during the middle of the long night and Bran is ruling over wolves and wights.  Bran will serve as the interim ruler of a land without warm bodies until the Snow's recede and the people can return from Essos.  

Honestly, as much as we but head around here, I totally agree. The only way Bran should be King is in some nightmarish apocalyptic scenario.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Depends on your POV. It's true that Bran himself doesn't have a huge, enthusiastic fan base, but if you're a fan of House Stark, an ending where one Stark rules an independent North and another rules over all the other kingdoms is pretty fan servicey. 

Oh, I am sure there are other details GRRM can add to make this "bitter" for Stark fans, even if they are ruling in the end ("sweet"). 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Oh, I am sure there are other details GRRM can add to make this "bitter" for Stark fans, even if they are ruling in the end ("sweet"). 

You could say the same thing about Jon and/or Dany ruling at the end. And it's much easier to believe one of them becoming king/queen than the Starks getting an independent North and one of their own ruling all the other kingdoms. 

I'm not even saying one of them has to rule. I'm in the camp that would be fine with some random character who's important in Westeros but not that prominent in the story being king at the end. If the books ended with Edric Storm ruling, or a council electing a Tyrell or Hightower or some other prominent, established and respected noble, I could find that very plausible. And I'd personally be ok with that character not being super prominent in the story, emphasizing how there are more important things than who sits on the throne, etc. As long as it makes sense in-universe, I'm ok with anything for the most part. There's significant roadblocks to King Bran making sense, and IMO there's no way possible for the combination of King Bran and Queen Sansa to make sense.

[Rose of Red Lake]

44 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Here's the problem though, even if both characters have let's say movable and shaky characters at times, the foundations for both characters are immovable. Dany ever since AGOT, is a person who's core is based on her getting power and using it to help others. Jon on the other hand is at his core a man driven by his duty.

I think that's too simple. Before she even had power, Dany wanted the Iron Throne to take back what was stolen from her and Viserys. And as we discussed on the other thread, she randomly applies justice. So by the end Dany could think that burning everyone, guilty and innocent alike, will be "helping people" and "solving the corruption in KL" or something that sounds right in her head but quite absurd to us.

Jon is a mixed bag that could go either way. Yes, he left Ygritte for the Watch (and comes to regret it). Then he made a decision to attack Ramsay. How was that duty? It was rage mode. He wanted to kick his ass real bad. Duty is doing something you don't want to do. That's probably the most logical case for Jon becoming king, but I think GRRM really doesn't want Targs to be ruling in the end.

[Jay21]

1 hour ago, Loose Bolt said:

May be about 90 % of people living in Westeros at least nominally are followers of the Faith or they do not openly challenge it. For that reason most kings south of the Neck pretended to be followers of the 7. So having a tree worshipping shaman/warlock as a king would not be very good idea.

Yeah.  The implications of this are quite interesting.  Martin's said what he's had to say about it and doubt we'll get any more before the books, but it's not just Bran that has a significant distance to travel to become the king of Westeros, the 7 kingdoms will be significantly transformed by the time of his ascension as well.  Would king Bran even sit on the Iron Throne? Go to King's Landing?  Would he be political?  Would his apparent omniscience lead him to being a magically enhanced 1 man police state, or would that sort of micromanagement be beneath his interest? I imagine his hand will be a busy busy dude and Bran himself might spend most of his time flaking out on the weirnet but as to the issues of faith that you raise I can only guess that by the time Bran takes the throne they've been resolved, or his conquest is so total that he cows the seven loving fools into the same sort of obedience that they knew when they came up with Targaryan exceptions to incest and bigamy rules.

[Rose of Red Lake]

38 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

the Starks getting an independent North and one of their own ruling all the other kingdoms. 

That's outrageous to you? I don't think it is. I can't see how we'll ever agree on anything then. 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Jay21 said:

The ironborn's Grey King could be an example of a greenseer king ruling from a weirwood tree throne and that may be the sort of king that Bran becomes. 

^this.

The OP seems to assume we require to see loads of Bran POVs, him getting back ASAP, etc to be able to convince anyone of being a traditional king.

But I expect to see Bran act and end up in other people's plots the way he did in Theon's. Notice that Theon's contact with Bran via weirwood occurred after Bran's last chapter in aDwD. George is not going to show Bran's magical abilities via Bran's POV (alone) from now on, but via other people's POVs in weirwood scenes. This will be Bran involving himself ultimately into politics via magical ways. He is after all present in the tower with Stannis no? And trying to meddle there.

As for converting people: we witnessed Theon being converted into believing into the Old Gods. Meanwhile, a great many of the smallfolk of the Riverlands have already converted into worshipping Rh'llor, a religion and god that has never before been worshipped in Westeros whatsoever, and that in a few years time, on account of witnessing magical miracles. How easy will it be for Bran to convert these? Even Stannis. He's not a believer in Rh'llor exactly or any gods, but he believes in magic when he sees it... his own words.

I also disagree with the OP's and others idea that the story is going towards less magic, dying of magic... often referring to Tolkien and Aragorn. It's true that is where Tolkien's fantasy story ends up. So have most of the fantasy after Tolkien. It's become the assumed and expectation  - big climax of magic and then it will disappear and die out. George plays into that with Leaf commenting that way, the dying out of the giants, etc... But the magic does not come from the races or species. I personally have the impression that while George may end up with a world of only humans, it will not be one without magic, just more balanced rather than the two extremes. George did not just write in two extremes of ice and fire. Green is in the middle of it. Just like the Riverlands has three forks of the Trident (!!!!): green, red and blue.

As for Aragorn as king...do we prefer him as Strider or as Aragorn? Personally, I prefer reading about Strider than Aragorn's kinghood.

As for D&D's issue: it wasn't just execution of the end... it was their decision to downplay and isolate magic to certain isolated events where nobody knows what happened.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Then he made a decision to attack Ramsay. How was that duty? It was rage mode. He wanted to kick his ass real bad.

Jon was not attacking Ramsay, Jon was marching out after Ramsay gave him an ultimatum of either delivering something he hasn't or war. Jon could hardly give him Theon and Arya, so war it was. In that case marching out is not defying his duty, it's doing what he thinks is best to preserve the watch.

 

[King17]

Bran did a fine job as acting lord of winterfell and probably did a better job than dany  or Jon could ever do. As for him being young I mean Tommen is king at the moment people.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Jon was not attacking Ramsay, Jon was marching out after Ramsay gave him an ultimatum of either delivering something he hasn't or war. Jon could hardly give him Theon and Arya, so war it was. In that case marching out is not defying his duty, it's doing what he thinks is best to preserve the watch.

Duty is Ned going to KL to be Hand. Look how he reacted: doesn't wanna do it, regretful, cantankerous, just overall put out.

Instead Jon relished it. 

"His fingers closed around the parchment. Would that they could crush Ramsay Bolton's throat as easily."

"I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard." 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Duty is Ned going to KL to be Hand. Look how he reacted: doesn't wanna do it, regretful, cantankerous, just overall put out.

Instead Jon relished it. 

"His fingers closed around the parchment. Would that they could crush Ramsay Bolton's throat as easily."

"I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard." 

I didn't say Jon didn't want to do it, heck anyone in that position would have wanted too, I'm merely pointing out that he waited a whole book, and only did do it when it fell in line with his duty. While the two were conflicting he always chose his duty for all of ADWD, he only marched to meet Ramsay when it was also part of his duty

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Bran however is ten different logical, narrative, character and thematic problems rolled into one.

Except he isn't and even if he is. There are two books to fix whatever problems you think there are.

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

All the criticism of the show’s ending about how King Bran was not set up properly and came out of the blue is valid for the 5 published books so far.

Well, he only needs three chapters of a crow calling him "King" and problem solved.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

Bran is barely present in the overall story and he is one of the least connected POVs. GRRM is clearly having a problem with Bran’s POV as he confessed several times.

Bran's arc is the most magical and he has a problem with that.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

Bran has only been involved with the Song. There is no Game in Bran’s trajectory so far.

He ruled Winterfell until Theon drove him out. That's as Game as you might want. After that, he's on the run.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

By GRRM’s philosophy, greenseers can only have brief regular lives, after which they leave the realm of the mortals and merge with the weirnet.

When has he said that??

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

Bran is the Frodo of ASOIAF, not its Aragorn. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

This is not the Lord the Rings tho, nor Martin seems to agree with you. Perhaps he's going to be more involved in the future.

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

As for the Aragorn of ASOIAF, look no further than Jon. The 5 books are full of setup for King Jon.

Or Dany, or Tyrion, or Stannis. The last one to appear for the mantle is young griff.

Besides, if the show is to be believed, Jon will end up as King anyways.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

With the upcoming introduction of RLJ, Jon will be positioned at the heart of both the Game and the Song.

Do you think?? That certainly depends of how is intruducted. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

Both the Game and the Song will need to be resolved to conclude ASOIAF satisfactorily.

To whom??  That's rather subjective.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

A lot of readers deceive themselves by believing that the failure with the show’s finale lies with the execution and not the ending. King Bran is not one of those cases. There is no reasonable way to execute King Bran with the source material we have so far. How do you expect D&D to set up King Bran which GRRM could not do in 5 books?

Martin has not started to set up King Bran, he has two more books to do so.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

To conclude, the setup and the direction of the 5 published books do not match with the King Bran ending in GRRM’s mind. No one can deny that.

Well... Martin can.

The thing is that it's 7 books, not 5.

 

 

1 hour ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Depends on your POV. It's true that Bran himself doesn't have a huge, enthusiastic fan base, but if you're a fan of House Stark, an ending where one Stark rules an independent North and another rules over all the other kingdoms is pretty fan servicey. 

That's very true.

 the whole Sansa affair reeks of D&D not Martin. Yet again, once i would've said the same about Bran.

[Jay21]

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Duty is Ned going to KL to be Hand. Look how he reacted: doesn't wanna do it, regretful, cantankerous, just overall put out.

Instead Jon relished it. 

"His fingers closed around the parchment. Would that they could crush Ramsay Bolton's throat as easily."

"I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard." 

That whole scene seemed a little out of character for Jon, no?  He's been abused as a bastard his whole life and eaten it in silence but now Ramsay Snow has goaded him into a rash, rage fueled assault?  I think there's more than we're seeing from Jon here, I think he's manipulating his audience in the Shieldhall a little bit because he reads the Pink Letter a little differently than we do.