Your Opinions 5: Is GRRM a "bad writer?"

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Once she departs for Westeros, Meereen will all but certainly fall back into the hands of the slavers.

I think a large part resides on the Dothraki and what they think the Stallion means. If it's follow Dany to whatever then Slaversbay is done. 

The Dothraki and the Ghiscari are relatively new, they're not a natural culture but one fused by the outside world specifically the fall of Valayria which changed them from citizens of the empire to slave catcher and slave maker. The other citizens of Valayria became potential slaves, lamb people and the like.

Danys stopped Slavers Bay (mostly) so I'm sure the Dothraki are getting kind of antsy around now, unsure of their destiny, let alone their livelihood. If they see Khallisi as the Stallion, Dany will have reversed the effects from the calamity of the fall of the Empire.

 

I think the best chance of the Bay is to become part of the new empire, where Dany can fly across the continents if the need were to arise 

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think a large part resides on the Dothraki and what they think the Stallion means. If it's follow Dany to whatever then Slaversbay is done. 

The Dothraki and the Ghiscari are relatively new, they're not a natural culture but one fused by the outside world specifically the fall of Valayria which changed them from citizens of the empire to slave catcher and slave maker. The other citizens of Valayria became potential slaves, lamb people and the like.

Danys stopped Slavers Bay (mostly) so I'm sure the Dothraki are getting kind of antsy around now, unsure of their destiny, let alone their livelihood. If they see Khallisi as the Stallion, Dany will have reversed the effects from the calamity of the fall of the Empire.

 

I think the best chance of the Bay is to become part of the new empire, where Dany can fly across the continents if the need were to arise 

The Dothraki essentially get paid peanuts for capturing slaves.  What Dany should offer them is the land and treasure of the elites of the free cities.   The same way that Genghis Khan united the Mongols by offering them the world.

[Hugorfonics]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

The Dothraki essentially get paid peanuts for capturing slaves.  

Citation?

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

What Dany should offer them is the land and treasure of the elites of the free cities.

She's their prophet, like her cousin prophet monarch Stannis, shes offering them the chance to serve (and not die lol).

But theyre dead regardless, with no buyers their peanuts will start to rot.  

Serve or starve

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Citation?

She's their prophet, like her cousin prophet monarch Stannis, shes offering them the chance to serve (and not die lol).

But theyre dead regardless, with no buyers their peanuts will start to rot.  

Serve or starve

Compare the Dothraki living standards with those of the Essossi slavers.  And many slaves are themselves Dothraki.

Stannis rewards his men with plunder, and so will Dany.  It’s the soldiers’ reward.

[Hugorfonics]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Compare the Dothraki living standards with those of the Essossi slavers.  And many slaves are themselves Dothraki.

The Essosi slavers are all richer then Westeros great lords. "Every one".  The Essosi themselves are slaves too, lamb people seem penniless but also hunter gatherers so they don't need money...

Point being, Drogo lives lavishly. Mad horses and such. In fact many Dothraki riders have their own horse and steel, compared to smallfolk like we see in Sworn Sword don't.

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Stannis rewards his men with plunder, and so will Dany.  It’s the soldiers’ reward.

For sure, and while the free cities could use a few smacks (or fire and blood, whatever) theres plenty of land on the Dothraki Sea to cultivate and grow into civilization 

[Daeron the Daring]

When we have George saying that gunpowder isn't a possible invention on Planetos, when we have magic growing stronger every second, and when we have Bran godking rumoured to be the emperor of the World, I think it's pretty safe to say that George won't rip out the story's medieval/feudal backbone.

Of course, Planetos can push the limits of its medieval setting, with technological advancements (for example, I can imagine people getting better at sailing, which would be huuuuge) and ideological advancements, but I think this world will be simply unable to get to a certain level. I'd love to see things getting better and moving forward (or even the idea of it), but King Bran only enforces the theory of monarchism: That someone more divine and special knows what's better for everyone. Meanwhile it gives a bad message as well: That humans aren'T suitable for carrying responsibility. But of course, I don't think King Bran (if there'll ever be a King Bran) will be implemented this way, altough I don't think he'll be the abolisment of any kind of monarchy either.

[Angel Eyes]

On 7/6/2022 at 11:36 AM, SeanF said:

If that's the ending, I'm sure he knows now that he's going to get blasted by most of the readership.  But, it would be strange that he would not have anticipated this in advance of Season 8.  It's not just Dany who got trashed after all;  Jon was trashed as well. (And, while it may have seemed edgy and subversive back in 1993, boyfriend putting down girlfriend like Old Yeller just comes over horribly in 2022).  He may say he's writing the ending he wants, but in reality, no author wants their readers to think their ending sucked donkey balls. 

There can't be many readers who actually want bad endings for Jon and Dany, combined with good endings for Tyrion, Samwell, Bran, Sansa and Bronn.  That's a very small niche of the readership.

For some reason, I've never really felt that Sansa being Queen at the end was much of a happy ending; her family's gone and nobody's going to marry her for love. Unless they're bringing back the more bratty Sansa that showed up in the first book but with a harder edge...

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

For some reason, I've never really felt that Sansa being Queen at the end was much of a happy ending; her family's gone and nobody's going to marry her for love. Unless they're bringing back the more bratty Sansa that showed up in the first book but with a harder edge...

I think it’s a case of “be careful what you wish for.”

On the face of it, she won the jackpot.  She got her crown, Daenerys was killed, and Jon was exiled in disgrace.  At the point of her coronation, I’m sure she saw it as a happy ending (no doubt, it would have been better if Daenerys were forced to witness the ceremony, prior to her execution, but you can’t have everything).

But, I doubt if hers would be a happy reign. She’s rather like Michael Corleone, at the end of Godfather II.

[Angel Eyes]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think it’s a case of “be careful what you wish for.”

On the face of it, she won the jackpot.  She got her crown, Daenerys was killed, and Jon was exiled in disgrace.  At the point of her coronation, I’m sure she saw it as a happy ending (no doubt, it would have been better if Daenerys were forced to witness the ceremony, prior to her execution, but you can’t have everything).

But, I doubt if hers would be a happy reign. She’s rather like Michael Corleone, at the end of Godfather II.

I've viewed Sansa as something of a composite of Connie and Michael; Connie in the beginning where she suffered through her abusive relationship with Carlo/Joffrey (speaking of which why Sonny thought Carlo right for Connie is anyone's guess), Michael towards the end.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Angel Eyes said:

I've viewed Sansa as something of a composite of Connie and Michael; Connie in the beginning where she suffered through her abusive relationship with Carlo/Joffrey (speaking of which why Sonny thought Carlo right for Connie is anyone's guess), Michael towards the end.

I think that’s a fair comparison for show Sansa.

Had Jon sat the Iron Throne, that would have suited her too.  Either, he’’d grant her an independent North, with her as queen, or failing that, she’d be Wardeness and Princess of Dragonstone.

[Loose Bolt]

8 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

For some reason, I've never really felt that Sansa being Queen at the end was much of a happy ending; her family's gone and nobody's going to marry her for love. Unless they're bringing back the more bratty Sansa that showed up in the first book but with a harder edge...

I assume that she would be like Elizabeth I. Or paranoid hardcore bitch.

[the trees have eyes]

14 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I'd love to see things getting better and moving forward (or even the idea of it), but King Bran only enforces the theory of monarchism: That someone more divine and special knows what's better for everyone. Meanwhile it gives a bad message as well: That humans aren'T suitable for carrying responsibility.

Monarchism/Imperialism has been the default method of government throughout most of human history.  Sure, we have ancient Athens and the Roman Republic, the Italian city states and merchant republics in the medieval period but until the enlightenment and the development of ideas of rights, freedoms and the legitimacy of government resting on the consent of the government, the theory of monarchy was the norm.  It took the First World War to collapse some of the major imperial regimes - German, Russian, Habsburg and Ottoman Empires.  Fully participative democracies (universal suffrage for men and women) only developed in the mid 20th century and are still a work in progress, totally rejected or incredibly fragile in a lot of the world.  Whether we see ASOIAF's pseudo-medieval world as 1000, 1200 or 1400 monarchy fits (the Stark-Lannister conflict is loosely inspired by the War of the Roses so 1400s).

In story terms our villains are ambitious lords, usurpers and false claimants rather than unscrupulous demagogues, coup leaders or aspiring military juntas but a quick parse of the world map today shows how many individuals or regimes seize power for their own aims whatever the titular form of government.  I'm okay with Dany/Jon/Sansa/Bran/[Other] being traditional medieval rulers as it fits the story just as I'm not okay with Cersei/Joffrey/Roose/Ramsay/Euron/Balon being in power because of how they use that power and I think we're have a view of government that fits the story rather than an analogy for what people are happiest with.

The idea is the most powerful force in human history and the idea of representative government has yet to be formulated in story.

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Monarchism/Imperialism has been the default method of government throughout most of human history.  Sure, we have ancient Athens and the Roman Republic, the Italian city states and merchant republics in the medieval period but until the enlightenment and the development of ideas of rights, freedoms and the legitimacy of government resting on the consent of the government, the theory of monarchy was the norm.  It took the First World War to collapse some of the major imperial regimes - German, Russian, Habsburg and Ottoman Empires.  Fully participative democracies (universal suffrage for men and women) only developed in the mid 20th century and are still a work in progress, totally rejected or incredibly fragile in a lot of the world.  Whether we see ASOIAF's pseudo-medieval world as 1000, 1200 or 1400 monarchy fits (the Stark-Lannister conflict is loosely inspired by the War of the Roses so 1400s).

In story terms our villains are ambitious lords, usurpers and false claimants rather than unscrupulous demagogues, coup leaders or aspiring military juntas but a quick parse of the world map today shows how many individuals or regimes seize power for their own aims whatever the titular form of government.  I'm okay with Dany/Jon/Sansa/Bran/[Other] being traditional medieval rulers as it fits the story just as I'm not okay with Cersei/Joffrey/Roose/Ramsay/Euron/Balon being in power because of how they use that power and I think we're have a view of government that fits the story rather than an analogy for what people are happiest with.

The idea is the most powerful force in human history and the idea of representative government has yet to be formulated in story.

The thing is though, that a lot of medieval states did have Parliaments, Diets, Estates, borough councils, that did provide some check on unrestrained monarchical or lordly power.  These were not democratic as we would understand the term, but they did represent someone other than just the elite.

[butterweedstrover]

Bran is more a modern symbol. Martin's politics aren't much of a commentary on the medieval era. His whole spiel about the poor having to fight the wars of the rich has more to do with Vietnam than Feudal Europe.  

In the end Bran is a symbol of meritocracy. He is technocrat with the less passionate influences dictating the realm as would a neoliberal reformist. Today this manner of leadership has fallen out of favor with both the right and the left, but in 1996 when the talk was of the new world order and liberal hegemony this mindset was quite influential. 

And Martin, whatever you may think of him, is very much taken with mainstream thought, nor has he shown any indication in his private blog of being aligned to any unorthodox way of thinking. Which is partly why I don't see his books as pertaining to a deep philosophical interpretation of power, but more so a general handwaving about sensible leadership (tax policies, etc.) that is at its core technocratic. 

[the trees have eyes]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

The thing is though, that a lot of medieval states did have Parliaments, Diets, Estates, borough councils, that did provide some check on unrestrained monarchical or lordly power.  These were not democratic as we would understand the term, but they did represent someone other than just the elite.

They weren't absolute monarchies, agreed, but the Third Estate's role was pretty minimal until much later.  In story there is no political forum for the Third Estate, not even at a rudimentary level, and there are no philosophies being expounded to create one - and no education system or literacy to allow those ideas to take hold and spread.

[sifth]

Bran becoming king would be a horrible way to end the series, IMO. I like the character well enough, but he's 9 years old and for the most part a complete nobody in terms of his political influence. Maybe if GRRM has him do something over the top, to get himself noticed, like being the one to defeat The Others and doing it in a way, where other people notice it, I might be able to believe it's possible, but as things stand now, the show making Bran king, was the worst thing about the final episode. Yes, I think it's worse than Dany randomly becoming a Nazi, which was indeed quite bad as well.

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Bran is more a modern symbol. Martin's politics aren't much of a commentary on the medieval era. His whole spiel about the poor having to fight the wars of the rich has more to do with Vietnam than Feudal Europe.  

In the end Bran is a symbol of meritocracy. He is technocrat with the less passionate influences dictating the realm as would a neoliberal reformist. Today this manner of leadership has fallen out of favor with both the right and the left, but in 1996 when the talk was of the new world order and liberal hegemony this mindset was quite influential. 

And Martin, whatever you may think of him, is very much taken with mainstream thought, nor has he shown any indication in his private blog of being aligned to any unorthodox way of thinking. Which is partly why I don't see his books as pertaining to a deep philosophical interpretation of power, but more so a general handwaving about sensible leadership (tax policies, etc.) that is at its core technocratic. 

I ask myself who worries me more.  Charismatic, reformist leaders who may turn out to be tyrants?  Or men and women in grey who fuck you over for percentages?

I fear the latter more.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

Well I sure enjoyed reading today's Notablog.   

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

Well I sure enjoyed reading today's Notablog.   

Shame the book will never be published. At least not at the rate he's writing.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I'd like to say that today's blog post made me feel optimistic, but it just. . . didn't. We've heard it all so many times before, the only thing that would work at this point would be a release date. But I also can't help but feeling like even this is really about HBO in the end. I've seen all the stats about how millions of people are apparently googling about House of the Dragon everyday, but I have a hard time believing it. The most I see people talking about it are here on this board. The subreddit is small, there are hardly any YouTube videos covering HOTD, and Twitter is just a brigade of an enraged Dany stans who can't get over the ending of GOT (not that I blame them). I've been looking through Instagram for the past few days, trying to find active GOT/ASOIAF accounts, and you can count them on one hand. One of the biggest complaints about the spin-offs is that they feel pointless considering how the grand story of the White Walkers and the Targaryens ends. So George saying "actually, the REAL ending will be different!" just feels like damage control. If GOT can be rebooted in a decade with a totally different ending, then the spin-offs have more meaning. (It's like how everyone even tangentially related to the series keeps talking about how great the writing on HOTD is, including George, which was the major point of contention for S8).

Also, I hope this isn't a sign that the backlash to S8 is causing George to drastically change course. I want to see how he pulls off Dark Dany and King Bran, not for him to completely drop them and do something else.