Do we CARE who wins the Iron Throne anymore?

[The Marquis de Leech]

So the ONE RING does not rule them all?

It does rule them. It is just that a weak inexperienced user (Frodo) will not trump the Ring's natural master, Sauron. It's enough to mess with the Nazgul a bit (so no attacking), but Frodo just didn't have the ability to do anything more.

[Boromir-Bloodstorm]

In case you didn't notice, Frodo fails to cast the Ring into the Fire, and claims it for himself.* It only goes in because of Gollum's intervention (and, of course, Gollum would not have been there had Frodo and Sam not decided to pity Gollum earlier: the point being the success of the Quest was only through pity and mercy).

*Tolkien describes in a letter what would have happened if Gollum hadn't been there. Basically, the Nazgul turn up, and distract Frodo until Sauron turns up in person and completely overwhelms the hobbit. Frodo dies a gibbering slave.

Yes. This was such a heart wrenching twist. I said, from the moment Frodo had the ring, you knew he would destroy it. How silly do you look for pointing out he "didn't" destroy it? Of course you can't predict the minor details - will the ring be tossed into the volcano with his left hand or his right hand? If I had have predicted that, you no doubt would have nailed me... my point is, there was no surprises, no twists, nothing unpredictable about the Lord of the Rings. It was a balck and white story that could only have had one ended. It was still a great epic, but on the subject of this thread, JRRT's stories were shallow, detached from the real world, and lacking in realistic drama. Good and evil are not real. They are just perceptions. GRRM has done a great job in building realistic characters - people who are not black and white, but believeable human beings.

[Raksha the Demon]

First of all, I will admit to an escapist bias in my preferred reading material. I have to live in the real world, which I often find unpleasant and tedious and depressing. I enjoy escaping to other, more interesting, exciting, and often better places in my reading; places where courage and strength of character do make a positive difference, where nice guys (and gals) don't always finish last. I don't mind reading a story where I'm pretty certain that the good guys will win, or at least destroy Evil/bad guys; for me, the main thing is how will the heroes and heroines attain their goals, triumph over adversity, etc. And how will the struggle affect them? Who or what will they lose in the struggle...

And I'll admit to thinking that, all things considered, I think Lord of the Rings is a better series as a whole than ASoIaF; but that both series are outstanding contributions to the fantasy genre. I also don't consider ASoIaF to be GRRM's best work; that honor I reserve for Fevre Dream, my all-time favorite vampire story and a helluva great read.

I found many characters in LOTR to be believable, and some less so; as I found in ASoIaF. I don't care that much for either Realism for Realism's sake of Fantasy Elements just for the sake of it; just as I don't care for Special Effects just for the sake of Special Effects' sake in movies. The story is crucial as far as I'm concerned, without a good, reasonably paced and interesting, compelling story, all the texture and characterization leaves me cold.

I found there were many surprises, or at least deviations from heroic fantasy/sagas in LOTR:

1. the hero of the series is not Aragorn, the mighty warrior who must prove himself worthy of the throne. Aragorn is one of the heroes of the series, but he is neither the main character nor the heroic figure who personally slays a great monster or the Evil Dark Lord. (Aragorn doesn't personally slay anyone of particular importance in LOTR, just a lot of anonymous and nasty foot soldiers. Eowyn offs the Witch-king with Merry's help, Theoden kills a chieftain of the Haradrim before he's killed, Grima Wormtongue kills Saruman)

2. It's Frodo, a sheltered hobbit who has spent most of his life reading, translating Elvish legends, administering his estate, and hanging out with friends, and who has no particular skill at arms, who is the main hero of the saga; and who carries the Ring most of the way, and thus is the greatest single cause of the Evil Dark Lord's fall. And he could not have done it without Sam, who is not just a servant and faithful sidekick, but a 'common man' who is singularly uncommon, he accomplishes a legendary great deed in defeating the great spider Shelob, saves Frodo from captivity in Cirith Ungol, and practically carries Frodo up Mount Doom on his own. And of course, it's Gollum who inadvertently takes the Ring into the fire when Frodo's strength (physical and emotional) fails. I would not have foreseen any of this from the beginning of the book.

3. I might have expected Aragorn to have to fight Boromir for the rule of Gondor; since Boromir was the Steward's heir and thus Aragorn's rival (also a rival in that he was a great warrior), and not really disposed to give his allegiance to the Heir of Isildur. In a more conventional story, there might have been a duel to the death between Boromir and Aragorn outside the walls of Minas Tirith, with Aragorn winning. (actually, Tolkien did plan such a thing in an early draft of the plot; and later took Boromir in a different direction) Instead, Boromir dies heroically in Aragorn's arms and gets a hero's funeral.

4. The best delineated romance in LOTR is not the one between the hero-king/warrior Aragorn and the Elf-princess Arwen (yes, I know that she is never called a princess, Elrond never claimed kingship, but she's archetypically a fairy/faerie princess). We just see Aragorn mooning over her, and then, after he's crowned, Arwen rides triumphantly into Minas Tirith with both sides of her family and there's a wedding at midsummer. But the romance that actually has people meeting and falling in love and then agreeing to marry is that of Faramir and Eowyn while they're convalescing in the hospital, both while waiting for doom to fall and after their world is saved with Sauron's defeat. (it is true that Aragorn and Arwen get a nice romantic story in the Appendices, it's very bittersweet and the ending is a total bummer; but I think the only romantic kiss in the text of LOTR is between Faramir and Eowyn)

5. I would not have expected the heroic hobbits to have found, on returning home after their great adventures, that their home has been taken over by hostile economic/military invaders. There's very much a sense that things will never quite be as it once was in the Shire, at least for the four 'Travelers'; they can't really come home to the same place they left. Some physical scars to the landscape will take decades to heal, and some scars, such as those embedded in Frodo's body and spirit, will not heal in Middle-earth.

I emphatically believe that Good and evil are real; and are not just perceptions. Sometimes it is true that Evil is done by mistake, by people with Good intentions, or allowed apathetically by people who do nothing, but often Evil is done by people who either make Evil choices or are themselves Evil, or both. I don't believe that most people are born evil, but many can become Evil by making choices, again and again, to do evil things (or sometimes just once is all it takes).

Of course there are shades of grey, and degrees of Evil and Good. I wouldn't equate someone who serially cheats on his/her spouse with someone who swindles elderly people out of their savings, or either with a serial killer. Even evil people don't run around thinking I Am Evil, but if they are consciously making decisions to rape women or molest children or mass-murder short people, tall people, green people or blue people, then they are deliberately doing evil things and I call them Evil.

Aragorn might, on a surface reading of LOTR (say, not reading the appendices, which give many more details of his life), might seem less interesting as a warrior-king than he was as the enigmatic Strider, but I would much rather read about him than Jaime Lannister, whose claim to fame is that he's good-looking, commits incest with his sister, and crippled a child who accidentally witnessed their transgression.

But that's just my opinion. It doesn't mean I dislike ASoIaF either. I enjoy GRRM's series quite a bit; I just don't consider it to be the greatest achievement in fantasy literature in the 20th or 21st century.

[Lord of Ale]

The reviewer raises an interesting point, the traits we usually expect good rulers to have in other books, and usually want them to have, are noticeably absent from most of the frontrunners. In fact, people who are presented with traits that most people would think are positive such as courage, loyalty, and truth tend to end up being killed (or at least really screwed over) by people who are greedy and dishonest.

To imply that most of the frontrunners don't display likable or sound characteristics of a king does not seem fair to me. After 5 books, I would argue the frontrunners are Jon, Dany, Aegon, and Stannis. One could argue a Lannister/Bolton, but do you really think the Iron Throne will NOT change general power after 7 books (disregarding Robert's brief stint and Joffrey & Tommen are Lannisters despite their last names)?

So Jon, Dany, Aegon, and Stannis. Which of these characters is truly morally corrupt or lacks the major qualities of a good leader?

Jon- may not end up on the throne for a variety of reasons (he's currently dieing/dead & lack of interest in being king), but I'm hard pressed to find one step he has taken that was not admirable. He stuck up for Sam, treated the Wildlings with an open mind, and generally/genuinely cares about his men. What are his poor decisions? Escaping one night to seek revenge on his unfairly beheaded father (figure)? Deciding to march on arguably the most evil man in the series after he threatens his bastard life? Come on people! :)

Dany- has married against her heart TWICE in the series in hopes to improving the welfare of thousands. Despite the outcome, she freed thousands from slavery. Are these personal and moral qualities you would NOT want in a leader? I agree her chapters dragged a bit in Dance, and she is far from my favorite character, but the girl certainly has her moral compass pointed in an appropriate direction to be a supported ruler.

Aegon- we barely know. He has only shown signs of being a well-mannered, proud, respectable kid.

Stannis- I'm getting tired of typing. Despite his odd relationship with Melissandre, he, from day 1, has wanted nothing but to be a cold, just ruler. He proved it the day he marched to the Wall and saved the Watch.

Long story short, which frontrunners aren't morally worth rooting for?

[Free Northman]

Well, I actually wrote a long email to Martin at the time of aFFC complaining about exactly this. Chances that he got it are miniscule, but I sent it to his official email address in any case.

Basically, I likened the various Houses in AGOT to Martin's love for football. And I stated that up to aSoS and the Red Wedding he had set the Starks up as every reader's "Giants", or whatever the name of the team that Martin so passionately supports.

And I then explained how the joy Martin gets out of football was probably 90% based on the passion he has for his team, and how his fanatic support of the game was tied rather closely to the immense joy and disappointment he experienced as his teams fortunes rose and fell.

I then compared that to the careful way in which Martin had made the Starks OUR team, and the incredible anger and hatred we felt in the events that ultimately culminated in the Red Wedding.

The whole purpose of reading ASOIAF became the need to see the Starks achieve vengeance and victory at the end of the series. Robb's quest to be King in the North was all consuming for your average reader. Definitely for me, at least.

And then I equated Martin's vision in the House of the Undying of five rats feeding on a naked woman - obviously the Five Kings ripping Westeros apart - and it's obvious message that no House's cause was more or less just than that of any other House - to someone going to Martin and telling him that the fortunes of his Giants team should be of no greater consequence to him than that of the Dallas Cowboys, or Miami Dolphins or any other football team.

Basically, Martin set us up for 3 books to root for the Starks, and made us bleed emotionally for this allegiance, and now that they have been decimated by the treachery, greed and lust for power of their competitors, he wants us to suddenly embrace the idea that the War of the Five Kings was a petty squabble, and that our insignificant little grudges should be set aside in the "greater" cause of saving the realm from the Others.

Well sorry. I don't accept it any more than he would accept the cause of his Giants to be reduced to that of just another insignificant team.

This moral ambiguity he introduced has done just that.

The fact is, the Starks ARE good, and the Lannisters ARE evil. And the evildoers WILL pay for their actions.

End of story.

That is the only emotional payoff that will satisfy me at the end of Dream of Spring.

Starks to triumph, or the Seven Kingdoms can go to the Others.

Just like I'm sure Martin would say the Giants to win the Superbowl, or he will stop watching football for a season.

[Raksha the Demon]

I for one will feel severely short-changed as a reader if there is only one Stark left at the end of the series, i.e. Bran as a living branch of the Weirwood, or Jon freezing on the Wall (if there is still a Wall), or Arya cruising through Westeros crossing names off her list. What made me care about the series in the beginning was the immediate Stark family - Ned, Catelyn, their children, and Jon; also, the coming-of-age arc of Daenerys. I can understand why not all the Starklings would survive, but there had better be a few left at the end.

I do enjoy the political intrigue in ASoIaF; in fact I enjoy the jockeying for power/Iron Throne much more than the progress of the zombies Others. Jaime Lannister might be a prize jerk, but he's got better lines than the wights.

A battle between UnGregor and the Others might be amusing. Tyrion could sell tickets. I wish the Others and their wights had never appeared in the books at all; since the books are meaty and complex enough without them; though I guess there has to be some explanation for all those chapters of You Know Nothing, Jon Snow on and north of The Wall...

[Raksha the Demon]

To imply that most of the frontrunners don't display likable or sound characteristics of a king does not seem fair to me. After 5 books, I would argue the frontrunners are Jon, Dany, Aegon, and Stannis. One could argue a Lannister/Bolton, but do you really think the Iron Throne will NOT change general power after 7 books (disregarding Robert's brief stint and Joffrey & Tommen are Lannisters despite their last names)?

So Jon, Dany, Aegon, and Stannis. Which of these characters is truly morally corrupt or lacks the major qualities of a good leader?

Jon- may not end up on the throne for a variety of reasons (he's currently dieing/dead & lack of interest in being king), but I'm hard pressed to find one step he has taken that was not admirable. He stuck up for Sam, treated the Wildlings with an open mind, and generally/genuinely cares about his men. What are his poor decisions? Escaping one night to seek revenge on his unfairly beheaded father (figure)? Deciding to march on arguably the most evil man in the series after he threatens his bastard life? Come on people! :)

Dany- has married against her heart TWICE in the series in hopes to improving the welfare of thousands. Despite the outcome, she freed thousands from slavery. Are these personal and moral qualities you would NOT want in a leader? I agree her chapters dragged a bit in Dance, and she is far from my favorite character, but the girl certainly has her moral compass pointed in an appropriate direction to be a supported ruler.

Aegon- we barely know. He has only shown signs of being a well-mannered, proud, respectable kid.

Stannis- I'm getting tired of typing. Despite his odd relationship with Melissandre, he, from day 1, has wanted nothing but to be a cold, just ruler. He proved it the day he marched to the Wall and saved the Watch.

Long story short, which frontrunners aren't morally worth rooting for?

I do not see Aegon as ready to rule on his own. Tyrion manipulated him almost too easily (understandable, Aegon is a boy with no experience in politics and Tyrion is a master of manipulation); and has an ugly arrogant streak - which can be forgiven in an adolescent, but not necessarily in the King of Westeros; because power will expose and magnify all the user's bad points...

Stannis. Ugh. His kind of justice stands by and orders men who ate dead flesh when they were starving to death themselves to be burned alive. His kind of justice seriously considers burning his innocent young nephew to death too, because his pet prophetess guarantees some dragons hatching out of stone if he does so. I'm sure that Stannis would order Shireen to burn if Melisandre said it was necessary for some prophecy or another. Personally, I'd rather have Davos as King.

Daenerys has possibilities; and some good instincts; but I think that Jon would make a better ruler; if either of them ever have the chance to rule in Westeros. He seems slightly less arrogant, less entitled; and though he can be ruthless; it's usually for a good reason (forcing Gilly to take Mance's child and leave her own on the Wall is incredibly harsh; but it was the only way Jon could see to save Mance's boy. If Melisandre made noises about sacrificing the presumed Wildling Prince now, Jon and/or Val can reveal that it's actually the son of Craster and that Mance's child has gone far south; thus removing the danger to "Monster", since there would be no reason to sacrifice him). Both Dany and Jon need a few more years of life experience/maturity before they rule anything, though...

[The Lost Lord]

The fact is, the Starks ARE good, and the Lannisters ARE evil. And the evildoers WILL pay for their actions.

Good and evil are not real. They are just perceptions.

The series rejects both of your maximalist positions. Obviously Martin believes evil exists, just look at Ramsay Bolton for heaven's sake. But it's just as obvious that it's not so simple as "good Starks, bad Lannisters," which is why we started with Tyrion and Dany POVs.

Martin has said he believes that the war between good and evil is fought in the human heart every day, and that that theme is what he is most interested in writing about. More specifically, the books are about power and the choices one has to make when one has power. Jon, Bran, Sansa, Arya, Dany, and Tyrion will each become increasingly powerful as the series continues. Each one is being presented with more difficult moral choices and, in certain cases, choosing to do morally troubling things. Which of these characters will best navigate this difficult path and be able to harness and use power without being too weak or naive and without being vicious and totally amoral? We don't know yet. But whoever it is, we should root for him or her to end up on the Iron Throne.

[The Sleeper]

Though I have enjoyed the political intrigue of the first books thoroughly, I always understood the iron throne to be false prize, a reason for the great houses to weaken and destroy each other, while something waits around the corner to eat them all alive, ever since the others were introduced in the very first chapter.

Realistically, at this point, only the Tyrells have the resources to hold the Iron Throne so they might chose to occupy it them selves with Willas and Garlan actually being quite good candidates from what we've read abbout them so far, but consider what Martin has set up so far to happen:

The war is pretty much still going on and in the kingdoms that have been so far unaffected, famine will at some point begin to take an enormous toll leaving plenty of corpses for the Others to turn onto wights, plague (Shireen in the North, Connington in the South) and finally the Long Night.

Kind of sounds like the Apocalypse, doesn't it.

I am looking forward to a desperate struggle for survival that I will also thoroughly enjoy reading about.

After all that I don't expect there will be much left to reign over and in any case I'd want an independent North with Rickon the fierce as King of Winter with his big brothers and sisters looking after him and that can't happen if there is an Iron Throne.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yes. This was such a heart wrenching twist. I said, from the moment Frodo had the ring, you knew he would destroy it. How silly do you look for pointing out he "didn't" destroy it?

Um, not very.

Of course you can't predict the minor details - will the ring be tossed into the volcano with his left hand or his right hand? If I had have predicted that, you no doubt would have nailed me...

Frodo failing to destroy the Ring (and Gollum doing it instead) is not a minor detail. It is a cornerstone of the entire theme of the book. Frodo fails in his Quest, but the Ring is destroyed because of the mercy that he (and Bilbo, and Sam) had shown towards a pitiful creature of evil. If Frodo had thrown the Ring in, it would be a completely different book.

my point is, there was no surprises, no twists, nothing unpredictable about the Lord of the Rings.

OK, I'll predict that ASOIAF ends with the Others being defeated. Does that mean that ASOIAF is utterly devoid of twists and surprises?

It was a balck and white story that could only have had one ended.

Again: what would have happened had Frodo not spared Gollum? Answer: reduced to a gibbering slave after having tried to use the Ring unsuccessfully against Sauron. There are many different ways that the book could have ended (in the Foreword, for instance, Tolkien points out that had the War of the Ring followed World War II, the Ring would certainly have been used).

It was still a great epic, but on the subject of this thread, JRRT's stories were shallow, detached from the real world,

Please elaborate. I have seen you provide very little in the way of actual evidence for this assertion.

and lacking in realistic drama. Good and evil are not real. They are just perceptions.

So you disgree with the notion of objective morality. Fine. Just don't confuse it with the idea that some people are good and some people are bad, and that the good people can do anything they like and remain good (which, unfortunately, is often seen in lesser fantasy works).

GRRM has done a great job in building realistic characters - people who are not black and white, but believeable human beings.

Again, utterly missing the point. Tolkien could certainly create very grey characters (Denethor and Gollum are IMO among the top ten fantasy characters ever created in terms of depth), but characterisation wasn't really the point of LOTR. Characterisation is a hallmark of the novel as a literary form: it's a creation of eighteenth and nineteenth century literature. LOTR is a throwback to pre-novel literary forms, and as such Tolkien was concerned with things other than conventional characterisation.

[Aeryon]

I was reading reviews of ADWD on Amazon, despite already buying and reading the book, I sometimes read reviews on books I have already read just to see how other readers felt and compare them to my own feelings on the book, where I came across something interesting one reviewer said about the book. This reviewer gave it the rather seemly average review score of three stars (no real average score actually, its REALLY spread across the board on this one), he criticized what most readers seem to criticize it for (not enough plot progression and the long wait for a rather below average book), but he had an interesting view on the moral ambiguity of the series, specifically pertaining to who sits on the throne in the end. There have been several threads about who you think WILL sit on the Iron Throne in the end, and even a thread (maybe a few) on who we would LIKE to sit on the throne, but will we even really care by the the? His exact words were:

Martin has been called the American version of J.R.R. Tolkein. That is most certainly not true! Not just because of the timeliness issues, but rather the fact that there is nearly complete moral ambiguity in these novels. At no time are readers clear about who is right or wrong, who is evil or good, and there is no one to cheer for that actually survives any given book. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings had no such issue. Tolkien made it very clear who were on the side of good and who weren't. He also made clear that individual choices had consequences and actions like courage, loyalty and truth were to be encouraged and greed, lust and dishonesty were to be discouraged. Martin conveys no clear moral compass. And this is a looming failure for this series: will we even care who wins the Iron Throne in the end?

The reviewer raises an interesting point, the traits we usually expect good rulers to have in other books, and usually want them to have, are noticeably absent from most of the frontrunners. In fact, people who are presented with traits that most people would think are positive such as courage, loyalty, and truth tend to end up being killed (or at least really screwed over) by people who are greedy and dishonest. Now while this certainly makes the series more complex and the characters more grey (and some would argue more 'realistic'), it does raise the question of how many will actually care, if say, its Cersei on the throne rather then Dany by the end.

This comes in the implication that the book is all about the game of thrones that the high lords are playing. The compass is not about who wins the throne. Winter is coming. Will there even be a throne in the end? I understood that the series is not about who is king or queen, but what will the realm do in the face of a great and common adversary (the Others).

[Raksha the Demon]

My problem with the Others as a great and common adversary is that I find them very boring? Are they sentient? Do they have a culture? Why are they slaughtering every human in sight and re-animating some? Do they have a plan or are they just hungry on an instinctual level? I would find several hundred pages of zombie-fighting, zombie-killing, zombie-burning, to be less interesting than watching Tyrells v. Martells v. Lannisters. Hopefully it will be interesting to see the squabbling factions stop killing each other and unite to fight something worse.

Though it might be fun to see Tyrion come up with some smart-mouth lines as he's facing Others. And I will be far more forgiving of the Others as a force in ASoIaF if they would kindly kill off (and not zombify) Ramsay Bolton.

[The Lost Lord]

My problem with the Others as a great and common adversary is that I find them very boring? Are they sentient? Do they have a culture? Why are they slaughtering every human in sight and re-animating some?

Martin loves to criticize "generic forces of evil" as fantasy villains, and at a con someone said "Well, doesn't that describe the Others?" Martin responded by saying we'll have to keep reading to see where that goes. So yes, there's certainly much more to be revealed re: the Others. So I don't believe that we're headed for the banal interpretation being offered by several posters here ("the Iron Throne doesn't matter, what matters is teaming up against the evil evils!").

[Grip]

My problem with the Others as a great and common adversary is that I find them very boring? Are they sentient? Do they have a culture? Why are they slaughtering every human in sight and re-animating some? Do they have a plan or are they just hungry on an instinctual level? I would find several hundred pages of zombie-fighting, zombie-killing, zombie-burning, to be less interesting than watching Tyrells v. Martells v. Lannisters. Hopefully it will be interesting to see the squabbling factions stop killing each other and unite to fight something worse.

Yeah I agree with this, I never really cared much for the battle against the Others..What makes this series great, atleast imo, is the political intrigue between the various houses etc. I am sure the battle against the Others will prove to be a great read but what will be even more interesting is who gets to sit the iron throne at the end? Assuming there is one united kingdom that is. And what about Aegon and Dany? The Nightwatch? The Starks? The answers to these questions, and many more, I find to be more fascinating than the Others too be honest.

Edit: Just saw The Lost Lords post, well if Martin takes the Others in another unseen direction I am all for it. Would example be interesting if they didnt post that serious a threat but someone, Stannis/Jon?, still used them as a means to unite the kingdom. That way the Others would just be another tool in the struggle for the iron throne.

[Lady Sand]

On the LotR topic:

But JRRT didn't even have the balls to kill of Frodo, like should have happened.

As Bolton’s Leech pointed out, The Silmarillion shows that Tolkien is not afraid of killing characters. He had a reason not to kill Frodo, and, obviously, it is not that “he didn’t have the balls”. And the reason is that not killing Frodo actually makes for a better and a more complicated book.

One of the main themes in LotR is the loss of innocence. Frodo fights in a war and losses his innocence, and, on a much larger scale, the Shire losses its innocence. After the war, nothing and no one is the same.

You say Frodo should have died. Why? To make the story unpredictable? To surprise readers? In my opinion, killing a character for the sole purpose of surprising readers is just as bad as not killing a character because you are afraid of readers’ reactions.

What would have Frodo’s death taught us? That fighting for freedom requires sacrifices. Great lesson (and one that we have already learned by the deaths of other characters, such as Boromir, Theoden and Halbarad, as well as from history and many works before). But what does Frodo’s survival teach us? It shows us that no one can escape a war unscathed. It shows us that witnessing such sorrows can destroy a person’s soul and can leave scars that will never be healed. And, most of all, it teaches us that in a war it does not matter so much who wins and who loses because, in the end, everybody loses.

Traditional epic tales present war against Evil as something heroic and beautiful and legendary. Tolkien, on the other hand, shows that War by itself is Evil. If you are forced to fight it, you fight it, but there is nothing beautiful and epic about it. It is horrific and destructive. In a way, Frodo’s survival is more tragic than his possible death.

-

On the Iron Throne:

It is true that I don’t care so much who will sit there, but this is because the series have grown and are now about more than the game of thrones. I still care about other things – Winterfell restored, the Stark children reunited, Dany coming back to Westeros. But, most of all, I want to see the looks on the maesters’ faces when they see that the Others exist (same applies to everyone in King’s Landing, who doubted the point of the Wall).

But the Iron Throne? It might not even exist at the end. The Seven Kingdoms might fall apart, the Others might prevail (now, wouldn’t that be a twist =)), the Children of the Forest might be left to rule over Westeros, and a series of other unpredictable events may happen, as they tend to happen in this books. And I agree, it will be fun if the Others turn out to be not as evil as we might think.

[MeekyReekyRamsay]

This dude totally missed the whole idea of The Iron Throne. The throne is a symbol of humanity's issue with entitlement. We preoccupy ourselves with what we think we deserve and are willing to perform the worlds greatest horrors upon each other to obtain it. As we fight, lie, rape and pout the idea of existence as a species gets left behind to rot at a wall. No one should care who sits The Iron Throne, it's a really mean joke.

[boojam]

This moral ambiguity he introduced has done just that.

End of story.

.

Gee you must just abhor the real history of this Earth that we live on.

[Free Northman]

Gee you must just abhor the real history of this Earth that we live on.

Yes, I do. Who wouldn't? It's a total mess. That's why I don't read historical novels. Because the real outcomes are usually utterly crap.

Evil usually wins, in the real world. Whether it be the side of evil, or the guys pretending to be good.

Only, the victors get to write history, and paint the losers as evil.

That pretty much summarises the entire history of the human race.

Which is why I read fantasy.

[Hear Us Roar]

Do i care at this point? To a degree. the only people fighting for it are stannis at this point. I would like to see him on the throne. Dany.. i think not, only thing she has going for her are the dragons, other than that she has proved she is just a child.

[Sun]

On the LotR topic:

As Bolton’s Leech pointed out, The Silmarillion shows that Tolkien is not afraid of killing characters. He had a reason not to kill Frodo, and, obviously, it is not that “he didn’t have the balls”. And the reason is that not killing Frodo actually makes for a better and a more complicated book.

One of the main themes in LotR is the loss of innocence. Frodo fights in a war and losses his innocence, and, on a much larger scale, the Shire losses its innocence. After the war, nothing and no one is the same.

You say Frodo should have died. Why? To make the story unpredictable? To surprise readers? In my opinion, killing a character for the sole purpose of surprising readers is just as bad as not killing a character because you are afraid of readers’ reactions.

What would have Frodo’s death taught us? That fighting for freedom requires sacrifices. Great lesson (and one that we have already learned by the deaths of other characters, such as Boromir, Theoden and Halbarad, as well as from history and many works before). But what does Frodo’s survival teach us? It shows us that no one can escape a war unscathed. It shows us that witnessing such sorrows can destroy a person’s soul and can leave scars that will never be healed. And, most of all, it teaches us that in a war it does not matter so much who wins and who loses because, in the end, everybody loses.

Traditional epic tales present war against Evil as something heroic and beautiful and legendary. Tolkien, on the other hand, shows that War by itself is Evil. If you are forced to fight it, you fight it, but there is nothing beautiful and epic about it. It is horrific and destructive. In a way, Frodo’s survival is more tragic than his possible death.

:agree: