Do we CARE who wins the Iron Throne anymore?

[The Bloody Boar]

It's also really not fair to Tolkien - and not accurate - to say he has a fundamentally simple moral view, i.e. that good wins, and evil loses. The tone of Tolkien's work is part Nordic - in which good, so far from winning, is doomed (but nonetheless never loses courage) - and part Christian, in which the works of evil, no matter how overwhelming, are incorporated into God's plan and increase the glory of God in the end (and this, perhaps, for the very reason that evil is allowed to confront good with the prospect of certain defeat, yet good does not give in). Criticisms of Tolkien's morally 'simplistic' worldview are often themselves too simplistic.

Essentially, go down fighting against evil even, or especially, when there seems to be no hope and you will be saved eternally.

[iamthedave]

Criticisms of Tolkien's morally 'simplistic' worldview are often themselves too simplistic.

There are plenty of essays going into detail on his worldview and its simplistic elements if you want to search them out. I think Michael Moorcock wrote a couple, one in which he deconstructed the Victorian values at the heart of LoTR, and there was another one where he just analyzed the stylistic elements of the writing (wherein he coined 'epic Winnie the Pooh').

The thing is that there's not that much left to say about LoTR that hasn't already been said by someone. It's really not that complex.

[The Bloody Boar]

You are probably right that there's nothing new to say about LoTR, but that doesn't mean that final judgements have been made. Many have said it's morally simplistic, but some - and some I respect more than Michael Moorcock, Ursula K Le Guin, for example (which is not to say I dislike Moorcock) - have said it isn't. I side with the latter.

[Bajaz]

That is the reason I love this books,LoTR is so predictive so dull.

LoTR is like children bedtime story,you have good guys and bad guys and none of good guys can die.

[The Oncoming Storm]

I do care. I really hope no Targ restoration happens, it would be back to where it all began...

I would be overjoyed if Stannis became king simply because he defends the realm and knows how to get shit done. He has a Hand who is honourable and smart, and he could get Tycho or someone else from Braavos as the Master of Coin. He would get the right people for the right position, for their abilities, not their birth.

All he needs is to unfortunately get widowed and lose his leal priestess. Then he could get a normal (and fertile) wife.

[Pope Killdragon]

I like moral ambiguity and Martin's use make his books more interesting and make Tolkien's seem simple and dare I say childish by comparison. Martin was always better. And for christsake! Martin finishes his books when he finishes! He's not your bitch and besides that, none of you were alive at the time Tolkien's books were published so stop drawing baseless comparisons.

[Fantôme]

And this is a looming failure for this series: will we even care who wins the Iron Throne in the end?

Honestly until I reached this last sentence I thought he was praising the books for adding what lacked in classic fantasy. That manichean stories are necessarily better or more interesting is complete news to me.

[Quentyn the Blazed]

That is the reason I love this books,LoTR is so predictive so dull.

LoTR is like children bedtime story,you have good guys and bad guys and none of good guys can die.

Except Ned. Ned always dies in the first act. Poor guy...

[Apoapsis]

Regarding the original post: Why would it be a failure if readers didn't care who got the Iron Throne? I've never cared about it; I just want to know how things work. Who are the Others, what is their motivation? Why is magic suddenly much stronger all over the world? How much can Bloodraven and Bran really see and do? And to a lesser degree; how will the political machinations and battles play out? Who's got the best trick up their sleeve?

I don't mind if all of Westeros is laid waste by the Others by the end of the last book as long as the story leading up to that is interesting.

[Kzamll]

i dont compare LOTR to asoiaf... GRRM has created a real world! where not everyone will fit into a "good or bad" category!!

one thing though its surprised me how the Lannisters are still in power... and practically have been in power since the very start of the series!!

also... there are characters that i want to sit on the throne!!.. Not Daenerys anyways!

The plot progression has been very slow in AFFC and ADWD combined... and the story has become very complex and i cant see it being resolved in 2 books of 1,500 pages each!!... well resolved satisfyingly anyways!! so it could be that there will be more than 7 books in the series!

Saying that i still am enjoying ADWD as i have each of the books in the series!

with SoS being my favourite... and CoK being my least favourite! :)

[The Wolves]

I don't, but I know if I had to choose I would choose Dany. I HATE everybody who wants that ugly throne, so there is no good choice for me. I loath the Lannisters, I hate Stannis and the Tyrells are losers but since I at least liked some Targs than I want them to reclaim the throne. I don't want the North having any claim to that ugly thing. I hope Jon doesn't sit the throne cause men of the Stark blood don't come back from the South. After the first book reuniting the Starks and keeping the North independent is what I have cared about.

[JonTargaryenW/Viserion4WIN]

The Others take your Iron Throne!!

Hot Pie for King!!!!

HOT PIE, HOT PIE, HOT PIE!!!

King Hot, First of his name, protector of the realm and lord of the seven kingdoms......

[total1402]

OP

I want to see Daenerys melt the Iron Throne with dragonfire. Then build a new one high as a mountain out of the charred skulls of her enemies; her dragons curled up around her.

[starki]

Sure we do. I'm torn between Daenerys and Stannis. And I'm of the opinion it will very much matter who sits on the Throne when the Others arrive.

And comparisons are silly. Tolkien was/great in his own right, just as GRRM is.

[The Wolves]

I only care in the matter that the Lannisters does not sit the throne. I hate Stannis so Dany is the best choice for me. My main concern is that the Starks are reunited, Winterfell fixed and the North remains independent. I HATE everybody who wants to rule the iron throne so their is no good choice for me, the only reason I pick Dany is because there was a time I cared about her, I always hated Stannis and the Lannisters.

[Stallion That Mounts Texas]

We must have Targaryen restoration. It all began with "blood and fire" and it will all come back full circle to the greatest house every created in literature.

My greatest hope is that it will be Jon Targaryen, the first of his name, but sadly I think Jon will spend the rest of his days as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. Danaery will serve I suppose (with her husband Victarian).

[mediterraneo]

This whole "I hate the Others" meme has become more and more common around here over the past few years, and I can't help thinking to myself "If you really hate the Others, how in the hell did you even make it past the prologue of AGOT"?

Seriously folks, magic, prophecy and the Others have been integral parts of the books from the very beginning. It isn't mere coincidence that GRRM reminds us over and over again that "Winter is coming". The looming battle with the Others is a framing device for the events happening with the Iron Throne. We find out early on in AGOT about the Long Night and how the Wall was built in preparation for their return. The recently exiled former rulers rode around on fucking dragons! Bran starts having prophetic dreams within a few chapters of the beginning of the book. Everyone and their grandmother either has or wants to have the rare but not unheard of magical swords floating around in the world.

That's not to say that the events surrounding the Iron Throne aren't interesting, because they most definitely are. But when I read about all this Other-hate, I just can't help but wonder...have we even been reading the same books?

As an Heretic I can be viewed suspiciously, but we have still to understand things about the Others. And the association made here between the winter which is coming, the terrible things that the three eyed crow has shown to Bran but not to us in the first book, and the others may or may not be a totally and inmediately correct assumption.

That said. If the novels did not provide difficult ethical choices, they would be far less interesting to me. And as it is not easy to be more than the cardboard figure of a "face" or "heel" in a black and white, clear cut world, it helps the characters to be memorable.

Because Frodo's wielding the Ring, the Nazgul couldn't actually touch Frodo under this scenario. They'd just delay him until Sauron (who holds the Nazgul's Nine Rings) turned up. No mortal (not even Aragorn) could have withheld the Ring in Sauron's presence.

This is very interesting: how the hell did the Nazgul touch Frodo the first time they did, on that windy ruined tower, before getting to Riverrun? He should have been intouchable that day too. Is it a blooper, or it does not count, because the letter is not part of the book?

And by the way, why all of this obsession about destroying the One Ring? And why to negate it to Sauron? It is his! He builded it! :cool4:

OUT OF TOPIC POST SCRIPTUM:

Constitutional monarchy is the same as republic, really - the monarchy's power was destroyed. Often the monarchy was maintained as a balance for conservative and progressive forces, to help keep stability. Often this worked, often it didn't, but there you go. A real King is an absolute monarchy, and they are few and far between and constantly under threat.

I answer this because it was repeated thrice in the thread.

No, a constitutional monarchy is not the same as a republic, because no real democracy can be founded without the principle of the soberane equality of all of their citizens. It can be deemed better than a more dictatorial form of rule of one, but it introduce a clear and indeniable element of injustice and discrimination.

What gives the heir to the throne the right to recieve enourmous amount of public money, an important responsability and a privilegied formationa and then job in the heart of State? Why the next Chief of State will be him/her, and not me? Why does his sister deserve a public, very rich salary, and I have to pay taxes?

To put it in another way: Infanta Elena is a very very beautiful, smart and nice girl, but why is it crime in Spain to say the contrary in public, while anybody here can freely say that my friend's daughter is a prick? And why one of the two similar aged girls has a hospital named out of her, and the other does not?

Because constitutional monarchies are implicitly unjust. They can call them citizens, but still when there is a monarch, the others are subjects.

Having talked about the spanish case can enlight another point: a constitutional monarchy can be far better for the people living in it than a dictatorship. Franco's heirs wouldn't have been so easily convinced to allow the start of the "transition" if the final goal was a republic like the one overthrown by the fascist regime they were part of.

[Brony Stark]

Dolorous Edd all the way!

For all seriousness I think there isn't going to be an Iron Throne or there isn't going to be anyone left to sit on it. I was poking through a few ratholes and I found this interesting tidbit on IMDB

Author George R.R. Martin was asked if he had a resolution or ending to the seemingly endless conflict. He replied that the end would be a cloud of dust or snow being driven by the wind across a vast graveyard full of tombstones.

Sounds ominous, doesn't it?

But if someone had to win the Iron Throne I can't decide who'd I support, each candidate has their ups and downs.

[BoldAsYouPlease]

Without the military threat of dragons, the Iron Throne really doesn't mean anything. The Targaryens managed to maintain their dynasty for about 150 years after the death of the last dragon, mostly through inertia and alliances before they were overthrown and Westeros reverted to the several distinct kingdoms that have been the norm for nearly all of it's history. That's what you'd expect to find in a large continent with medieval technology and long-range communication conducted by ravens - only an overwhelming, unanswerable military advantage like fire-breathing dragons could possibly unite such a vast amount of territory.

The only contender for the throne with dragons now is Dany. Aside from the fact that ADwD killed any interest I had in the character, there are several real impediments to Dany gaining the Iron Throne, uniting all of Westeros and leaving the unified kingdom to an heir. Among these are the facts that she's supposedly infertile, her dragons aren't fully grown, her control over them seems incomplete at best, she can personally only ride one, and other personages in the story apparently wield tools which allow them to take control of the dragons.

There's also the fact that Dany is an idiot who seems determined to stay that way. She apparently takes her "if I look back, I am lost" mantra to heart, and studiously avoids learning from her mistakes. The way she pirouettes out of any opportunity to learn about her own family history would dazzle Baryshnikov. She has proven she can't manage the people or politics of the city-state of Meereen - the idea that this girl is going to conquer, unify and rule an entire continent full of treacherous and powerful lords seems laughable. But it's a manufactured world, so it's up to Martin of course - just saying.

And if any contender without dragons takes the Iron Throne, he will rule Kings Landing and that's about it. The rest will have to be built on alliances, and he will simply be one more local ruler in a continent filled with them.

[SerStinger]

We must always remeber that the title of the series is "A Song of Ice and Fire" and not "Game of Thrones", and I believe moral ambiguity aside, it is because the series are ultimately NOT about the Iron Throne. They are about a fight between (or according to my little fan theory the alliance between) Azor Ahai and the Others. So, the Iron Throne is not siginificant when the winter comes.

On a side note, that's also why I think the HBO will regret their name choice.