Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. martianmister

    Is it the End, or a new Cycle begins?

    New cycle. Targaryen progeny will rise in the north as the Kings beyond the Wall, Little Council with "little men" will eventually be a center of corruption, Drogon will return, etc.
  3. sologdin

    Small, unworthy things: part whatever

    Have you reached official old age, even if you just turned 31, because you think the current music scene is beyond awful? to qualify as 'old' on these grounds, one'd need to suffer acute méconnaissance when confronted with new music, interpreting it instead as mere noise. am nostalgic for when i had thought, at 30, that the grave opened before me like a large hole in the ground.
  4. Mystical

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    I could see this being GRRM's endgame for Bran because he is fond of those all-knowing, hive-minded entities (they are all over his stories) but I can't see how GRRM would get him there without taking major short cuts (aka time jumps). And even then, the populace of Westeros would need a major shift in their thinking in order to accept him. Society doesn't change over night and neither does political thinking or political system or religion. He's literally a boy, crippled, possibly can't father children, his power comes from Gods everyone south of the North would see as evil...he literally has everything stacked against him becoming King of Westeros.
  5. Ruki88

    Moral of each characters story?

    Good people get stabbed in the back. No matter how much good you do you'll end up betrayed if it means other ppl can get their greedy little hands on their piece of the pie...and your piece of the pie.
  6. Tywin should have done that anyways, its his biggest character flaw, even more so than his excessive brutality over Tyrion's fisrt wife. Its the most understandable one, but seriously man. Either that or naming Kevan and Kevan's descendants as his heirs. I do wonder what Stannis would do with Dany, and Viserys really. Especially if she goes far enough in her character arc to raise dragons from the eggs. I have read credible theories that they were at the Sealord's palace before they went on the run throughout the Free Cities. Perhaps Stannis brings them back? Or has them hunted down and killed earlier? Viserys is the real issue, only the Dornish would get behind Dany.
  7. What do ice and fire represent in the context of the story? All that we really know is that ice and fire are seemingly dualistic things. There are a lot of contrasting concepts that could represent ice and fire Pragmatism Vs Passion, Dragons Vs Others, Winter Vs Summer, Death Vs Life and R'hlorr Vs Great Other. Rhaegar seemed to have believed that the song of ice and fire was about finding some sort of merger between the two elements. What place does the COTF's song of earth have in this? Assuredly, earth has something to do with nature. The song of earth seems to be outside of the song of ice and fire. It seems to be an outside force in ice Vs fire. Perhaps it's a neutral force that stops one force from becoming dominant. After all, no matter if it's winter or summer, nature still remains and balances out the two. This makes sense, but it doesn't really explain why the COTF oppose mankind. It would be assumed that mankind do not sing the song of earth otherwise the Children of the Forest would be fine with them. This could mean that mankind sways to much to either ice or fire. I have a different idea than this. I think that earth represents harmony, nature, balance, and the unchanging mankind. Mankind represents something totally different from this. Humans struggle for power, they exploit the natural world and they represent progress over stagnancy. These things don't seem to with align with ice or fire, but rather a totally different song. When thinking of an element that opposes earth, we think of air, but I don't see how that represents humanity well. For a lack of a better term I think that they sing the song of metal (iron and steel sounds cooler but I regress). Humans oftentimes use metals to achieve dominance and progress. They use metal weapons to achieve their goals. On top of that, mankind believes that metals such as gold and silver represent power, and most spend their lives trying to acquire it. The First Men also used axes to chop down the weirwoods. Remember that the COTF use dragonglass as weapons as opposed to metals. The pursuit of scientific progress is also represented by the maesters and their metal chains. I've said previously that I think that earth is neutral in the conflict of ice and fire, but oppose metal. So that brings into question if metal is also neutral in this conflict. Well, kind of. Humans generally oppose harmony, going to one extreme or the other. Individuals definitely pick sides, however humanity as a whole is split on ice and fire (passion vs pragmatism, etc.) This means that there is a lot of infighting, unlike COTF. There's so much infighting that people can't see the big picture that the seasons are out of balance and winter is coming. This basically balances humanity in the ice vs fire conflict but that doesn't make them neutral. COTF are more like peacekeepers while humans are belligerents. It may be worth noting that the title, ASOIAF is said to be based on a Robert Frost poem in which someone is split on whether the world should end in ice or fire. Either is extreme but there isn't a choice for an in-between in which neither element becomes dominant. The narrator may represent humanity as a whole being split between extremes. Rhaegar seemed to believe that his third child would be the song of ice and fire. Perhaps this means that he/she will be the one to bring harmony to the seasons or represent a fusion of the two elements. What do you guys think?
  8. Yes, this is the frustrating thing for me - Jon wasn't so dumb in the books. In the show we got action hero Jon, the greatest swordsman (??), honorable Jon. Apparently, D&D were so impressed by Kit being capable of handling a sword that they decided to give him more sword battle scenes. Hence how Jon the action hero, best swordsman was born. It irks me because little by little we see book!Jon realize how honor doesn't mean as much as his father taught him, not in the real world, so to speak. This was such an awesome thing for me since I wasn't a fan of Ned frankly. All those plans he made for Stannis. All those plans on how to improve the Waych and how to man it. Naaaaaah, Jon wielding a sword and being constantly called short and pretty are obviously more important to show on screen.
  9. Yeah, it tells us we're not all hapless stooges who will accept whatever crap is crammed down our throats.
  10. Mordant Jester

    Rank the seasons!

    Tough one 1. Season 4. Nailed it and Oberyn was terrific. 2. Season 3. Hit Storm of Swords well (along with Season 4). Red Wedding done fairly well. 4. Season 6. Battle of the Bastards was the Greatest Episode in TV ever, and the finale, perhaps the 2nd or 3rd best. 3. Season 5. Hardhome was great and a top 3 episode. The Dorne plot didnt affect me like it did others. High Sparrow 5. Season 1. Classic, although there is little "action" and takes 3-4 episodes to start rolling. Best adaptation of the books, which makes me want to rank it higher. 6. Season 2. Qarth was butchered. 7. Season 8. I didnt like the rush job. The two battle episodes were great. 8. Season 7. The conception of the idea and the poor execution of the mission beyond the wall (as well as the 'ease' of escape) were by far the lowest point in the series and was nearly a show-ruiner for me. That sequence is all I can think of while pondering Season 7
  11. Fragile Bird

    U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

    ‘Looks up Westeros restraining ordets’
  12. A Horse Named Stranger

    UK Politics: The End of May

    How about Andrea Loathsome or Chris Grayling? I mean if you want to go stupid, why stop half-way, when you go the whole grayling. The Tories have so much first class talent to choose from. The last time I saw such a great group of political talent was during the last GOP primary in the US; and in the end that worked out for the best in the end...
  13. Gerg Sknab

    Where to start....

    Maybe Dunc and Egg.
  14. Cas Stark

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    The show has hated and minimized Bran's story since he left Winterfell. So, my guess is that the ONLY reason the show made him King is because this happens in the books, it was completely out of left field and makes no sense, and there easy and obvious thing for the show to do is have a great council rule without a king, but they had Bran be King so I believe absolutely this happens in the book story. And I'd further say, it's another sign of why GRRM will never finish the series because I can't see him being able to set up Bran as King in less than 3 books, especially if the war against the dead isn't until Dream of Spring.
  15. Daenerys has magic powers. I thought that was already established. She's like Daenys the Dreamer all over again.
  16. SeanF

    Moral of each characters story?

    Dany If you have senior advisors who keep giving your stupid advice, get rid of them.
  17. As I said, it is about what can be done and what needs to be done. Dany could have flown over the city and blown up the Red Keep and Red Keep alone. That is not an option that ground-bound army has. Stannis didn't do anything good? In the backstory, he did a lot of good. Even in the series itself, he defended the Wall against the Wildlings. Not sure whether him ordering his castellan at Dragonsone to dig up obsidian for the Night's Watch was included into TV show or not.
  18. Good thing that what happens off screen or is said off screen doesn't matter. It's not part of canon. Not that the canon on screen isn't already dumb enough...
  19. Lady Rhodes

    Heresy 222 vindication

    Not necessarily. The theory posits that all of her warmth went into the sword, leaving her as cold as ice. Meaning, she was not an Other until she was sacrificed. The act of the sacrifice turned her into a female Other.
  20. Lord Patrek

    Amazing Book Deals: The Third

    Samantha Shannon's The Priory of the Orange Tree is 1.99$ on Kindle (US only).
  21. Jabar of House Titan

    Suppose Robert was the middle son and Stannis the elder

    There would be no War of the Five Kings if Stannis is king. If Stannis wants to avoid war with Tywin and the West over Jaime however, he's going to have to marry Cersei. Yikes. Stannis would give Storm's End to Robert and probably either give Dragonstone to someone very loyal and very competent....or he'd just leave Dragonstone alone with a castellan and claim it for herself. But the Others and Daenerys are still going to be a problem. Dorne is also still going to have a problem. Tywin would have been forced to remarry and have more children because of his hatred for Tyrion.
  22. ummester

    Moral of each characters story?

    Dany - entitlement and dragons do not make you powerful - she went cray, cray at the end because she felt powerless (I hold to that, even if D&Ds telling was pretty average). Jon - sometimes you have to bend the rules and your own morals for the greater good (and to get your dog back). Tyrion - even when you fuck up, if you have a disposition for something, you have to keep doing it. Brienne - you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need... oh yea Or Meatloaf - Brienne's moral outcome has been recorded in multiple songs Jamie - even if you fail to redeem yourself fully in life, your good deeds will be remembered (He was the nicest and most obvious of all of them, I found Brienne writing in his book was like perfect bittersweet - posthumous redemption - my favorite part of the stories resolution).
  23. WeDoNotKneel_HailMance

    Two Questions about this Episode

    1. The North/Starks claiming independence is fine if you look at it from Sansa's point of view. The North also had claimed independence back in Season 1, briefly gave it up when the Bolton's took Winterfell, and went back to independence in Season 6...then gave it up to Dany, who is now dead. Anyways, the North wanting to be independent makes total sense. Buuuuut FFS the whole Bran is King thing was clearly a unity vote. Let's all band together because we're stronger/better when together vs divided. Ok fine. But then as soon as Sansa breaks the unity and says the North wants independence, all logic quickly unravels: The logic here about different customs, ways, religion etc also applies elsewhere......... Iron Isles: Yara would immediately follow-up by asking for Iron Isle independence, since the Greyjoys have been fighting for that literally the entire series (and independence was granted by Dany, who Yara was fighting for). Yara has NEVER MET BRAN, knows nothing about him, has zero reason to support him. Dorne: The Prince of Dorne would also want independence. Again, Dorne supported Dany who is dead, and Dorne has ALWAYS desired independence. Dorne has NEVER MET BRAN, knows nothing about him, has zero reason to support him. So, now you have 3 kingdoms who should reject the unity vote. Who's to say what the Eyrie, the Riverlands, the Reach, Westerlands, or Stormlands want to do, but who cares - as soon as 1 kingdom rejects unity, all others would either fight the defection or defect themselves. How would Bran, who is from the North, be King of other kingdoms who are no longer associated with the North? He's not even a citizen/resident. At a minimum, they'd want to elect someone actually from their new 6 kingdoms thing. This is like having a meeting where someone tries to make Canada, the US, & Mexico into 1 country, "The Three Kingdoms." And all 3 agree to join, and they elect some random kid from Calgary to lead "The Three Kingdoms." But then Canada is like nah, we're good on our own, you should just be "The Two Kingdoms" but hey please keep our Canadian resident to lead the US and Mexico.
  24. Targaryen Peas

    Independent North

    I actually think the only reason why Sansa said that in ep6, was to show she didn't "really" want to be queen. We need to remember that she isn't Ned's daughter anymore, but LF's. Or then, she meant Jon Targaryen. As someone said previously, Lyanna Mormont said Jon isn't king anymore, and the northmen didn't disagree. Should be enough evidence.
  25. Techmaester

    Moral of each characters story?

    Danys lesson: don't trust short men. Alright, no jokes? Danys lesson: don't give unearned love.
  26. What you wrote is kinda the point behind ASoIaF: it is a deconstruction of Lord of the Rings. Problem is, LotR itself - especially if you take things outside Lord of the Rings as such - is much less of a "white and black" work than Martin assumed. It is more "gray and black" than anything. So Martin was deconstructing less LotR itself than he was deconstructing the entire fantasy genre LotR spawned. To just take what you wrote about LotR being "good vs evil". On the surface, that is so. But when you take a look in depth, especially the rest of Tolkien mythos outside LotR itself, you will see that: good people do not necessarily stay good bad people are not irredeemably bad good intent can lead to bad outcome selfish and evil act may unintentionally lead to good outcome being good is good, but being so good that you cannot understand evil is stupid (and leads to evil spreading) power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely And so on. In fact, most of these things are lessons you can also draw from A Song of Ice and Fire. Point by point: good people do not necessarily stay good Martin: Aerys "The Mad King" was actually good ruler until he went mad; Tolkien: Melkor / Morgoth was a powerful Maia, and was originally a good person who wanted to use his abilities to help create the world; but he believed his abilities to be underutilized and underappreciated by Eru, and that led to jelaousy, resentment and evil; Boromir wanted to help his kingdom, but nearly got corrupted by The Ring; Saruman was originally dead-set in opposing Sauron, but got corrupted through usage of Palantir and his own thirst for forbidden knowledge; Feanor was a good person, but his pride in his work led to him committing some quite evil acts bad people are not irredeemably bad Martin: Jamie Lannister was originally shit of a person, but eventually redeemed himself and became quite a decent guy Tolkien: Gollum, nacht; Boromir got corrupted by the Ring, but eventually gave his life defending the hobbits from the orcs good intent can lead to bad outcome Martin: where to begin? "A Song of Ice and Fire" could be called "Good Intent Causes Bad Outcome: The Series" Tolkien: again, Feanor - he created the Silmarills, to preserve the Light of the Trees, but these gemstones later caused war with Morgoth as well as Kinslaying at Harbours; also everything Saruman did in leadup to Lord of the Rings story proper selfish and evil act may unintentionally lead to good outcome Martin: can't remember one right now Tolkien: Gollum, again, when he tried to take Ring from Frodo and ended up destroying both Ring and himself being good is good, but being so good that you cannot understand evil is stupid (and leads to evil spreading) Martin: Eddard Stark got himself killed because he was f***ing honourable Tolkien: Manwe believed Melkor / Morgoth when latter claimed he had repented for his sins and let him go, with result of thousands of years of Melkor's terror over Middle Earth; his herald (Eonwe?) believed Sauron when he claimed the same, with the result of again thousands of years of terror, sinking of Numenor, and War of the Ring power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely Martin: quite a few characters Tolkien: One Ring is the embodiement of this effect, but Morgoth and Sauron both became evil because they had power, and believed their role was not appropriate to their power Also, much damage to the "good guys" was caused not by the Mr. Satan and his Legions of Hell, but rather due to their own inflighting. There is an example of Silmarillion and Sons of Feanor fighting all other elves for possession of Silmarills (particularly their attacks on Teleri and later on the Harbours). Numenoreans went bad not because Sauron corrupted them, but because they "tasted power in Middle Earth"; and this later caused infighting between King's Men and the Faithful. As for perspective, that is true to an extent. But even there you have - not in Lord of the Rings, but again in Silmarillion - times when good guys clash among themselves, times when (former) good guys act as evilly as designated villians, and sometimes it is not clear who you are supposed to be cheering for. Even within LotR timeframe, Dunlendings only joined Saruman because Rohirrim were persecuting them. So were Rohirrim good or evil? Or Dunlendings good or evil? It is kinda how some countries joined the Axis because they saw Germany as best chance of fixing various injustices (Finland to liberate territory taken by USSR, Croatia due to whole treatment it received in Kingdom of Yugoslavia etc.). So did Dunlendings choose evil side? Definitely. Does that mean they were inherently evil? Not at all. And before that (back to Silmarillion), Numenor clashed with Sauron in Middle Earth. At first it was a classical "good vs evil", but Numenoreans themselves got corrupted by their own imperialism and eventually the conflict was between evil and evil, to the point that many native groups joined Sauron to protect them from Numenoreans. I compared Daenerys to Gollum, not Cersei.
  1. Load more activity