Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Ramsey to poor Theon when he was torturing him.
  3. CrypticWeirwood

    Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

    What do you mean that "GRRM considers Jon the protagonist"? Why does Jon pulling a Jaime and saving the kingdom by killing a cruel tyrant somehow make Jon "the protagonist"? What does that even mean? Does that mean Jaime was "the protagonist" of Robert's Rebellion? Was Laertes and not Hamlet therefore the protagonist of Hamlet? Why can't Dany be "the protagonist" or at least "a protagonist"? Because she died? Because she became ugly and dangerous? Because she committed mass murder? How would any of those rule her out? Shouldn't Bran be "the protagonist" here? After all, he's not only the character who opened the story, he's also the character who won the game of thrones in the end. This is clearly the story of the Stark children including Jon, and Dany and Tyrion. Aren't they all "the protagonists"? Finally, what are "emotional feelings"? Aren't all feelings emotional and all emotions feelings? Why wouldn't you focus on Jon's feelings here? He's just had to do a terrible, terrible thing that he'll never heal from in order to save their world, and save it not for himself mind you but for the others. More personally, it was to save his sisters. You can't minimize that damage by pretending it didn't happen, pretend that it had no effect on these "emotional feelings" you strangely refer to so disparagingly. The emotional feelings that result from "the human heart in conflict with itself" are central to what this tale is all about according to its author. Those are the emotional feelings that come from the conflicts in our own heart, from the horrible things that do to ourselves or to others — or have done to us — because of those heart-felt conflicts. This curious thing happens when you decide you like or dislike this or that character. You interpret everything about them through the lens of confirmation bias so that no matter what they do you consider it evidence that your view of them is right. But this bias means you cannot see them fairly. You overlook, even ignore or cannot acknowledge, the bad things in the characters who have won you over: they're your guys now just like the "my mother drunk or sober" slogan. You blind yourself to their faults and your confirmation bias makes you interpret everything that happens in the light you want to see it in. Then you go and do the very same thing but reversed in whoever you've decided you don't like. That person now can do no right, and you're forever nitpicking and dwelling on the things your confirmation bias has confirmed are surely reality. And yet neither of those two approaches are anything close to reality. They're fictions we tell to ourselves about others, and about ourselves too.
  4. I agree that it is hard to be a Jon or Dany fan. I turn the question around about Jon seeing his family, and wonder if they will visit him. I for one do not think Sansa or Bran will ever visit Jon. Bran and Sansa end up quite a bit alike in that they both will allow a situation to unfold if they are going to 'get something' from it. Jon may see Arya again, maybe. Dany fans have it much harder than Jon fans, however I do think that they were fodder for an ending. Not because it made sense, but because some folks had to die and it wasn't going to be the Stark kids.
  5. Rippounet

    Slavoj Zizek on the ending

    This is true, and yet I don't think it invalidates Žižek's overall point, which is that the ending was politically conservative to say the least. The main problem -imho- is that the writers (i.e. D&D) largely did away with the fantasy/epic dimensions of the show when they killed the Night's King in episode 3. Whatever fantasy elements are left in the final outcome can easily be seen as symbolizing something else (Drogon being a metaphor for WMD) or as plot devices (Bran's "magic" powers only serve to present him as the ultimate philosopher king). So of course, one can only look at what seems to be the political message of the finale, since the writers themselves chose to make it about politics. This doesn't mean that the message we get is what the writers intended (because they are not political scientists so they probably didn't "intend" much). Nor does it mean that there are no subtelties to be found in the message if one digs a bit (like Jon's apparent anarchism, as you say). Nonetheless, if one looks at the morale of the finale at a glance, trying to guess what most viewers will take away from it, Žižek is essentially correct. Not only does the ending bring back a variation of the old order (down to some surprising details, like the "need" for a Master of whispers [WTF Bran??]), but it dismisses the possibility of democracy with laughter. There is a tiny element of political progress in so far as the king must now rule in the name of the people ; from a constitutional perspective it means the people is now sovereign and that there is no "divine right" of rulers. But that's very little for our modern sensibilities, and conservative to say the least in 2019. It effectively advocates the rule of a philosopher/enlightened king/elite and indirectly condones feudalism and aristocratism. Plus it openly mocks democracy, which was a bit unnecessary imho... None of this is really surprising for fantasy. Lord of the Rings did the same after all. The problem is that in LotR, the crowning of Aragorn immediately follows the destruction of Sauron, and you even have the scouring of the Shire to nuance it. There is a direct link between Sauron's destruction and Aragorn's legitimacy. And politics was not a focus of LotR, at all... In GoT however, we have three entire episodes superficially dedicated to the question of political legitimacy. And yet little time is really dedicated to explaining *why* Bran is the best possible solution, or to nuance how good a solution he represents. For instance, democracy, instead of being laughed at, should have been carefully considered before being rejected. Just as the North's independence should have been debated, considering its impact on the long-term stability of the realm(s)... Heck, even Dany's "vision" could have been more nuanced. She does propose to end servitude after all... What if she'd proposed to end feudalism? That would have made her far more interesting. In a nutshell, there was both too much time given to the question of political legitimacy and too little time given to proper reflection about it. A different way to put it: It kind of is though. Not because the endorsement is absolute, but because no alternative, no "third way" seems to be possible or considered. It's either bloody revolution leading to tyranny (Dany) or the old order with the benefit of enlightenment (the Starks). And some of the alternatives to be found in the show were even worse (the Sparrows). The problem is that after 7 seasons showing just how inherently dangerous political power can be, it seems the show's answer is the philosopher king. I'm not sure that's what was intended, but it *is* what is achieved. This could have been avoided imho if Bran becoming king had been the *only* possible solution instead of apparently being the best. In other words, if the destruction in the wake of the Great War had been so complete, so traumatic, that any traditional form of power was completely discredited and impossible. If the Night's King had conquered most of Westeros, devastating most of it *and* the old order in the process, Bran taking over could have been seen as a necessity rather than a solution. To be clear, the show gave us this order: 1) The Night's King is destroyed. 2) Dany becomes mad and ends Cersei's rule. 3) Jon kills Dany. 4) A brief debate leads to the crowning of Bran and the Starks essentially restoring the traditional order of things. It's hard not to read this as condoning the traditional order of things... Instead we could have had a very different order of events... 1) The Battle of Winterfell sees the victory of the Night's King. 2) The survivors of the North retreat to King's Landing while the dead conquer most of Westeros, laying waste to almost every kingdom. 3) There is a power play between Cersei, Dany, and Jon which shows that Cersei is too incompetent and Dany too ruthless to rule (Dany half loses it after the loss of most of her army). Jon and Tyrion are the ones who truly think of the people (i.e. refugees). 4) Dany has to be sacrificed for the greater good (as Nissa nissa?) and possibly does so willingly (thus redeeming herself in the end). 5) In an epic fight (possibly centered on KL, which is destroyed), Jon wields Lightbringer and defeats the Night's King, thus fulfilling the prophecies. Ideally, Drogon is killed in the process, perhaps after being transformed by the NK. 6) BUT Dany, like her father before her, has definitely discredited the Targaryen dynasty and Jon does not want to rule anyway. None of the other survivors truly has the clout to take the throne (the survivors would be too unfit, too unwilling, or too despised to rule, like Tyrion, Davos, Brienne, Sam... etc). So Jon goes North and Bran becomes king, The ending is more or less the same, but the message is completely different. First, because the NK and the dead remaining the true threat keep the show within the fantasy genre, second because the vacuum of power in the end leaves Bran as an acceptable solution for the greater good. As a bonus, we get the truly epic fight between the dead and the living, with Jon being the prophecised savior of ice and fire. That's my two cents, and I'm not a professional writer. In the end, the heart of the matter is that the ending was botched. D&D chose to focus on politics, so of course they screwed up. If they'd stuck to fantasy they would have had a far better chance of giving us a better ending *and* message.
  6. Techmaester

    No one really cares about KL massacre

    I can dig up lots of instances of total slaughter and complete death of populations save for keeping what ever could be a useful slave. How it's done doesn't really matter. Also she didn't kill everyone nor intended thus the KL deaths are overstated.
  7. Ser Loras The Gay

    Aegon VI

    I still think it was the pie, but it really makes us wonder who else is going to be a big actor in the later books. Maybe we'll see some of the Doran's plan in action with his daughter and something.
  8. JNR

    Heresy 222 vindication

    Well, we'll have to wait and see. However, for me, we do already know that they ended it egregiously far off. The oncoming Long Night in the books... which I think we agree is going to be the primary and final conflict of the series, in contradiction of the show... really can't end with killing Night King. Because he doesn't exist in the books, except as a mythical reference to a human being. The show ending also depends on the premise that killing a Popsicle instantly kills all the wights (or other Popsicles) that that Popsicle created. And this crucial concept, like Night King, simply does not exist in Book World. And while it's technically possible that Westeros will arbitrarily abandon the claim-driven succession by which, for thousands of years, it has chosen kings, I really don't think that will happen, either. So IMO, Bran, who has no conceivable claim, is not going to be king of Westeros at any point in the books -- certainly not the ending. However, I do expect the Wall to fall, I do expect Dany to run into trouble with Westerosi nobles, and I do expect there to be a war for survival in the North. So in terms of those major beats... yes, I think we will get that much in the books.
  9. Darn, now that's bugging me. I know the quote is "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." But I can't remember what it's from. Please clean out the cobwebs for me!
  10. Count Balerion

    Calling all Picts! : Pictionary 44 : A Nightmare of Spring

    Everyone should have a picture to describe now. DEADLINE OF UTTER DOOM: 9 PM EDT (1 AM GMT), Saturday, 23 May.
  11. RFL

    No one really cares about KL massacre

    There is no good way to apply the use of the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction to a surrendered city in medieval morality. What historical example do we have?
  12. hallam

    Castrating Jon (Literally)

    Arya is the slayer of the Night King and thus the first blade of Westeros. I am pretty sure Book Arya is the Night King Killer as well because Arya is essentially a younger Lyanna.
  13. Nowy Tends

    So once again...the writers forgot about Gendry

    Not to my knowledge.
  14. I was thinking that since it was Arya Stark who singlehandedly murdered the entire Frey clan and baked them in a pie for Walder, that would make her the natural lord of the Riverlands by right of conquest. She found Edmure in a dungeon, remember.
  15. KingMudd

    [Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.4

    Come on. It's very far from that, let's not be ridiculous.
  16. Apoplexy

    A season of Jons betrayal

    Dany's actions are on Dany. Jon wasn't responsible for her craziness and he didn't betray her. Well he did kill her, but that's murder not betrayal He literally kept repeating 'she is my queen' all season long. I agree, burning down an entire city of civilians was out of character for show Dany, but Jon had nothing to do with it. It was the show runners' bad writing and execution.
  17. DMC

    Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

    I was not arguing both that Bran will be King and the South and Sansa will be Queen in the North. As I said, ambivalent on the latter. I suppose it's possible, but in such a case I'd expect many other Kingdoms gaining their independence as well, and Bran "rebuilding" the remnants of the others.
  18. Techmaester

    No one really cares about KL massacre

    Ah so we should disregard pragmatism and apply fantasy to a show who liked to base itself on being real. This is probably why Danys actions were so viewed as black and white by some people here.
  19. RedEyedGhost

    Scott Lynch's Thorn of Emberlain is Completed

    Scott's last book was released in Oct. '13, George's was July '11 and Pat's was Mar. '11. So while they're playing the same sport, they're definitely not in the same league.
  20. The Mance

    Small, unworthy things: part whatever

    Life will find a way "BOSTON (WHDH) - Two green baby anacondas were recently born in an all-female exhibit at the New England Aquarium in Boston, making them “biological celebrities” due to the fact that they were created without fertilization from a male, officials said. The two-foot-long babies are a product of the unusual form of asexual reproduction called parthenogenesis or “virgin birth” in Greek, according to the aquarium."
  21. RFL

    No one really cares about KL massacre

    Dragons are also far from reality
  22. Apoplexy

    A season of Jons betrayal

    My brother texted me the exact same thing after watching the finale plus he said (and I concur) the only thing he liked about the episode was seeing ghost on screen.
  23. Did you see Georges new "Not a blog" post... now I'm getting excited
  24. The Book Depository shows it being released the same date as the hardcover.
  25. SpaceChampion

    SpaceX's Big Falcon Topic 2

    Starlink launch attempt tonight at 10:30pm EST
  26. Flightless bird

    [TV Show Spoilers] A theory about the ending.

    Brans arc is tied into the werewoods, to see the past he has to look through the werewood net... how do you suppose this would work for him and his beliefs in the south where there is no werewood trees.
  1. Load more activity
×