Last Active
  • Theory: Is Varys Testing Tyrion's loyalty?

    ken hale said:
    True, but I kind of feel like even if he did send the ravens, the events this week kind of nullify that.  Unless he kills her in the immediate aftermath, like in the smoking ruins, Jon is going to be guilty by association.  Who cares if he's got Targaryean blood, that's a knock against him now.  There's no way this ends peacefully with anybody in Westeros supporting Jon the Targaryean King who burned King's Landing and murdered his incest bride.
    Good point. If a bunch Dornish men roll up to fight Danny next week there's no way they'd turn around and support Jon, one of her top generals. 
    ken hale
  • 804 - The Last of the Starks

    Not sure if I totally agree with this myself, but is it possible that the Night King was actually kinda lame and better relegated to being a glorified MacGuffin?

    I really dug this episode.
    Pretty much. I think one of the saddest things that the final season has revealed is that there's not much depth to GOT. All my favorite shows (The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men) have something interesting to say about the human condition. The books have a lot to say about it. Other than an a pretty obvious metaphor about climate change what significance does the show have. It just seems superficial when compared to the best of the Golden Age of TV. I guess it really is just tits and dragons. 
  • So how is GOT gonna end?

    @Murderbear I think there's a ton of stuff with Bran, the Children, and the Three Eyed Raven that will happen in the books that we're not gonna see in the show. I had a theory that might only be 1/2 right. It's that the Children have a really long con master plan to get humans out of Westeros. And basically everything that happens with dreams, visions, and warging is the Children trying to influence humanity. 
  • So how is GOT gonna end?

    I was going to email A.Ron, and then I remembered that I already wrote him an email on this exact topic almost three years ago. So I'll just put this here with some of my new thoughts. I've been thinking a lot about the the themes of the show/ASOIAF, is GOT trying to "say" anything, and what's the ending going to look like. I assume that D&D know how the books end and are trying to get as close to that as possible. 

    There are basically infinite amounts of elements and themes to this story. I'm just going to list the ones I think are most important to the endgame. 

    Frodo, ...were not in Kansas anymore. 

    This quote pretty much says it all. 
    The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

    Violence is not the answer!

    ASOIAF is kind of an anit-war story. GRRM goes to great lengths to show the human cost and the toll it takes on the everyday people of Westeros. War never resolves conflict on Planetos it only lays the ground for the next conflict. Virtually all the characters are wrapped up in a cycle of vengeance just creates more vengeance with no end in sight. The climax of the story might involve someone choosing peace over war and mercy over vengeance. 

    The Others are the other. 

    The White Walkers, in my opinion, represent the sociological concept of the other. From Wikipedia...

    The practice of Othering is the exclusion of persons who do not fit the norm of the social group, which is a version of the Self. Likewise, in human geography, to other an individual identifies and excludes them from the social group, placing them at the margins of society where social norms do not apply.

    Almost every faction in the story engages in othering. If the Night's Watch and the Wildlings can learn to humanize each other, is it that much of a stretch to extend that to the WWs? The little background we get on the WWs often serves to humanize them. Think about Craster's son, the first WW, and Uncle Benjen/Cold hands (though Benjen is closer to a wight than a WW).


    GRRM said the ending would be bittersweet. 

    The Last Hero didn't defeat the WWs and neither will the New Hero

    This is just a theory. All the myths about the long night suggest that humanity learned to use dragon glass/valyrian steel, and wiped out the WWs. That just doesn't ring true. They didn't even have dragons. Also, just killing the Night King and instantly saving the day seems kinda boring. 

    But who knows? Maybe Jon or Arya or even Sam will stab the Night King in the back and everybody will live happily ever after. What do you guys think? 


    I found a theory fits the description above.

    I don't believe it lol, but it definitely works with the themes of the books and show. It also would be a very satisfying, non-tropey ending, at least for me. 

    1. You literally can't get any further from Tolkien than by making your Big Bad also one of the protagonists of the story. 

    2. It doesn't involve killing the Nightking in some final climactic battle. Btw, if that's what we end up getting I'm going to be genuinely bored and let down. 

    3. It totally humanizes the Others in a tragic way. 

    4. Call that shit cranberry juice cause it's bittersweet af. 

    5. If Bran is also the Last Hero that could maybe explain why humanity defeated the WWs without totally destroying them. Imagine how many things Bran might have to try to fix the timeline. 

    One caveat to all the "Bran to the Future" theories is that the do kind of rob the story of it's significance. Think of all the characters who've died, sacrificed and done terrible things just so Bran could snap his fingers and fix it all in the end. 

    Another caveat, GOT seems to have a particular kind of time travel. Someone should ask GRRM what he thinks about solutions to the Grandfather Paradox. I bet he doesn't think any of them are valid. As the 3ER said, “The Past is Already Written. The Ink is Dry. So any actions that a time traveler does have always already happened. To put it in a more confusing way, if Bran goes back in time to kill himself, then how can he be alive to go back in time to kill himself?  To put it simply there's a chain of dominoes that would bring Bran to point were he can travel to the past, but he can't move any of those dominoes without breaking logic or the fabric of the universe. (It could be the case that D&D don't care about any of this or don't have enough details to make a logical ending involving time travel. Hopefully GRRM laid it all out for them.) I would love to see a time travel theory does work logically. 

  • Gay representation

    So I want to preface this by saying that GoT is one of the better TV shows when it comes to queer representation. It's much better than shows like Sherlock, Teen Wolf, Merlin and Supernatural that actively engage in queer baiting which I think is harmful, but that's another conversation. 

    That said, it would be weird to say I want less titillating depictions of queer people on TV. If anything the show is uncharacteristically tame when it comes to depicting gay male eroticism. The hottest thing I've seen on GoT is shirtless Ramsay walking into the dog kennel in season 4. I think the problem with most depictions of Queer sex on TV is that they're divorced from any story arch or character development. Ideally, gay/lesbian sex scenes would advance the plot or make us care more about the characters involved. 

    Also, I do have a small problem with the depiction of Yara. In the books Yara/Asha is definitely attracted to men. I can't remember any instance in the books of her character being interested in women, but I could just be forgetting something. It seems they just made her gay because she's a little butch. That's just a weird, old-fashioned stereotype. It's not as bad as queer baiting, but one could argue it's just a slightly more refined version of it. That's not a huge deal, but it does say something about the way the writers view sexuality.