Game Of Thrones Season 2: Throne Harder SPOILER FREE - Page 36

Like was mentioned above, we're not really back where we started at all.  Stannis is routed, and will need to do some serious regrouping, because you know he's too serious to give up.  Joffrey has just lost a ton of street cred, and with Tywin in town, I imagine not only Tyrion but Cersei as well are going to lose a lot of influence.  Winterfell and Jon Snow have been taken.  The Hound, Sansa and Arya have come along as characters.  I mean sure, big picture, the same sides are still fighting in the war, but plenty has changed this season.

And I'm stupid for thinking that was Lancel who came in before Tywin did.

People with street cred don't get slapped with cow shit, but like his mother said, as long he's king, the truth will ultimately be what he wants it to be. Tywin being in King's Landing will grant me that Cersei / Tywin scene I've been dying to see, and fill me with a little dread because he won't be the curious, nigh fatherly man we saw with Arya, he's not there to fuck around. I suspect that Tyrion's accomplishments will ultimately be dismissed.

Forget the Kings, Westeros needs a Queen to be in charge.  The guys have fucked it up for too long.  Sansa for Queen, face of the Kingdom with someone to actually do the day to day work.

Speaking of Sansa-does she know she's messing with Cersei?  I know she has to put up a front and say the right things.  She lets things slip with Tyrion(praying for Joffreys return like his) because she knows he decent.  But how naive is she at this point?

Though I do think now if Daenerys comes in she'll have a shot with most of the people.

And please let that immature shit Theon die a slow, painful death next week.  Gutted, yet alive for a bit, would be nice.  Beheading is too good for a traitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Au Eagle 

 

Who's to say he wouldn't turn out to be a good king with those attributes?

Stannis is very much a leader of men, but only in a narrow context. As I mentioned earlier, I dig the guy for that reason and considering his conduct at Blackwater, it makes total sense to me that the men in his charge would follow him to Hell, but he wants to be king chiefly because of a years old grudge against his older brother and a deeply embedded sense that he's owed something w/out considering the complexities of possessing that very thing.

He's nearly as rigid as Ned, but unlike Ned, he's capable of finding loopholes and then ignoring them as loopholes by sticking his fingers in his ears and going:
Lalalalala! Witchcraft? What? No such thing, I'll execute you for treason! Lalalalalala! Fratricide? Stop making up words or I'll execute you for treason! Lalalalalala! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel 

Forget the Kings, Westeros needs a Queen to be in charge.  The guys have fucked it up for too long.  Sansa for Queen, face of the Kingdom with someone to actually do the day to day work.

 

Speaking of Sansa-does she know she's messing with Cersei?  I know she has to put up a front and say the right things.  She lets things slip with Tyrion(praying for Joffreys return like his) because she knows he decent.  But how naive is she at this point?

 

Though I do think now if Daenerys comes in she'll have a shot with most of the people.

 

And please let that immature shit Theon die a slow, painful death next week.  Gutted, yet alive for a bit, would be nice.  Beheading is too good for a traitor.

Cersei is, ostensibly, in charge and the only reason Joffrey isn't dead and continues to have his way is because he's Cersei's little evil cheeked baby and she won't commit to a very late term abortion.

Sansa is still too immature and inexperienced to be an effective queen.  

Stannis' treatment of, relationship with, and plans to elevate Davos to Hand have gone a long, long way to getting me to consider Stannis as something better than a crusty egomaniac son of a bitch, more than anything he did on the battlefield.

Which reminds me -- as badly as I need within the first 10 minutes next week to see Tyrion waking up in an infirmary, I equally need to see Davos either crawling up on or coming to on some shoreline. He's a good guy, which means doom for him, but not like that. Please.

I think Davos was about as excited to be the hand of the king as Ned was.  He was honored for sure, but you could see the worry in his face.  He knows what Stannis is getting into with Melisandre, and being hand of the king would still put him in a lesser place than her.

I'm hoping Davos washes ashore and ends up teaming up with some other character going into next season. in any case, I think he'll be seperated from Stannis until next season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deanburger 

I think Davos was about as excited to be the hand of the king as Ned was.  He was honored for sure, but you could see the worry in his face.  He knows what Stannis is getting into with Melisandre, and being hand of the king would still put him in a lesser place than her.

Seeing as how Davos talked Stannis into leaving her behind, and why, I'm not entirely sure. I got the sense Stannis' dealings with Melisandre were more pragmatic* than fanatic, when it came down to it. "I said the damn words!"

*And horny, but hey, that's Carice Van Houten for crying out loud. Who isn't?

edited for sloppy pronoun use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

Cersei is, ostensibly, in charge and the only reason Joffrey isn't dead and continues to have his way is because he's Cersei's little evil cheeked baby and she won't commit to a very late term abortion.

 

Sansa is still too immature and inexperienced to be an effective queen.  

Joffrey is in charge.  If Cersei was in charge I don't think Kings landing would have gone to shit so fast.  Sure Cersei is making some day to day decisions in the counsil, but Joffrey is making enough bad choices that his people taunted him and threw shit at him. 

I think if Sansa was in charge she would grow up quick and make a good ruler.  Just look at her brother in Winterfell.  He's half her age and it didn't take him that long to be good with a good advisor at his side.

Stannis and Tywin are both competent leaders who command respect, but neither has a scrap of compassion. Tywin's plan for running the kingdom probably has a lot of phrases like "acceptable losses" and "regrettable but necessary" in it. Stannis, well, we already know no one would like him and he's too married to his principles...he's the embodiment of a bureaucracy (OK, more effective than that, but still.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Sansa is still too immature and inexperienced to be an effective queen.  

If she was sitting on the Iron Throne, she'd be terrible.  But as a figurehead queen in the manner of Cersei during her marriage to Robert, she would inspire a boatload of love.  Look at how she commanded that room of frightened women in the last episode.  Praying with them, singing with them, keeping them calm.  All those things that will be expected of her, as Cersei drunkenly states, are things that she would excel at.  She'd be the Princess Diana of Westeros without breaking a sweat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Stannis and Tywin are both competent leaders who command respect, but neither has a scrap of compassion. Tywin's plan for running the kingdom probably has a lot of phrases like "acceptable losses" and "regrettable but necessary" in it.

WHHHHAAAATTT?

You can honestly say that after every scene he's had with Arya?!?

Tywin's nice to Arya and we learn a bit more about his views on his family and its legacy, but by no means do the scenes make him out to be compassionate IMO.  Intelligent, yes.  Practical, yes.  But none of the scenes really invalidate what Prankster is saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham 

 

 

WHHHHAAAATTT?

You can honestly say that after every scene he's had with Arya?!?

Perhaps you missed their final scene, the one where he passes her off to The Mountain?

Plus Tywin's default plans always come down to "Go burn down some peasant villages" which kind of makes him a complete asshole if you're a peasant. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd 

Plus Tywin's default plans always come down to "Go burn down some peasant villages" which kind of makes him a complete asshole if you're a peasant. 

To play Tywin's advocate, he goes to that well when his family is threatened or his back is against the wall.  It's possible that with the "one they'll remember (him) for" out of the way and his family holding a secure claim on the throne, he would mellow out a bit.  He's not bloodthirsty like his grandson, and his methods come from a pragmatic place; unlike Stannis, whose lack of pragmatism makes the prospect of his rule sort of horrifying.

I guess it sort of comes down to the case I was making for Littlefinger pages and pages back.  People like him and Tywin, while certainly not compassionate or champions of the common folk, strike me as being dangerous primarily to their enemies.  Whereas people like Joffrey and Stannis have this inability to acknowledge their own limitations that makes them a danger to everyone.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

Really Renly was probably the go-to guy for "peaceful not a lot of awful shit happening" style rule here.

 

But then Stannis had to go get pissy and fuck that up for everybody.

Saying that Renly or Tyrion would be far better, peaceful kings is conjecture just as much as saying Stannis would undoubtedly be a shitty king. Renly and Tyrion are a bit of the same imo. Tyrion may be smarter and more cunning, but both are just charming, lovable guys. However, you don't have to be a charming, lovable guy to run the kingdom efficiently. If either of them were to sit on the throne, they would let so much shit slide and lots of corruption would continue to take place. Tyrion himself would most likely allow Cersei and Jaime to keep living, without severe punishment, despite all the terrible shit they've done and will most likely continue to do. Where would be the honor/justice in that? Stannis may be too much black and white, but I see characters like Tyrion and Renly being too much grey. Which is better?

Tywin doesn't purposefully do awful shit, but when you're a ruler, your main options tend to involve potentially doing awful shit. Tywin would always go for the "burn the village down" option if that seemed like a halfway-logical thing to do.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Au Eagle 

Saying that Renly or Tyrion would be far better, peaceful kings is conjecture just as much as saying Stannis would undoubtedly be a shitty king. Renly and Tyrion are a bit of the same imo. Tyrion may be smarter and more cunning, but both are just charming, lovable guys. However, you don't have to be a charming, lovable guy to run the kingdom efficiently. If either of them were to sit on the throne, they would let so much shit slide and lots of corruption would continue to take place. Tyrion himself would most likely allow Cersei and Jaime to keep living, without severe punishment, despite all the terrible shit they've done and will most likely continue to do. Where would be the honor/justice in that? Stannis may be too much black and white, but I see characters like Tyrion and Renly being too much grey. Which is better?

Hey, hey, hey--what's with the Jaime hate? Sure, he crippled a kid and all, but it's not like Bran actually died or anything.

Probably the guy who doesn't hang out with shaow-spawning ladies, and who's probably entertaining notions of killing the GOOD Lannisters with the bad ones.

The wrinkle in all this are the coming catastrophes that most people in Westeros aren't even aware of yet. I mean, if it were the height of summer, Renly would indeed have been awesome as king. I'm not sure he was White Walker-battlin' material, though. Of course, if things had worked out the way he intended he'd have Robb guarding his back in the north...but still. What was he planning to do about the eventual invasion of dragons?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

 

Stannis is very much a leader of men, but only in a narrow context. As I mentioned earlier, I dig the guy for that reason and considering his conduct at Blackwater, it makes total sense to me that the men in his charge would follow him to Hell, but he wants to be king chiefly because of a years old grudge against his older brother and a deeply embedded sense that he's owed something w/out considering the complexities of possessing that very thing.

 

He's nearly as rigid as Ned, but unlike Ned, he's capable of finding loopholes and then ignoring them as loopholes by sticking his fingers in his ears and going:
Lalalalala! Witchcraft? What? No such thing, I'll execute you for treason! Lalalalalala! Fratricide? Stop making up words or I'll execute you for treason! Lalalalalala! 

So what's wrong with that? If we're talking strictly about the laws of this land where shit gets handed down based on bloodline, out of everyone fighting wars all over this world, Stannis has the most legitimate claim to the throne based on the fact that Robert was the last official king and Joff is not his true heir. We're not talking about a democracy here. Stannis is rightfully next in line, so what's wrong with him wanting to fight for and take it? Like I've said before most if not all of the major characters have a deep embedded sense of entitlement to begin with. Not just about the iron throne, but about a lot of other shit in their lives. Why is it a bad thing for Stannis to not consider the complexities of possessing the throne? It's not like he's rebelling to unjustly take the throne from a true heir. For all we know, he was just chillin where he was at until Ned's letter reached him. Now he knows he's the true heir by law, and any man of competence and an ounce of ambition would naturally want what's rightfully his, fuck considering complexities and all. On the other hand, with someone like Robb Stark, sure his reason for going to war sounds very noble compared to others, but what if Ned was the king (after all, in S1's blu ray features, Robert himself said Ned could've easily taken the throne if he had all but just sat on it)? I bet Robb would want that throne and think it's rightfully his in a heartbeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

 

 unlike Stannis, whose lack of pragmatism makes the prospect of his rule sort of horrifying.

 

Lack of pragmatism? You'll have to explain that...

Even with taking in Melisandre (and vice versa! /rimshot), I'm still not convinced he's a devout religious man as far as the whole Lord of Light goes.

Schwartz, I agree that Tywin is very pragmatic, and he is not vicious for viciousness' sake.  He may even make a decent King, as long as he got his way on pretty much everything.  He is a bit hard to get a read on.  I keep saying that he clearly respects competence, as no less than TWO scenes in Harrenhal involve him dismissing some useless bilge from his council.  He is interested in Arya because she is a savvy, young educated girl. 

But if he had to kill Arya himself to maintain his power, he'd do so in a heartbeat. 

He is absolutely an opportunist, and like many good villains, he is not evil in the grand sense of that word.  But he wants what he wants, and he is ruthless in acquiring it.  He would be a ruthless King, which isn't to say he would be a bad one.  Just that if what you want doesn't align with what he wants, you'll get fucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Au Eagle 

 

So what's wrong with that? If we're talking strictly about the laws of this land where shit gets handed down based on bloodline, out of everyone fighting wars all over this world, Stannis has the most legitimate claim to the throne based on the fact that Robert was the last official king and Joff is not his true heir. We're not talking about a democracy here. Stannis is rightfully next in line, so what's wrong with him wanting to fight for and take it? Like I've said before most if not all of the major characters have a deep embedded sense of entitlement to begin with. Not just about the iron throne, but about a lot of other shit in their lives. Why is it a bad thing for Stannis to not consider the complexities of possessing the throne? It's not like he's rebelling to unjustly take the throne from a true heir. For all we know, he was just chillin where he was at until Ned's letter reached him. Now he knows he's the true heir by law, and any man of competence and an ounce of ambition would naturally want what's rightfully his, fuck considering complexities and all. On the other hand, with someone like Robb Stark, sure his reason for going to war sounds very noble compared to others, but what if Ned was the king (after all, in S1's blu ray features, Robert himself said Ned could've easily taken the throne if he had all but just sat on it)? I bet Robb would want that throne and think it's rightfully his in a heartbeat.

The entire point of this war is that there is no rightful king. And if you think Stannis has more of a right than anyone else, Dany's dragons would like a word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee 

 

Lack of pragmatism? You'll have to explain that...

 

Even with taking in Melisandre (and vice versa! /rimshot), I'm still not convinced he's a devout religious man as far as the whole Lord of Light goes.

It's not about religious fanaticism (he does seem to have a pragmatic approach to that), but the refusal to yield or change course at all.  To murder his brother rather than negotiate with him.  To fight the Lannisters and Starks rather than broker the type of peace that both his brothers had in place with the North.  His word is law and there will be no compromise, even before he actually had the throne to sit on.  A king who will not bend will break, and I have the suspicion that he would've broken a lot of the kingdom along with himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by First Class 782 

Schwartz, I agree that Tywin is very pragmatic, and he is not vicious for viciousness' sake.  He may even make a decent King, as long as he got his way on pretty much everything.  He is a bit hard to get a read on.  I keep saying that he clearly respects competence, as no less than TWO scenes in Harrenhal involve him dismissing some useless bilge from his council.  He is interested in Arya because she is a savvy, young educated girl. 

 

But if he had to kill Arya himself to maintain his power, he'd do so in a heartbeat. 

 

He is absolutely an opportunist, and like many good villains, he is not evil in the grand sense of that word.  But he wants what he wants, and he is ruthless in acquiring it.  He would be a ruthless King, which isn't to say he would be a bad one.  Just that if what you want doesn't align with what he wants, you'll get fucked.

That's what I meant by dangerous to his enemies.  But I think in peacetime it would be fairly simple for most of the common people and Houses to stay out of his way because he's pretty plain about what he wants.  Whereas staying on Joffrey or Stannis or Balon's good side strikes me as a much more stressful guessing game, as it's so hard to tell what would actually please them.

Hey! Balon's simple!

Just give him free shit constantly!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee 

Stannis' treatment of, relationship with, and plans to elevate Davos to Hand have gone a long, long way to getting me to consider Stannis as something better than a crusty egomaniac son of a bitch, more than anything he did on the battlefield.

 

 

Exactly. There's no telling he wouldn't be a good king based on that. He respects competence and merit. I think that says far more about him then other self-preserving characters who wheel and deal their way through this game they play. He has no sense of humor, he won't be fun to get drunk with, he probably won't throw lavish palace parties nor grand tournaments for the fuck of it, but so what. Davos mentioned Stannis has always been fair. Think about it. He rewarded Davos for smuggling onions to his troops when they were in desperate need, but at the same time smuggling is a serious punishable crime, and he couldn't let it pass so he had Davos' finger tips chopped off. Sounds cruel as hell in our world, but sounds to me like Davos received a fair shake in this world. Given what we know of other characters, how many would do that? How many of them would rightfully reward a smuggler and enable him to elevate his family's status based on merit and even allow him to become the Hand of the King, despite the fact that he's not born of nobility? And how many of them, if they do reward such a person, would also turn around and say, "hey, but you do know smuggling is against the law and I'ma have to chop your finger tips off too, right? Because after all, what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong?"

The kind of people who would pardon the savior of their city rather than mutilate them for their previous crimes would be more likely to receive help from all quarters in future crises, which is of benefit to a wintertime king.  And as for who else would reward him, who wouldn't?  The Lannisters may have their noses the highest in the air when it comes to nobility and bloodlines, but even they are willing to help elevate the completely casteless Hill People if they aid their cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendrix 

 

The entire point of this war is that there is no rightful king. And if you think Stannis has more of a right than anyone else, Dany's dragons would like a word.

I get that, and I share that view as well. But what I'm referring to is in the strict sense of the law as it pertains to a monarchy. As I've said, Robert was the last OFFICIAL king, Joff and the other Baratheon kids are inbreds, so that makes Stannis the rightful heir who has the ONLY legitimate claim to the throne as of now. If another contender from another family ends up taking the throne, then his/her son would be the next rightful heir by law.

Wait a second.  Everybody is talking about Tywin not being vicious for viciousness' sake or not doing evil stuff just because...did I somehow dream the whole issue of taking the whore that Tyrion had fallen in love with and passing her around his army and making Tyrion watch?  I mean, there's a lesson there for sure but there's also a whole lot of viciousness for no reason.

He hates Tyrion because his wife died giving birth to him.  It's incredibly cruel and horrible but it makes sense in a Cat hates Jon Snow kind of way.

The only Lannister who truly loves and feels affection for Tyrion aside from the younger children, is Jaime.  This actually goes a LONG way in making Jaime seem like secretly a really cool dude under all of his snark and bullshitting.  He genuinely loves his brother.

Well, he hated his son Tyrion (cost him his wife, who I get the sense that he REALLY loved).  And I think he has mellowed with age.  Good point, though.

Though methinks Cat is probably not the type of soul to do what Tywin did, mostly because Tywin's an utter bastard.

And we all know the correct winter rule is a Yara/Hound ticket anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendrix 

 

The entire point of this war is that there is no rightful king. And if you think Stannis has more of a right than anyone else, Dany's dragons would like a word.

I'm hoping this story ends up with some sort of power sharing agreement, Tyrion setting up a council of elders or something, and people realize that it doesn't make sense for any one person to claim a right to rule over seven kingdoms. I don't think I've seen a single person on this show I thought would make a really "good" king (as in, being able to rule justly, wisely and not get betrayed by someone more ruthless).

The endgame to this story is that there is no endgame.  That's pretty much the point of this entire series, at least from my perspective.  The game never ends, and eventually, everyone loses.  I'd guess that the show ends with a scene very similar to what we saw in the closing moments of the last episode: someone sitting on the Iron Throne, bracing themselves as the next usurper comes to claim what is "rightfully theirs".

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-Pathetic 

Wait a second.  Everybody is talking about Tywin not being vicious for viciousness' sake or not doing evil stuff just because...did I somehow dream the whole issue of taking the whore that Tyrion had fallen in love with and passing her around his army and making Tyrion watch?  I mean, there's a lesson there for sure but there's also a whole lot of viciousness for no reason.

Tyrion knew he was pushing it by marrying a commoner, let alone a whore, though of course he didn't know that at that point. That's why he kept it a secret. It's pretty flatly against the rules, it makes their family look bad (which, as far as Tywin's concerned, Tyrion's been doing since he was born). Tywin was, in his horrible, horrible way, trying to teach Tyrion a lesson. So yeah, there was a "reason" for it.

Don't get me wrong, Tywin's an awful prick given an excuse, but he doesn't actually get off on violence and dickishness the way the Mountain (or, hell, Joffrey) does. If he actually likes you, as with Arya or the non-dwarf members of his family, he's cool...though he does occasionally like to remind everyone who's in charge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

The endgame to this story is that there is no endgame.  That's pretty much the point of this entire series, at least from my perspective.  The game never ends, and eventually, everyone loses.  I'd guess that the show ends with a scene very similar to what we saw in the closing moments of the last episode: someone sitting on the Iron Throne, bracing themselves as the next usurper comes to claim what is "rightfully theirs".

This is definitely an issue that haunts the series. It's hard to see how even restoring some kind of status quo will solve any of the fundamental problems of Westeros. This is, as far as I know, the first fantasy series to acknowledge that even if you get a mega-happy ending with the rightful king restored to the throne and the Dark Power of Evil forever vanquished, you're still stuck with a shitty medieval society forged on inequality and violence, making it all seem a little pointless.

Then again, the Enlightenment was just around the corner from the real-world historical events Martin is drawing from, so maybe there might be less-sexy but more important structural changes to the society of Westeros by the end of the series...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

This is definitely an issue that haunts the series. It's hard to see how even restoring some kind of status quo will solve any of the fundamental problems of Westeros. This is, as far as I know, the first fantasy series to acknowledge that even if you get a mega-happy ending with the rightful king restored to the throne and the Dark Power of Evil forever vanquished, you're still stuck with a shitty medieval society forged on inequality and violence, making it all seem a little pointless.

Such is life, no?

I wouldn't say it's the first work in the long shot. Karl Edward Wagner's Kane series for example is basically "Game of Thrones at 200 pages and seen only through the Hound's perspective*" and even writers earlier(many of whom had anarchistic or left-wing attitudes) tended to be rather scathing to the concepts of absolute monarchy or the medieval system as a whole.

If anything Game of Thrones is a reaction against the other High fantasy of the day, with it's contemporaries being the bloated Wheels of Time, Shannara, or Belgariad series(and the imitators) that overcrowded the market place at the time.

*Which makes it kind of awesome really.

Also I just realized that's far too booky for this thread, and could probably go into nigh asbergian discussions of various fantasy sub-genres.

So forgive in advance.

I feel the endgame for this series is some type definition and resolution to some of the characters from each of the main houses. 

Jon Snow, will he stop seeing himself as just a bastard and find a purpose beyond serving in the Night's Watch.

Daenerys, will she restore her family's dynasty and regain the Iron Throne. What about her dragons, are dragons back for good ?

Tyrion, what will be left of the Lannisters and what is his ultimate goal. He said he wanted to keep being the hand of the king, but it's clear he hasn't really figured it out yet.

I think for this world the "resolution" is the conflict with the White Walkers, it's interesting that the series starts with them and none of the other main characters. But in the end the story is about the characters, so I expect that to be the focus, not really a change in the world and the structure of its society. That's just the backdrop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

I feel the endgame for this series is some type definition and resolution to some of the characters from each of the main houses. 

 

Jon Snow, will he stop seeing himself as just a bastard and find a purpose beyond serving in the Night's Watch.

Daenerys, will she restore her family's dynasty and regain the Iron Throne. What about her dragons, are dragons back for good ?

Tyrion, what will be left of the Lannisters and what is his ultimate goal. He said he wanted to keep being the hand of the king, but it's clear he hasn't really figured it out yet.

 

You're assuming these people will be alive for the endgame.   That's a Ned Stark-style mistake, my dear Cap.

Death for some of these characters means resolution to their storylines.

I think it's pretty safe to say that at least some of these characters will be long living in this series. Dany's story in particular would be pretty anti-climatic to be developing so remotely and so slowly to suddenly kill her in this season's finale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

I wouldn't say it's the first work in the long shot. Karl Edward Wagner's Kane series for example is basically "Game of Thrones at 200 pages and seen only through the Hound's perspective*" and even writers earlier(many of whom had anarchistic or left-wing attitudes) tended to be rather scathing to the concepts of absolute monarchy or the medieval system as a whole.

 

 

If anything Game of Thrones is a reaction against the other High fantasy of the day, with it's contemporaries being the bloated Wheels of Time, Shannara, or Belgariad series(and the imitators) that overcrowded the market place at the time.

 

That was sort of what I meant...obviously the fantasy genre is as old as humanity, and people have been subverting the idea of the monarchy or "divine right" almost as long, but in terms of the modern, post-Tolkien "high fantasy" sub-subgenre, this seems to be the lynchpin. Hadn't even heard of Wagner before now but looking at Wikipedia he seems to be operating more in the Conan style of pulp fantasy, which I'd argue has always had a more subversive and satirical streak. But, I'm no expert, I just notice there's been a flowering of more socially conscious, self-aware and subversive fantasy in the last decade and a half, which seems to start with Martin. I certainly remember being bored and pissed off with the fantasy genre, even though I *wanted* to like it, when I hit my teens, because so much of it was repetitive dreck glorifying horribly outdated, regressive ideals. If I'd stuck around just a little longer Martin might have convinced me otherwise.

But, let us repair to the book readers' thread to discuss it further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

For all this talk, it seems obvious. Tyrion would be the best king. He's smart as anyone, brave as hell, has the leadership chops, is empathetic and moral TO A POINT, and is generally right about everything. So of course, not in the running. But it's still him.

 

And speaking of Tyrion, whatever issues one might have with the various Qarth slowness and such, is it not impossible to deny that Peter Dinklage and the showrunners have fully and completely delivered on the promise of Season One and created an absolutely excellent character, one of the best on TV, and one that can proudly stand next to such HBO creations as Tony Soprano, Al Swearengen and Stringer Bell? Tyrion has been the unmitigated triumph of the season for me. 

 

The only question is does he submit for Lead or Supporting Emmy? I guess it just comes down to which Breaking Bad actor he wants to go up against.

Tywin Lannister? The guy who unleashed The Mountain  and Armory Lorch on the peasents of Westeros? He is empathetic to nobody(you don't need to look any further than his relationship with his own flesh and blood) and doesn't have a moral bone in his body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

The endgame to this story is that there is no endgame.  That's pretty much the point of this entire series, at least from my perspective.  The game never ends, and eventually, everyone loses.  I'd guess that the show ends with a scene very similar to what we saw in the closing moments of the last episode: someone sitting on the Iron Throne, bracing themselves as the next usurper comes to claim what is "rightfully theirs".

I'm getting flashbacks to BSG, when people were saying the series would end with them never finding Earth, because the point was that the humans and cylons needed to be taught a lesson for their warlike ways.

I have a feeling Game of Thrones is going to similarly underwhelm/disappoint when it ends up with some cliche high fantasy bullshit happy ending.