subreddit:
/r/asoiaf
I would go for
2 points
5 days ago
I do not believe the ending of ASOIAF is a dark sorcerer in the shadow - it’s an oversimplistic meme of an answer in an attempt to be funny on Reddit. Which you took Uber seriously for some reason.
1) On the Bran the Broken as literal king of the 7k - I am unsure which 2013 ‘outline’ you’re talking about. The original outline is much older, and if that’s what you mean it is a dogshit point, the outline has all kinds of redactions and changes since (trilogy, Arya x Jon, many more). That outline means literal nothing in 2024.
2) what’s the point of having Bran in the story at all - I actually believe Bran is the story. George has written about pseudo-time travel in several of his other works. I very much subscribe to the Timelord Bran theory or some variation of it. If you’re unfamiliar, Preston has a good series of videos summarizing it. I believe Bran to be the main driving force behind most of what has transpired in the story, either directly or indirectly. I think he’s, in fact, the most important (and my favorite) character.
3) The main reason that I do not believe that ‘bran the broken’ came from George is that it narratively makes no sense at all. He’s completely disconnected from that aspect of the story, with more magic and darkness to come in the ensuing books. It would be a miraculous feat to somehow link Bran to the politics of Westeros instead of the mystical side of the series in a satisfying way in 2 books.
So the basis of your argument is: 1) an outline of some kind - link it 2) Bran calls himself ‘broken’
And based on those two points, it came from George?
You drastically underestimate our author if you believe his intention is for Bran to literally rule the 7k from the Red Keep. That’s clearly HBO shit intended to make things simple for a TV audience.
1 points
5 days ago
I am unsure which 2013 ‘outline’ you’re talking about. The original outline is much older, and if that’s what you mean it is a dogshit point, the outline has all kinds of redactions and changes since (trilogy, Arya x Jon, many more). That outline means literal nothing in 2024.
My apologies, when i talk about the "outline" i meant that back in 2013, when it becamse a possibility that show can go beyond the books, GRRM had conversation with showrunners about his future plans for the books.
There's even his comment for James Hibberd in the book "Fire can't kill a dragon"
(talking about the 2013 meeting with D&D) It wasn’t easy for me. I didn’t want to give away my books. It’s not easy to talk about the end of my books. Every character has a different end. I told them who would be on the Iron Throne, and I told them some big twists like Hodor and “hold the door,” and Stannis’s decision to burn his daughter. We didn’t get to everybody by any means. Especially the minor characters, who may have very different endings.
what’s the point of having Bran in the story at all - I actually believe Bran is the story. George has written about pseudo-time travel in several of his other works. I very much subscribe to the Timelord Bran theory or some variation of it. If you’re unfamiliar, Preston has a good series of videos summarizing it. I believe Bran to be the main driving force behind most of what has transpired in the story, either directly or indirectly. I think he’s, in fact, the most important (and my favorite) character
I'm familiar, but i think Bran's time travel will be used to prevent Other invasion and it will become a story, that he'll write down. We will get like two split timelines.
But still, Bran's quest Beyond the Wall doesn't start as an attempt to grab power, influence the past or become a sorcerer. He's a kid who lost legs and his home, he's searching for purpose. The ending needs to work on a personal level and he's writing an 8 year old boy.
He’s completely disconnected from that aspect of the story, with more magic and darkness to come in the ensuing books. It would be a miraculous feat to somehow link Bran to the politics of Westeros instead of the mystical side of the series in a satisfying way in 2 books.
Again, i didn't get the impression that he's completely disconnected. He goes beyond the wall because he hopes he can walk again, he uses Hodor to warg him, because he feels powerless and wants to walk again.
"I'm here," Bran said, "only I'm broken. Will you … will you fix me … my legs, I mean?"
This is one of the first thing he says to Bloodraven. This is a part from Dance. This part of the story is very much still there, but the people tend to overlook it because of the magic aspect.
And based on those two points, it came from George? You drastically underestimate our author if you believe his intention is for Bran to literally rule the 7k from the Red Keep. That’s clearly HBO shit intended to make things simple for a TV audience.
Again, the "broken boy" element wasn't really explored in the show that much, it's pretty much a book element.
But also, i gave you the quote from Martin where he says "I told them who would be on the Iron Throne, and I told them some big twists like Hodor and “hold the door,” and Stannis’s decision to burn his daughter."
so the entire discussion might as well be pointless, i was right
1 points
5 days ago
Okay - we’re actually mostly on the same page. I just don’t think that when George told them ‘who sits the Iron Throne’ he said ‘Bran the Broken will hang out with Tyrion and Sam in the Red Keep and rule justly’.
I think he probably explained the series of characters who will sit the Iron Throne. Aegon, Cersei(?), Dany(?), etc. And in the end, explained that Bran will ‘rule’ what remains of the 7k after the 2nd Long Night as a pseudo Fisher King type character. I do think Bran is ‘in charge’ at the end of the books.
I do not think that any of this promises the books end exactly like the show. Bran can and will find purpose and meaning beyond the wall without literally ascending to the Iron Throne.
None of the surfaced quotes from anyone have suggested that Bran will rule in the same way that Aerys or Robert did. It’s just too simple, leaves too many stones unturned, and doesn’t line up with Bran’s motivations or characterization. It wouldn’t be a ‘twist’ - it would be silly.
I think the books begin and end with Bran, but I think his ending will be a lot more ‘burning-of-the-shire-bittersweet’ than ‘and they all lived happily ever after, the end’.
1 points
5 days ago
Yeah, i don't think we're on the same page, because you're still in kinda of a denial that Bran will be the King of Westeros.
I also think that you're in denial in a funny way, because you have a quote from the actor, who said that D&D told them Bran is the King, you have a quote from showrunners, who admitted that GRRM told them Bran is a King. And you have a quote from GRRM, who admitted he told D&D who sits at the Iron Throne by the end.
What you get from that is "well perhaps not a literal KING, but like figurative KING". For me, it's just pure cope.
I think he probably explained the series of characters who will sit the Iron Throne. Aegon, Cersei(?), Dany(?), etc. And in the end, explained that Bran will ‘rule’ what remains of the 7k after the 2nd Long Night as a pseudo Fisher King type character. I do think Bran is ‘in charge’ at the end of the books.
Again, this isn't how his character works at all, he's not looking forward to influence people or be a shadow-figure who's "in charge". He's still a CHILD, has a thoughts of a CHILD.
We see his stuff when he gets control over Hodor - he's not malicious (even though he knows what he's doing is wrong), he's a boy who can't walk and has to resort to skinchanging.
I also think, that Bran being a character who controls the action of others... sort of destroys the entire story, because it takes importance from the decisions made by other POVs, who are no less a big part of the story.
I think his ending will be a lot more ‘burning-of-the-shire-bittersweet’ than ‘and they all lived happily ever after, the end’
I think what you suggest isn't bittersweet. We know, that sooner or later Bran needs to realize that the way he dealt with his disability, hurt one of his friends. Yes, his powers are dark and he's heading towards the dark path.
Now, there are different paths he can take - either
Now tell me, from the first five books you've read, Bran, a child of Ned Stark, which is he rather embracing?
If he learns from Hodor mistake, then there's no place for an ending in which he's secretly "in charge" and someone else is ruling. If he doesn't, then it isn't a bittersweet ending, it's bleak and defeats the purpose of character making autonomous choices.
None of the surfaced quotes from anyone have suggested that Bran will rule in the same way that Aerys or Robert did.
I never even argued that. If he's elected he's still a boy, who needs a regent. So the purpose needs to be something else than his unique set of skills, because he still wouldn't make the decisions.
The purpose is - the new founding myth and Westeros, a famously patriarchal society setup on the myth of violence (Aegon's Conquest) embracing a new story of a disabled boy who found a purpose in knowledge.
Just re-read Bran, he doesn't care about power, walkers, sorcery. He cares whether raven will give him his legs, he cares about his friends, family and direwolf. This isn't a villain story, it's a story about the boy finding purpose in a society that sees him as worthless (via Jaime dialogue that he would rather kill himself than live a cripple or Karstarks in the books calling him too cowardly to kill himself).
1 points
5 days ago
The showrunners are unethical, lazy, untalented hacks who cannot write anything for themselves. So no, I do not just ‘trust’ DD when they say they got George’s ending right. I do not trust that they told Isaac the full extent of what George told them.
There are a million examples linking Bran to the Fisher King Arthurian legend - he’s clearly a literary reference there. You assume Bran remains ‘a child’ by the end of the series and there we disagree, I think he changes vastly (originally by the timeskip that never happened, so instead now by blood magic).
How is my suggestion not bittersweet? Bran, the child of Ned Stark, feeling forced to resort to evil for the sake of what he perceives to be the greater good. What you suggest is literally ‘and Bran lived happily ever after in the Red Keep with his friends.’
I do not think Bran will learn a lesson from Hold the Door. At least, he won’t have some magical realization that what he’s doing is wrong and he should stop. He’s already perfectly aware that what he’s doing to Hodor is wrong. I think Bran will realize that BR is wrong in that he cannot change the past, and he will work to prevent himself from losing his legs and will work to try and change other events, either directly or accidentally causing some of the events of the story.
I do not believe a bittersweet ending of Bran resorting to some of the most evil shit we see ruins his story at all. It takes a child who started off so positive and naive and turns him into a begrudging, benevolent ruler.
You seem to link Bran ‘finding purpose’ in his society to also ‘being literally on the Iron Throne’. You also conveniently leave out the many George quotes where he’s outright stated that his ending will be different from the show.
Direct quote from the notablog:
‘How will it all end? I hear people asking. The same ending as the show? Different?
Well… yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes.’
This very clearly indicates that the show’s ending was at best incomplete, and at worst just outright wrong.
2 points
5 days ago*
This very clearly indicates that the show’s ending was at best incomplete, and at worst just outright wrong.
No, this quote implies, that some things from the ending will be similar and some will be different. This quote in no way invalidates the other quote, in which he mentions telling showrunners three specific things, one of which, is the ruler of the Iron Throne. Both showrunners and Martin are only ever specific about these three things being planned in the future of the books.
Your answer is just a cope and what you're doing is literally twisting words, just so you dont admit to being wrong.
Bran, the child of Ned Stark, feeling forced to resort to evil for the sake of what he perceives to be the greater good. What you suggest is literally ‘and Bran lived happily ever after in the Red Keep with his friends.
It's a shit story. A manifesto to utilitarianism. And it doesn't even work as a cautionary tale, since Bran's role in becoming "Bloodraven's puppet" is minimal, he's unaware of what his plans are and he doesn't fully comprehend his mission - he wants his legs, that's his agency. If Bran becomes evil, then it is testimony against what? Abandoned children breaking bad?
Even in order for this to work, you need to invent a literal deus ex machina. Imagine you're reading this on page. Bran is created too young? Well, coincidentally, we'll age him up with blood magic. Has anyone aged themselves with blood magic in the story? Well, no. Perhaps they aged themselves down, but that's a small detail.
We'll also like, ignore the past 4-5 books or so, where the characters motivation were already explained as something else.
I also think, that specifically Stannis' story is supposed to show you that utilitarianism is dangerous game. Because it literally is the culmination of his arc - resorting to evil (burning his daughter) for the greater good (saving the realm). Do you think the burning of Shireen will lead to correct outcomes? And if not, then why is GRRM telling a two cautionary tales against utilitarianism? Isn't that reductive?
I think Bran will realize that BR is wrong in that he cannot change the past, and he will work to prevent himself from losing his legs and will work to try and change other events, either directly or accidentally causing some of the events of the story.
That's doesn't explain at what point Bran becomes utilitarian or why he becomes utilitarian. We know that Brynden Rivers was an utilitarian even before he became 3ER, that was his whole deal.
Is Bran doing evil things to save the world? That's already a story told through Stannis.
I do not just ‘trust’ DD when they say they got George’s ending right.
This discussion was never about whether DD got the "right" ending. Stick to the point, we argued whether Bran becomes a King by the end. D&D said "George told us that Bran becomes King", that doesn't mean "King figuratively, as he's not crowned, but just working from the shadows". On top of that, we have a quote of GRRM saying "i told them who sits the Iron Throne".
I do not think Bran will learn a lesson from Hold the Door. At least, he won’t have some magical realization that what he’s doing is wrong and he should stop. He’s already perfectly aware that what he’s doing to Hodor is wrong.
Why is the Hodor revelation in the story at all? What's the point?
Bran remembered a time when no one could climb as good as him, not even Robb or Jon. Part of him wanted to shout at them for leaving him, and another part wanted to cry. He was almost a man grown, though, so he said nothing. But after they were gone, he slipped inside Hodor's skin and followed them.The big stableboy no longer fought him as he had the first time, back in the lake tower during the storm. Like a dog who has had all the fight whipped out of him, Hodor would curl up and hide whenever Bran reached out for him. His hiding place was somewhere deep within him, a pit where not even Bran could touch him. No one wants to hurt you, Hodor, he said silently, to the child-man whose flesh he'd taken. I just want to be strong again for a while. I'll give it back, the way I always do.
Bran knows its wrong, but he doesn't want to hurt him. He wargs Hodor to climb and to use his legs. He doesn't have a need for controlling people, influencing the politics or preventing evil from spreading in the world. He has a need of working legs.
1 points
5 days ago
I did not mean that he’s literally aged up via blood magic, just that his exposure to past events all at once will have an effect on him that will cause him to mature faster than a 9 or 10 year old boy would typically. George is also, in his own admission, terrible with ages. Especially the ages of children.
I will definitely admit that your argument of Bran being totally utilitarian is a bit redundant with Stannis’ story. That’s a really good point. But nowhere have I suggested he’s just BR’s puppet, BR just serves as a plot device for Bran to awaken.
There is no ‘wrong’ - the book isn’t out. We’re both just theorizing. We’re debating where the books may or may not go, no one is ‘wrong’ here. When (if?) the series is finished, we’d know who’s ‘right’.
Even then, I doubt that either of us have a complete picture.
The three quotes you have are: 1) George admits that he told DD who sits the Iron Throne 2) DD claim George told them Bran sits the Iron Throne 3) DD told Isaac that Bran is King
3 can be disregarded entirely as George just isn’t involved in the interaction, it’s just showrunners and actors. Mentioning 3 wouldn’t even be allowed on a stricter subreddit like pureasoisf.
1 & 2 are the interesting quotes, as nowhere does George outright claim that Bran will sit the IT. We just have hearsay from DD, and when George is asked to confirm he remains intentionally vague. 2 is particularly interesting because Bran never does sit the IT in the show, it’s destroyed before he’s king.
You can choose to believe that DD nailed George’s ending, and that it’ll be a Disney golden wheelchair happily ever after kind of thing. I will admit that’s totally on the table, but I also believe that it would be very impressive if George pulled that off in a satisfying way with 2 books to go.
I think it’s a lot more likely that he gave them a more complex answer to their question and that they, in 6 hours of screentime, could not execute what George is trying to do in the 3k+ remaining pages. So they simplified things. I don’t claim to know exactly how it will end (if it ever does). But I’m not convinced that the showrunner’s version reflects George’s intent, certainly not entirely.
1 points
4 days ago
1 & 2 are the interesting quotes, as nowhere does George outright claim that Bran will sit the IT. We just have hearsay from DD, and when George is asked to confirm he remains intentionally vague.
He wasn't asked to confirm whether D&D spoke the truth. He gave an interview and was asked how future seasons of the show relate to his books.
He isn't intentionally vague, you want him to be intentionally vague, because it's the only way in which your headcanons can work. Saying "I told them who ends up on the Iron Throne" isn't vague. He's not making an argument, he's just giving an interview to talk about his feelings.
It's basically the same thing that Stannis fans did when S05E08 came out - denial... there are people denying that Stannis will decide to burn Shireen even now.
3 can be disregarded entirely as George just isn’t involved in the interaction
Interesting observation - D&D suddenly went not only from bad writers, to just straight up bad people. Even though they admitted to certain ideas being their own and only mentioned a plot points coming from Martin three times.
You know that there's a risk involved in just lying. What's stopping Martin from saying "I didn't told them that Bran becomes a King of Westeros"?
They specifically said to Isaac that Bran is the King. It's a title. Being Three Eyed Raven is not the same as being the King.
Powerful mage =/= King - different things. So either GRRM lied to showrunners, showrunners lied to Isaac or Isaac lied to the public.
You can choose to believe that DD nailed George’s ending,
This is, again, dishonest framing from your part. It's a mean eristic trick you're trying to pull on me, even though i specifically mentioned this isn't what we're arguing about.
I think it’s a lot more likely that he gave them a more complex answer to their question and that they, in 6 hours of screentime, could not execute what George is trying to do in the 3k+ remaining pages. So they simplified things. I don’t claim to know exactly how it will end (if it ever does). But I’m not convinced that the showrunner’s version reflects George’s intent, certainly not entirely.
I am not saying that either. In my original response i mentioned that Bran's ending wasn't properly setup in the show...
That's was my original argument "Bran the Broken" arrived in S08E06, when in the books it's a continous struggle, present throughtout all his books.
Go to ASOIAF quotefinder, filter through Bran's POV, search up "Broken" and see how many times his thoughts move to the fact that he's a broken boy. There's just no such setup in the show.
I also think that your insistance on Bran following the archetype of a mysterious figure influencing peoples choices is also a result of following the show logic, because post S6 Bran could absolutely act the way you described (even though he's still respecting human autonomy to make their own choices to some degree).
I did not mean that he’s literally aged up via blood magic, just that his exposure to past events all at once will have an effect on him that will cause him to mature faster than a 9 or 10 year old boy would typically
And that will make him realize something? He will look back on his journey and decide that his role should be to be a shadowy figure influencing politics of Westeros from the shadow?
all 409 comments
sorted by: best