I need to crack my book open, but I'm pretty sure she damn well does have a big dragon sitting right behind her to make your entire proposed action go up in dragon flame.
I would like to say that while the objective quality of the writing is debatable, I personally did not enjoy reading book 4 as much as any of the other books. It was a slog, and full of characters I didn't really care about. I put it down a couple times and came back to it weeks later because it was just so boring.
But then I loved book 5 so whatever. It really pulled everything together and made all the setup in 4 make sense. I don't know how anyone can say that Dany is in the same situation at the end of 5 as she was at the beginning unless they're being deliberately reductive or don't actually remember what happens.
She's not going to be welcomed back into the Khalasar with open arms. She's going to be taken to Vaes Dothrak to be with the other women whose husbands died. What's she going to do? She doesn't have her dragon, Drogon wasn't listening to her and he's miles away
man, what?
As the western sky turned the color of a blood bruise, she heard the sound of approaching horses. Dany rose, wiped her hands on her ragged undertunic, and went to stand beside her dragon.
That was how Khal Jhaqo found her, when half a hundred mounted warriors emerged from the drifting smoke.
I still think book 5 was some of the best writing GRRM's ever done. But I've pretty much given up on arguing over it, because then I never stop
I'm a detractor of books 4 and 5, but 5 definitely has some of his best writing. The theon chapters are amazing, and up until halfway through 5 I thought it could be the best of the ASOIAF books.
I thought that Theon and Jon in book 5 were both great characters and great stories. Dany was even a good story, I think (though I've been clear about how I think that it just belongs in a different series). The only story I didn't like in 5 was Tyrion's. He's not very interesting when people can just beat him up for being clever. Tyrion needs to be able to maneuver and plot. That's where he shines.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Of course it's not identical, but it (could) play like how it would have if she had a dragon when she first meet Drogo. It's not a serious flaw in the books as it hasn't even happened yet. But if you consider Dany to be spinning her wheels this entire time it just follows to go "And here we are again..." for now. Doesn't have to be totally accurate.
Xeddicus on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Dany is going to take Jhaqo's khalasar, smash the armies outside of Meereen, take Victarion's boats and set sail towards Westeros.
But since the books so far have been so perfect and awesome, I assume what will happen in Book 6 is that she'll take Meereen, and then decide to stay there and try to rule it in peace.
0
DomhnallMinty D. Vision!ScotlandRegistered Userregular
tl;dr: most of this debate seems to be yet another way for fanboys to argue that objectively you aren't allowed to have any negative opinion.
Actually, for me, it was more that you can't have a subjective opinion and dress it up as an objective 100% factual opinion. That's why I replied to the stuff like 'there are no more heroes to take the Ned and Robb mantle!', 'he's not adding to the main story-line and is doddering about'. Its perfectly fine that you prefer the earlier books in the series and felt disappointed by books 4 and 5 and having those reasons is fine but acting as if those subjective reasons are universal is silly.
Also with Arya and the Hound I didn't see it as her leaving him to have a slow, painful death. It was a wee girl who did want this man dead subconsciously growing to like him but she can't accept that. It's why she forgets his name in her nightly prayer and has to remind herself that she missed it. She doesn't really want him dead anymore but she feels she has to or else she's betraying Mycah's memory (who she can't even really remember). So it's basically a little girl growing to like someone but feeling that she can't because that'd be wrong. She doesn't give him the gift of mercy because she doesn't really want to kill him, she doesn't want him dead but at the same time she can't allow herself to like him. She's just a scared, confused little girl.
However she does treat death and killing people incredibly lightly. She thinks about it with the woman who screws her out of a good price for her horse but doesn't because it's too public. But I suppose when you've been through all she has its understandable (of course if she did do it it wouldn't be justifiable).
As for the Night's Watch man she kills in book 4 he was a deserter. He left the Night's Watch, he tells Sam as much and as someone who grew up in the North she knows that people who desert the Night's Watch get executed. Geographical distance from the Wall doesn't factor in and just like her dad she did the deed herself.
Xbox Live - Minty D Vision Steam - Minty D. Vision! Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
Unfortunately, your statement of "'he's not adding to the main story-line and is doddering about," which pretty much sums up my main issues with 4 and 5, is 100% objective fact :P
Smoogy-1689
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
0
DomhnallMinty D. Vision!ScotlandRegistered Userregular
Whats the main story line and how didn't he add to it?
Xbox Live - Minty D Vision Steam - Minty D. Vision! Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
Whats the main story line and how didn't he add to it?
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't get. How do you define "the main story line" as something other than what he's spending a lot of time writing about? It may not be what you want to read about, but if that's what he's writing about, it's part of the "main story".
0
DomhnallMinty D. Vision!ScotlandRegistered Userregular
edited May 2012
If the Wights are the White Walkers are the main story line (thats what the very first prologue was about and is the thing that threatens everyone in Westeros) every chapter that isnt a Jon chapter (and now a Bran chapter) is wasting time. If its Stark vs. Lannisters everything with Jon and Danaerys has always been wasting time and everything from book 4 & 5 too. if its the fight for the Iron Throne then everything with Jon (and perhaps Arya, etc.) is pointless. Perhaps the Greyjoy stuff too. If its the landmass of Westeros then the stuff with Dany is a waste of time too (she could have just had an Aegon introduction).
I don't get what you think the main story line is and how GRRM didn't add to it over two books.
edit:
Again, its fine not liking the books (my preferance is probably GoT, SoS, DwD, Feast, Clash however someof my favourite parts are from Feast due to the Greyjoys and the Martells and I love Clash due to Tyrion being the King's Hand and Davos and Stannis) but....Its just that you're saying your reasons are objective and not subjective.
Domhnall on
Xbox Live - Minty D Vision Steam - Minty D. Vision! Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
Whats the main story line and how didn't he add to it?
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't get. How do you define "the main story line" as something other than what he's spending a lot of time writing about? It may not be what you want to read about, but if that's what he's writing about, it's part of the "main story".
Considering how many major PoVs are over in Essos now, it sounds like Essos is the main storyline
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Whats the main story line and how didn't he add to it?
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't get. How do you define "the main story line" as something other than what he's spending a lot of time writing about? It may not be what you want to read about, but if that's what he's writing about, it's part of the "main story".
Considering how many major PoVs are over in Essos now, it sounds like Essos is the main storyline
Whats the main story line and how didn't he add to it?
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't get. How do you define "the main story line" as something other than what he's spending a lot of time writing about? It may not be what you want to read about, but if that's what he's writing about, it's part of the "main story".
Considering how many major PoVs are over in Essos now, it sounds like Essos is the main storyline
All two of them?
Three (Don't forget poor Barristan!), though your point stands.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Plus we've got all the ironborn heading over there
And Jon's dead (for now) and Bran's going to be a tree, so.
And who knows what's going to happen with Jaime and Brienne.
Maybe our Westeros crew will reach Dany, explain to her how shitty Westeros is, and everyone will just relax in the much, much nicer weather. The End.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I guess I never think of Braavos as being in Essos. So, +Arya to my original pair (Dany and Tyrion.)
The only Ironborn heading over there is Victarion, who has been in three chapters, two of which were from his POV; Barristan only had one POV chapter. I don't consider them major POVs, awesome though the characters are.
Meanwhile, in Westeros, you have the Dornish storyline, Theon, Arya, Jon (who isn't dead,) Bran (whose story isn't finished,) the twins, Brienne, Sansa, Sam, and Catelyn. Leaving aside Dorne, that's 10 POVs to Essos's 3.
I think it's also important to realize that until very recently, it was only Dany over in Essos. If Westeros is somehow not the point of the story, then I'm terribly confused about why so much has been going on there.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Its a Song of Ice AND Fire, not a Song of Ice or Fire.
I was writing something to that effect earlier, but deleted the post.
Basically, as someone else was saying (LoserForHireX?) Dany's story could easily be a separate series of books called A Song of Fire, and the whole Westeros thing would fit in A Song of Ice.
Given that Westeros' current cataclysm is the Others coming down, I suspect Essos' cataclysm might be fire related
I guess I never think of Braavos as being in Essos. So, +Arya to my original pair (Dany and Tyrion.)
The only Ironborn heading over there is Victarion, who has been in three chapters, two of which were from his POV; Barristan only had one POV chapter. I don't consider them major POVs, awesome though the characters are.
Meanwhile, in Westeros, you have the Dornish storyline, Theon, Arya, Jon (who isn't dead,) Bran (whose story isn't finished,) the twins, Brienne, Sansa, Sam, and Catelyn. Leaving aside Dorne, that's 10 POVs to Essos's 3.
You forget Rickon, and the most important character of all.
Hodor
Come on, was there any other punchline for the joke?
I would kind of like to know exactly what happened there, and why they seem to have just skipped the free cities to end up on Dragonstone, if I am remembering what we know correctly.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited May 2012
I think the general consesus is that Valyria was a volcanic island, and the Doom was when it erupted. I can't recall if Martin ever confirmed it.
I think the general consesus is that Valyria was a volcanic island, and the Doom was when it erupted. I can't recall if Martin ever confirmed it.
I think that may turn out to be more GRRM trickery, in the same way that the wildfire seemed like just chemistry and then gradually turned out to be more magical than we realised.
I think it was volcanic, but with some magic mixed in.
I would kind of like to know exactly what happened there, and why they seem to have just skipped the free cities to end up on Dragonstone, if I am remembering what we know correctly.
Valyria ruled the Free Cities before they were free. For some reason (and someone wonders about this in the books) they never tried to conquer Westeros, even though they knew it was there. The Targaryens happened to reside on Dragonstone, and waited a hundred years before invading.
---
A lot of those theories seem to be mountains out of molehills. I take them all with a grain of salt; even if they are true - what does it matter, on a narrative level?
Why must there be some secret behind everything? Is it too easy a thought that a Lord's armory might have dozens of shields (or even just paintings of the shields) to represent the people who have sworn their sword at one point or another? The actual line from the book is simply,
It was more a picture than a proper coat of arms, and the sight of it took her back through the long years, to the cool dark of her father’s armory. She remembered how she’d run her fingertips across the cracked and fading paint, over the green leaves of the tree, and along the path of the falling star.
which only lightly implies a physical shield.
Basically, for me to take a theory seriously, you have to show me overwhelming evidence for it in the text of the books, be able to logically dismiss any contradictory things (i.e., this guy is a pathological liar so we can discount him), and provide a clear answer to the response, "So? What's your point?".
I think the general consesus is that Valyria was a volcanic island, and the Doom was when it erupted. I can't recall if Martin ever confirmed it.
I think that may turn out to be more GRRM trickery, in the same way that the wildfire seemed like just chemistry and then gradually turned out to be more magical than we realised.
I think it was volcanic, but with some magic mixed in.
Well, they talk about it being "demon-haunted" and how nobody has ever come back from there alive (before Euron, apparently). And the closest free city to Valyria, Mantarys, is the "city of monsters" where Biter is implied to be from.
So yeah. Probably more than a mere volcanic eruption.
I would kind of like to know exactly what happened there, and why they seem to have just skipped the free cities to end up on Dragonstone, if I am remembering what we know correctly.
Valyria ruled the Free Cities before they were free. For some reason (and someone wonders about this in the books) they never tried to conquer Westeros, even though they knew it was there. The Targaryens happened to reside on Dragonstone, and waited a hundred years before invading.
---
A lot of those theories seem to be mountains out of molehills. I take them all with a grain of salt; even if they are true - what does it matter, on a narrative level?
Why must there be some secret behind everything? Is it too easy a thought that a Lord's armory might have dozens of shields (or even just paintings of the shields) to represent the people who have sworn their sword at one point or another? The actual line from the book is simply,
It was more a picture than a proper coat of arms, and the sight of it took her back through the long years, to the cool dark of her father’s armory. She remembered how she’d run her fingertips across the cracked and fading paint, over the green leaves of the tree, and along the path of the falling star.
which only lightly implies a physical shield.
Basically, for me to take a theory seriously, you have to show me overwhelming evidence for it in the text of the books, be able to logically dismiss any contradictory things (i.e., this guy is a pathological liar so we can discount him), and provide a clear answer to the response, "So? What's your point?".
Well, that's a pretty adversarial attitude to be honest. This is a work of fiction, not reality.
I think GRRM put that stuff in to echo Dunk. Whether it means they are related by blood or not, it's interesting thematically because Brienne and Dunk have so much in common. It resonates on an emotional level.
This is a work of art, and as such contains emotional themes and characterisation. It's not a collection of plot points, and I think if you approach it as such (as many did with Lost, for example) you lose out.
A lot of those theories seem to be mountains out of molehills. I take them all with a grain of salt; even if they are true - what does it matter, on a narrative level?
Why must there be some secret behind everything? Is it too easy a thought that a Lord's armory might have dozens of shields (or even just paintings of the shields) to represent the people who have sworn their sword at one point or another? The actual line from the book is simply,
It was more a picture than a proper coat of arms, and the sight of it took her back through the long years, to the cool dark of her father’s armory. She remembered how she’d run her fingertips across the cracked and fading paint, over the green leaves of the tree, and along the path of the falling star.
which only lightly implies a physical shield.
Basically, for me to take a theory seriously, you have to show me overwhelming evidence for it in the text of the books, be able to logically dismiss any contradictory things (i.e., this guy is a pathological liar so we can discount him), and provide a clear answer to the response, "So? What's your point?".
Well, that's a pretty adversarial attitude to be honest. This is a work of fiction, not reality.
I think GRRM put that stuff in to echo Dunk. Whether it means they are related by blood or not, it's interesting thematically because Brienne and Dunk have so much in common. It resonates on an emotional level.
This is a work of art, and as such contains emotional themes and characterisation. It's not a collection of plot points, and I think if you approach it as such (as many did with Lost, for example) you lose out.
Your choice and your loss.
It's absolutely an adversarial attitude. But theory crafters have been getting under my skin lately; it's no longer enough to simply enjoy reading the books - every word must be analyzed and cross-referenced to no good effect. It's like gorging yourself on sweets and candy - you aren't really satisfied, but you are stuffed.
My post doesn't claim the bolded is wrong - it supports it. It's interesting that Brienne and Dunk are thematically similar. It is incredibly interesting that Brienne unknowingly selects Dunk's shield. This is a nice tie-in / callback, and makes the world feel bigger.
So, what about them being blood relations? In the first place, that goes beyond a tie-in / callback, and actively makes the world feel smaller. Obviously, in my opinion.
I suppose it could show that people tend to share a physical look with their ancestor? But that's not new information (either in the book or, y'know, life).
What would be interesting is if Brienne unknowingly accomplishes something that Dunk always wanted to do. Maybe she becomes the first female knight, and fulfills that ... emotional quest (not sure; first word that came to mind).
However. Brienne has yet to do anything that supports her being a descendant of Dunk in an interesting way. Thus, it remains more interesting for a castle to have shields in the armory, a young girl to fall in love with one in particular, and many years later, the same girl commissions a painter to put it on a new shield.
This tells a story (and informs Brienne's character at the same time); "omg brienne is dunk's descendant and her picking dunk's shield is fate!" is ... ranting, supposition, hot air, and other comments.
A lot of those theories seem to be mountains out of molehills. I take them all with a grain of salt; even if they are true - what does it matter, on a narrative level?
Why must there be some secret behind everything? Is it too easy a thought that a Lord's armory might have dozens of shields (or even just paintings of the shields) to represent the people who have sworn their sword at one point or another? The actual line from the book is simply,
It was more a picture than a proper coat of arms, and the sight of it took her back through the long years, to the cool dark of her father’s armory. She remembered how she’d run her fingertips across the cracked and fading paint, over the green leaves of the tree, and along the path of the falling star.
which only lightly implies a physical shield.
Basically, for me to take a theory seriously, you have to show me overwhelming evidence for it in the text of the books, be able to logically dismiss any contradictory things (i.e., this guy is a pathological liar so we can discount him), and provide a clear answer to the response, "So? What's your point?".
Well, that's a pretty adversarial attitude to be honest. This is a work of fiction, not reality.
I think GRRM put that stuff in to echo Dunk. Whether it means they are related by blood or not, it's interesting thematically because Brienne and Dunk have so much in common. It resonates on an emotional level.
This is a work of art, and as such contains emotional themes and characterisation. It's not a collection of plot points, and I think if you approach it as such (as many did with Lost, for example) you lose out.
Your choice and your loss.
It's absolutely an adversarial attitude. But theory crafters have been getting under my skin lately; it's no longer enough to simply enjoy reading the books - every word must be analyzed and cross-referenced to no good effect. It's like gorging yourself on sweets and candy - you aren't really satisfied, but you are stuffed.
My post doesn't claim the bolded is wrong - it supports it. It's interesting that Brienne and Dunk are thematically similar. It is incredibly interesting that Brienne unknowingly selects Dunk's shield. This is a nice tie-in / callback, and makes the world feel bigger.
So, what about them being blood relations? In the first place, that goes beyond a tie-in / callback, and actively makes the world feel smaller. Obviously, in my opinion.
I suppose it could show that people tend to share a physical look with their ancestor? But that's not new information (either in the book or, y'know, life).
What would be interesting is if Brienne unknowingly accomplishes something that Dunk always wanted to do. Maybe she becomes the first female knight, and fulfills that ... emotional quest (not sure; first word that came to mind).
However. Brienne has yet to do anything that supports her being a descendant of Dunk in an interesting way. Thus, it remains more interesting for a castle to have shields in the armory, a young girl to fall in love with one in particular, and many years later, the same girl commissions a painter to put it on a new shield.
This tells a story (and informs Brienne's character at the same time); "omg brienne is dunk's descendant and her picking dunk's shield is fate!" is ... ranting, supposition, hot air, and other comments.
No-one said your 'quote' and I don't know why you participate on internet discussions on the books if theorising annoys you. Or are you trying to say, 'I wouldn't enjoy this storyline if Brienne turned out to be Dunk's descendant?' Fair enough then.
If someone enjoys dissecting every word of the books for their own pleasure, that's perfectly acceptable. Nothing wrong with it. Live and let live.
I don't want to attack you and piss you off, but do you not think your post is much closer to a 'rant' than the theorising I linked?
No-one said your 'quote' and I don't know why you participate on internet discussions on the books if theorising annoys you.
No, that exact quote doesn't exist; I was using hyperbole. It is, however, the exact impression that I get from the fans on westeros.org who create these theories.
I like reading / hearing other people's opinions on the things I enjoy. I enjoy discussing the book's story, characters, and themes.
Or are you trying to say, 'I wouldn't enjoy this storyline if Brienne turned out to be Dunk's descendant?' Fair enough then.
As I see it, there are two cases:
1) She's a descendant, and the shield was there because of that.
2) She's not a descendant, and the shield simply ended up there, for any given reason.
Which one makes the world feel bigger and more lived in; more real? For my money, it's the second. Obviously, your mileage varies.
That is not to say I would magically stop liking her storyline. She doesn't need to be a descendant, on any sort of structural level.
I will say I would be slightly disappointed if it is confirmed (in the text, or by Martin) that she is Dunk's great-grand-daughter. Because that's less interesting. It simply doesn't add anything to the world, as it stands now.
However, I am quite open to it being confirmed. If, for example, Brienne accomplishes something that (by itself) means almost nothing, but (as Dunk's descendant) has a great deal of meaning, in terms of the themes of the story.
If someone enjoys dissecting every word of the books for their own pleasure, that's perfectly acceptable. Nothing wrong with it. Live and let live.
I'm all for dissecting every word in a book. I went through the Harry Potter books with a spreadsheet open, looking for simple things.
How many students are at the school, for example. During which month does event X happen. What I didn't do was take the number of students in a given year and try to extrapolate the wizarding population of Great Britain. Even if the text supported that, it doesn't provide any insight into the story.
It's the approach which bothers me.
These theories are, by and large (I'm not saying this specific one is), unsupported by the text; or, they are supported only by some ambiguous lines. These theory-crafters find a small connection, leap to a conclusion, and then dig through the text picking out those bits that support the theory - and ignoring those bits which contradict their presumed conclusion.
This is lazy.
Tamin on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
You didn't wait 5 years for AFFC and another 5 years for ADWD. Of course you don't get it.
Oh god, this argument. "WAHHHH, I had to wait!!!".
How long you waited for a book has no effect on it's quality.
If anything, it causes people to build it up in their heads to utterly unrealistic proportions of content and quality the likes of which no author can be expected to live up to. It's annoying and needs to stop.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Posts
man, what?
THE POINT STANDS THAT IT IS NOT THE SAME
The point does stand.
I thought that Theon and Jon in book 5 were both great characters and great stories. Dany was even a good story, I think (though I've been clear about how I think that it just belongs in a different series). The only story I didn't like in 5 was Tyrion's. He's not very interesting when people can just beat him up for being clever. Tyrion needs to be able to maneuver and plot. That's where he shines.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well, rusty nails are no joke
Actually, for me, it was more that you can't have a subjective opinion and dress it up as an objective 100% factual opinion. That's why I replied to the stuff like 'there are no more heroes to take the Ned and Robb mantle!', 'he's not adding to the main story-line and is doddering about'. Its perfectly fine that you prefer the earlier books in the series and felt disappointed by books 4 and 5 and having those reasons is fine but acting as if those subjective reasons are universal is silly.
Also with Arya and the Hound I didn't see it as her leaving him to have a slow, painful death. It was a wee girl who did want this man dead subconsciously growing to like him but she can't accept that. It's why she forgets his name in her nightly prayer and has to remind herself that she missed it. She doesn't really want him dead anymore but she feels she has to or else she's betraying Mycah's memory (who she can't even really remember). So it's basically a little girl growing to like someone but feeling that she can't because that'd be wrong. She doesn't give him the gift of mercy because she doesn't really want to kill him, she doesn't want him dead but at the same time she can't allow herself to like him. She's just a scared, confused little girl.
However she does treat death and killing people incredibly lightly. She thinks about it with the woman who screws her out of a good price for her horse but doesn't because it's too public. But I suppose when you've been through all she has its understandable (of course if she did do it it wouldn't be justifiable).
As for the Night's Watch man she kills in book 4 he was a deserter. He left the Night's Watch, he tells Sam as much and as someone who grew up in the North she knows that people who desert the Night's Watch get executed. Geographical distance from the Wall doesn't factor in and just like her dad she did the deed herself.
Steam - Minty D. Vision!
Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
Steam - Minty D. Vision!
Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't get. How do you define "the main story line" as something other than what he's spending a lot of time writing about? It may not be what you want to read about, but if that's what he's writing about, it's part of the "main story".
I don't get what you think the main story line is and how GRRM didn't add to it over two books.
edit:
Again, its fine not liking the books (my preferance is probably GoT, SoS, DwD, Feast, Clash however someof my favourite parts are from Feast due to the Greyjoys and the Martells and I love Clash due to Tyrion being the King's Hand and Davos and Stannis) but....Its just that you're saying your reasons are objective and not subjective.
Steam - Minty D. Vision!
Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
Considering how many major PoVs are over in Essos now, it sounds like Essos is the main storyline
All two of them?
Three (Don't forget poor Barristan!), though your point stands.
Plus we've got all the ironborn heading over there
And Jon's dead (for now) and Bran's going to be a tree, so.
And who knows what's going to happen with Jaime and Brienne.
Maybe our Westeros crew will reach Dany, explain to her how shitty Westeros is, and everyone will just relax in the much, much nicer weather. The End.
The only Ironborn heading over there is Victarion, who has been in three chapters, two of which were from his POV; Barristan only had one POV chapter. I don't consider them major POVs, awesome though the characters are.
Meanwhile, in Westeros, you have the Dornish storyline, Theon, Arya, Jon (who isn't dead,) Bran (whose story isn't finished,) the twins, Brienne, Sansa, Sam, and Catelyn. Leaving aside Dorne, that's 10 POVs to Essos's 3.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I was writing something to that effect earlier, but deleted the post.
Basically, as someone else was saying (LoserForHireX?) Dany's story could easily be a separate series of books called A Song of Fire, and the whole Westeros thing would fit in A Song of Ice.
Given that Westeros' current cataclysm is the Others coming down, I suspect Essos' cataclysm might be fire related
You forget Rickon, and the most important character of all.
Come on, was there any other punchline for the joke?
And I suddenly noticed Brienne's shield and my brain spontaneously put together all the stuff that was then confirmed in this thread here:
http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/50639-brienne-and-dunk/
Interesting reading (it spoils all the books and the Dunk & Egg stories too, be warned if you've not read them).
I am now wondering about Sandor Clegane's future, in this context.
I think that may turn out to be more GRRM trickery, in the same way that the wildfire seemed like just chemistry and then gradually turned out to be more magical than we realised.
I think it was volcanic, but with some magic mixed in.
Valyria ruled the Free Cities before they were free. For some reason (and someone wonders about this in the books) they never tried to conquer Westeros, even though they knew it was there. The Targaryens happened to reside on Dragonstone, and waited a hundred years before invading.
---
A lot of those theories seem to be mountains out of molehills. I take them all with a grain of salt; even if they are true - what does it matter, on a narrative level?
Why must there be some secret behind everything? Is it too easy a thought that a Lord's armory might have dozens of shields (or even just paintings of the shields) to represent the people who have sworn their sword at one point or another? The actual line from the book is simply,
which only lightly implies a physical shield.
Basically, for me to take a theory seriously, you have to show me overwhelming evidence for it in the text of the books, be able to logically dismiss any contradictory things (i.e., this guy is a pathological liar so we can discount him), and provide a clear answer to the response, "So? What's your point?".
Well, they talk about it being "demon-haunted" and how nobody has ever come back from there alive (before Euron, apparently). And the closest free city to Valyria, Mantarys, is the "city of monsters" where Biter is implied to be from.
So yeah. Probably more than a mere volcanic eruption.
Well, that's a pretty adversarial attitude to be honest. This is a work of fiction, not reality.
I think GRRM put that stuff in to echo Dunk. Whether it means they are related by blood or not, it's interesting thematically because Brienne and Dunk have so much in common. It resonates on an emotional level.
This is a work of art, and as such contains emotional themes and characterisation. It's not a collection of plot points, and I think if you approach it as such (as many did with Lost, for example) you lose out.
Your choice and your loss.
It's absolutely an adversarial attitude. But theory crafters have been getting under my skin lately; it's no longer enough to simply enjoy reading the books - every word must be analyzed and cross-referenced to no good effect. It's like gorging yourself on sweets and candy - you aren't really satisfied, but you are stuffed.
My post doesn't claim the bolded is wrong - it supports it. It's interesting that Brienne and Dunk are thematically similar. It is incredibly interesting that Brienne unknowingly selects Dunk's shield. This is a nice tie-in / callback, and makes the world feel bigger.
So, what about them being blood relations? In the first place, that goes beyond a tie-in / callback, and actively makes the world feel smaller. Obviously, in my opinion.
I suppose it could show that people tend to share a physical look with their ancestor? But that's not new information (either in the book or, y'know, life).
What would be interesting is if Brienne unknowingly accomplishes something that Dunk always wanted to do. Maybe she becomes the first female knight, and fulfills that ... emotional quest (not sure; first word that came to mind).
However. Brienne has yet to do anything that supports her being a descendant of Dunk in an interesting way. Thus, it remains more interesting for a castle to have shields in the armory, a young girl to fall in love with one in particular, and many years later, the same girl commissions a painter to put it on a new shield.
This tells a story (and informs Brienne's character at the same time); "omg brienne is dunk's descendant and her picking dunk's shield is fate!" is ... ranting, supposition, hot air, and other comments.
No-one said your 'quote' and I don't know why you participate on internet discussions on the books if theorising annoys you. Or are you trying to say, 'I wouldn't enjoy this storyline if Brienne turned out to be Dunk's descendant?' Fair enough then.
If someone enjoys dissecting every word of the books for their own pleasure, that's perfectly acceptable. Nothing wrong with it. Live and let live.
I don't want to attack you and piss you off, but do you not think your post is much closer to a 'rant' than the theorising I linked?
No, that exact quote doesn't exist; I was using hyperbole. It is, however, the exact impression that I get from the fans on westeros.org who create these theories.
I like reading / hearing other people's opinions on the things I enjoy. I enjoy discussing the book's story, characters, and themes.
As I see it, there are two cases:
1) She's a descendant, and the shield was there because of that.
2) She's not a descendant, and the shield simply ended up there, for any given reason.
Which one makes the world feel bigger and more lived in; more real? For my money, it's the second. Obviously, your mileage varies.
That is not to say I would magically stop liking her storyline. She doesn't need to be a descendant, on any sort of structural level.
I will say I would be slightly disappointed if it is confirmed (in the text, or by Martin) that she is Dunk's great-grand-daughter. Because that's less interesting. It simply doesn't add anything to the world, as it stands now.
However, I am quite open to it being confirmed. If, for example, Brienne accomplishes something that (by itself) means almost nothing, but (as Dunk's descendant) has a great deal of meaning, in terms of the themes of the story.
I'm all for dissecting every word in a book. I went through the Harry Potter books with a spreadsheet open, looking for simple things.
How many students are at the school, for example. During which month does event X happen. What I didn't do was take the number of students in a given year and try to extrapolate the wizarding population of Great Britain. Even if the text supported that, it doesn't provide any insight into the story.
It's the approach which bothers me.
These theories are, by and large (I'm not saying this specific one is), unsupported by the text; or, they are supported only by some ambiguous lines. These theory-crafters find a small connection, leap to a conclusion, and then dig through the text picking out those bits that support the theory - and ignoring those bits which contradict their presumed conclusion.
This is lazy.
If anything, it causes people to build it up in their heads to utterly unrealistic proportions of content and quality the likes of which no author can be expected to live up to. It's annoying and needs to stop.
You could make the same argument about Robert.