Game of Thrones - HBO part 2

[Thundercrack85]

Well, monarchs are by definition tyrants, so their claims are only as good as their armies.

 

[BlackLantern]

Well, monarchs are by definition tyrants, so their claims are only as good as their armies.

yup

 

[Marvolo]

Sigh. Nevermind. Although you did go from "Stannis has no claim, only Dany does" to "Dany has just as much claim as Stannis."




This is a very good explanation and relation.

Lol well i still think dany has more claim than robert if we are going by heredity, but otherwise i guess its a toss up. Stannis feels its owed him because hes next in line, but the throne wasnt given to Robert because he was next in line so why should the next king be given the crown because he is next in line. It was danys by blood and Roberts more through popularity. Am i alone in thinking Robert became the George Washington of westerros? The majority seemed to love him and he got the crown through that love not necessarily through blood or because he deserved it. Honestly i think westerros should tell the lannisters and baratheons and targaeryans to all bugger off and pick someone entirely new as none of them seem entirely fit to rule. The North should remain independent similar to Scottland and England. I think that would work out best. Or better yet down with the monarchy and bring on the democracy lol.

 

[mr. peasant]

As for GRRM having the entire story plotted in terms of plot points, maybe he's had a fledgling outline to be working off of, but have you ever read his not-a-blog? Once he confirmed ADwD was definitely done, he posted a big explanation of what had happened and why it took so long. The story has transformed, grown larger by necessity, and been restructured, rewritten, and re-everything. Any original plotting-out he'd done has fallen by the wayside.

I always figured it was because he wanted/planned the story to go a certain way and is determined to stick to it, which is why he has so much stuff to cover. For instance, he originally planned a time skip of five years but kept having to create flashbacks to fill out the gaps and so just gave up on it and kept things in chronological order instead. If he had been more adaptable, he could have excised the problematic parts and just reworked with the simpler, less crowded story.

I still never looked at him as the focal character of the novel, or that the novel was about him and his character arc - especially since there's no real character progression. Ned Stark is Ned Stark will be Ned Stark. He's a player in a larger piece, though he doesn't survive, and the instigator that allows it all to unfold, and certainly our viewpoint. That makes him a protagonist, not a decoy, though. So my point remains.

But as the protagonist, one would normally expect him to survive to the end, and to continue to remain fairly focal in subsequent novels. Except he doesn't - making him a decoy, as the hero is evidently not him but someone else (and likely someone from the first book, Jon?). Well, at least that was the impression I got. I think. It was a long, long time ago.

 

[BlackLantern]

that's not how this world works....at least not yet....the smallfolk aren't going to start a revolution on their own

 

[Thundercrack85]

Being well liked by the masses gives you far more credibility as a ruler than being the offspring of the last guy who ruled. Especially if a lot of people didn't like the last guy.

 

[Marvolo]

Being well liked by the masses gives you far more credibility as a ruler than being the offspring of the last guy who ruled. Especially if a lot of people didn't like the last guy.

I agree.

 

[BlackLantern]

But as the protagonist, one would normally expect him to survive to the end, and to continue to remain fairly focal in subsequent novels. Except he doesn't - making him a decoy, as the hero is evidently not him but someone else (and likely someone from the first book, Jon?). Well, at least that was the impression I got. I think. It was a long, long time ago.

you're operating under the assumption there is ONE central protagonist meant for this series when there really isn't

if you want to sit up on your intellectual high horse and call Martin "wrong" for killing Ned Stark, then feel free.....that and a dollar will get you a cookie

 

[mr. peasant]

you're operating under the assumption there is ONE central protagonist meant for this series when there really isn't

if you want to sit up on your intellectual high horse and call Martin "wrong" for killing Ned Stark, then feel free.....that and a dollar will get you a cookie

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the common expectation is that there is one central protagonists; in which case Ned Stark fits the bill. However, if you look at it objectively, Ned needed to die in order for the story to continue since he knew too much and been too strong a contender for the throne (despite not wanting it); in which much of the drama within the series stems from the readers wondering who would come up on top.

 

[Maximus One]

It did seem like Ned was the main protagonist. After I foolishly spoiled myself via wikipedia I was blown away that they would kill not only Ned but Drogo as well but overall it really does serve the story better making the viewer know that in this world anything is possible and no character is completely safe

 

[BlackLantern]

it is that...."common"

people piss and moan about wanting something "different", they get it...then piss and moan because it's out of their comfort zone

 

[Maximus One]

I'm with you BL. It does suck that Ned was killed but it evoked such an emotional response that it just made it all that much better. Like when Charlie died on Lost, or Doyle on Angel

 

[El Bastardo]

Lol well i still think dany has more claim than robert if we are going by heredity, but otherwise i guess its a toss up. Stannis feels its owed him because hes next in line, but the throne wasnt given to Robert because he was next in line so why should the next king be given the crown because he is next in line. It was danys by blood and Roberts more through popularity. Am i alone in thinking Robert became the George Washington of westerros? The majority seemed to love him and he got the crown through that love not necessarily through blood or because he deserved it. Honestly i think westerros should tell the lannisters and baratheons and targaeryans to all bugger off and pick someone entirely new as none of them seem entirely fit to rule. The North should remain independent similar to Scottland and England. I think that would work out best. Or better yet down with the monarchy and bring on the democracy lol.

No. You're just wrong in thinking the Baratheon line has no claim to the throne when that family has become the legitimized ruling house of the Seven Kingdoms.

The only reason the Targaryens ruled was because Aegon had set a precedent and the great houses bent the knee to him. That continued until such a time as the Targaryens were thrown down and the great houses bent the knee to Robert, instead. History always repeats itself.

I always figured it was because he wanted/planned the story to go a certain way and is determined to stick to it, which is why he has so much stuff to cover. For instance, he originally planned a time skip of five years but kept having to create flashbacks to fill out the gaps and so just gave up on it and kept things in chronological order instead. If he had been more adaptable, he could have excised the problematic parts and just reworked with the simpler, less crowded story.

It's not really a matter of lack of adaptation. GRRM realized and decided that trying to write the story as he had envisioned it - with the gap of time - resulted in too many narrative problems. He displayed adaptation by throwing all plans out the window and letting the story flow and grow as was necessary for what he felt to be the best story.

But as the protagonist, one would normally expect him to survive to the end, and to continue to remain fairly focal in subsequent novels. Except he doesn't - making him a decoy, as the hero is evidently not him but someone else (and likely someone from the first book, Jon?). Well, at least that was the impression I got. I think. It was a long, long time ago.

Jon's character is very much GRRM playing with the archetypal hero cliche, but if Jon actually is the big hero come the end of the story, it isn't because he was the big hero at the start of the series. This is not some conventional one-and-done story. This isn't Lord of the Rings, where we know from the beginning that Frodo is going to be the small-guy unlikely hero.

If Jon is the big hero come the end, it's because he's grown to that point. Likewise if it's Dany, likewise if it's Bran. Those are character arcs. Ned has no character arc - the Ned Stark at the end is the Ned Stark at the beginning, just in crappier circumstances.

It's hard to argue who the hero will be of the entire story, or if there will even be one. This isn't a heroic fantasy. There aren't even heroes per individual novels. Some POVs link to others for the majority of a given book, sure, but the majority of POVs are segmented from one another, making for multiple overarching plots happening simultaneously. The linking character is the land: all roads lead to Westeros. Dany's world tour serves no purpose other than to potentially someday get her there.

And Ned is not -the- protagonist. He is -a- protagonist, only of the first novel, and not even the first protagonist introduced. As such, and regardless, why is it expected he should survive to the end? I don't believe this is any written or unwritten rule in the writing craft, but projected by the individual. To the larger story, Eddard Stark is nothing more than a footnote - and since there isn't even a "hero" for the first book, how could he be a decoy?

 

[El Bastardo]

you're operating under the assumption there is ONE central protagonist meant for this series when there really isn't

BL hit it a little more direct than I have, apparently.

In a story with multiple POV characters, there may or may not be a central protagonist. In A Song of Ice and Fire, there is no central protagonist. In Joe Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy, the central protagonist is very much Logen Nine-Fingers, or in Best Served Cold it is very much Monza, despite a number of other POV characters along for the ride.

And then you have more conventional stories, with singular narrative or for-the-most-part singular narrative: a popular example would be Salvatore's Drizzt stories, or I could reference Scott Lynch's craptastic Lies of Locke Lamora and its subsequent stories. Or Patrick Rothfuss's craptastic The Name of the Wind.

 

[Project862006]

he is seen as the main guy to the audience due to his whole character he is a true good guy a guy of honor and loyalty to his family now while the other characters are more flawed and interesting

there is just something about ned specifically bean's performance that garners that connection to last pure good man left

we saw most of the series through his eyes

 

[El Bastardo]

I'm speaking of the novel. I've already conceded they used him as a focal point for the HBO production, which should give you an idea of how disjointed the next season will probably feel.

I take exception to the idea that other characters are more flawed and interesting than Ned. This is not the case in the novel, though in the show he's about as interesting as watching mud drying, and Bean kind of phoned the performance in. The character of Eddard Stark is just as flawed and interesting as other characters, though - which was portrayed primarily within the character's head, which could not quite be ported to the visual medium.

 

[Maximus One]

Yea no matter what you think, to the general audience, Ned was the hero of the story up till now. He was presented in such a manner, you can't deny that but that's the beauty of it. They fooled alot of us into thinking it was his story when it seems like it's more Bran, Dany, and Jon's story. Maybe Robb too but alot of the focus seems to be on those three as well as Arya

 

[El Bastardo]

Considering Dany's journey takes up a sizable chunk of even the HBO production, and she is in no way related to anything going on in Ned's portion of the production, that limits the potential for the story to be his.

And how did "they" fool anyone? There's no big blinking neon sign in the HBO production or in the novel that reads: "Ned Stark's story, here!" No, certain people who were "fooled" have decided a story needs to be a very specific thing with a very specific construction, and your beliefs have been transcended.

 

[Marvolo]

Ah i still think robert won the throne because the majority loved him the most. I dont understand why that should set up the baratheons as the only blood line that can rule. They illigitimized the idea that only a blood heir can rule when they decided heredity didnt matter and took the throne. They created a vaccum. Now anyone can step up and fight the current king and claim the throne. This essientially what is happening. You have multiple families claiming the throne and thousands are dying because of it. Aerys may been a bad king who killed countless people, but how many have died since the coup that might have lived otherwise? Until the end i cant say which would have been better, but as it stands many have died that may not have died had the coup never happened.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Spoiler

Yes, the entire concept is based on conjecture and speculation. I was up front about that from the beginning. But before I go any further - and this isn't meant to be condescending - have you read through all four currently published novels?

Yes, I have read all the novels. The first one twice even. Have you?

 

[Maximus One]

I'm talking about the GENERAL AUDIENCE. I've read enough books and watched enough tv shows to know that sometimes having one central protagonist and one central antagonist isn't the case. Most people on the other hand, would watch this show and assume at least at the very beginning that Ned is the main protagonist. I have friends that called me up after watching the second to last episode and were just absolutely astounded that they killed Ned. Most people that haven't read the books or at least been privy to some of the plot points thought that Ned would somehow get outta his little predicament. That's all I'm saying man

 

[Hush]

I'd like to thank all the readers of the books for not just spoiling stuff in your posts and putting certain things in spoilers and respecting us viewers who are not in the know. It was nice of you and appreciated! Let's keep this curtosey up for next season!

 

[Maximus One]

HAHA! Love that avvy Hush!

 

[El Bastardo]

Ah i still think robert won the throne because the majority loved him the most. I dont understand why that should set up the baratheons as the only blood line that can rule. They illigitimized the idea that only a blood heir can rule when they decided heredity didnt matter and took the throne. They created a vaccum. Now anyone can step up and fight the current king and claim the throne. This essientially what is happening. You have multiple families claiming the throne and thousands are dying because of it. Aerys may been a bad king who killed countless people, but how many have died since the coup that might have lived otherwise? Until the end i cant say which would have been better, but as it stands many have died that may not have died had the coup never happened.

The "majority" are the smallfolk. The smallfolk don't matter.

Robert became King because the Ned Stark and Jon Arryn backed him, he mostly defeated the Tyrells (who fought for Aerys), killed Rhaegar on the Trident and defeated the Loyalist host Rhaegar led, and because the Lannisters chose to back him in the end and take King's Landing. When you have the Starks, Arryns, and the Lannisters behind you, followed by the Tullys, and then the Tyrells - at that point? You're King.

They did not illegitimize anything. The reason multiple parties are warring for the throne come the end of A Game of Thrones and beginning of A Clash of Kings is due to multiple happenings in A Game of Thrones, not because Robert took the throne. Joffrey is rightful heir because he's Robert's supposed offspring. Stannis believes he is rightful heir because he knows, via Ned's letter, that Joffrey is the offspring of Jaime and not Robert. Renly wants to be king because the Tyrells are backing him (a power play), he is a Baratheon (ding ding ding!), and he believes himself a better leader and politician than is Stannis. Robb has been named King of the North because all the Northmen are pissed that the Lannisters killed Ned - none of them know the truth about Joffrey. [BLACKOUT]And Balon Greyjoy is going to make a separatist move, which he's tried before.[/BLACKOUT]

Yes, the specifics are dependent on Robert being King, but the instances are not just because he took the throne from the Targaryens. GRRM has plenty of back-history during the Targaryen reign where there's plenty of strife.

The Baratheons sit on the throne because the family was legitimized as the ruling family of the Seven Kingdoms. Robert's Baratheon standard even came to be a Crowned Stag, not just the Stag that Renly and Stannis still bore. That lineage and title travels by blood has nothing to do with what family is sitting on the throne, or how they came to take the throne. The Targaryens took the Seven Kingdoms by conquest, as did Robert. The culture of Westeros still depends on blood heredity. When Tywin Lannister dies, his title as patriarch of House Lannister would go to Tyrion (skipping Jaime because he's Kingsguard). When Ned died, his title as patriarch of House Stark went to Robb. When Mace Tyrell dies, his title as patriarch of House Tyrell would go to his oldest son, whose name I cannot remember right now. As such, since House Baratheon sits the throne, when King Robert dies, the title goes to his son Joffrey - or, in the case you know the truth, his brother next-in-line, Stannis.

The Targaryens are no longer rulers of Westeros, so the only way Dany has a claim to the throne is if she conquers it - like Robert before her, like Aegon before him. Do note that actually is her entire gameplan. And even if she could, she'd either have to beat the great houses into submission, or have their cooperation.

I don't mean this to sound condescending, but have you read the books?

 

[Hush]

Thanks Eklypze! I just watched all of Angel and Buffy for the first time. It wa awesome.