Umm! It does look a bit alike, similar in some ways!
I think what I'm seeing is that the shape of the Night King's symbol kind of reminds me of the silhouette of a raven's skull:
More likely I'm just seeing shapes where they don't exist, but maybe its the design department's nod to the NK's ostensible role as the 3EC's enemy: whereas Brienne's new sigil is the 3EC, the NK's sigil is a crow with its eyes removed.
Frankly though, this story is largely anti-conservative in terms of modern conservative politics. And by that I mean the common theme of Conservative politics which came out of the 1960s & 1970s during the last "Awakening" (a time of religious and cultural revolution, previous Awakenings: 1890s & 1900s, 1810s & 1820s, 1730s & 1740s) was what we'd call Red State America. And Red America's big overwhelming concern is the same as Star Trek: Voyager: How do we find a way Home? Home being the 1940s & 1950s as far as they're concerned, and some even push it to the 1870s & 1880s. And along the way home they'll point out hypocrites who get in their way. The closest thing to them in the books are Balon Greyjoy with his call to return to the "Old Way", and the High Sparrow with his desire to return to the fundamentals of the Faith of the Seven.
For clarity, in criticizing fantasy as reactionary, I'm talking about the tendency toward viewing knighthood and feudalism fondly, in settings where modernity and change are often presented as undesirable forces (regardless of the politics and intent of the author). The broad strokes often go: it's a fallen, degraded world, its people pining for some lost golden age, waiting on an aristocratic hero to come along and set things aright by restoring traditional values. Some narratives go a step further, and present a full-on fascist narrative in which the aristocratic hero ousts the undesirable outsider and reaffirms a supposedly lost national identity.
While I'd like to believe that an aging hippie hasn't crafted a narrative that's going to end with everything being resolved by a "good king," he has chosen to almost entirely center his narrative around the journeys of elite figures: nobles and the magically destined. To avoid a conservative ending, most of our POVs have to either wind up "losing," or succeed while being portrayed as villains.
That's not out of the question, but I do wonder whether that's what he wants for his characters (it certainly isn't what most readers want for them). While I'd hardly expect him to go so far as to have the smallfolk band together and send the protagonists to the guillotines, any variety of "Character X becomes Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, Character Y becomes Lord/Lady of the North, Character Z becomes King, but this is fine because they're all good guys" style ending is essentially conservative, because it reaffirms the idea that Westeros' problems didn't stem from bad institutions, but from bad apples 'spoiling' what were otherwise fine institutions.
Frankly though, this story is largely anti-conservative in terms of modern conservative politics. And by that I mean the common theme of Conservative politics which came out of the 1960s & 1970s during the last "Awakening" (a time of religious and cultural revolution, previous Awakenings: 1890s & 1900s, 1810s & 1820s, 1730s & 1740s) was what we'd call Red State America. And Red America's big overwhelming concern is the same as Star Trek: Voyager: How do we find a way Home? Home being the 1940s & 1950s as far as they're concerned, and some even push it to the 1870s & 1880s. And along the way home they'll point out hypocrites who get in their way. The closest thing to them in the books are Balon Greyjoy with his call to return to the "Old Way", and the High Sparrow with his desire to return to the fundamentals of the Faith of the Seven.
For clarity, in criticizing fantasy as reactionary, I'm talking about the tendency toward viewing knighthood and feudalism fondly, in settings where modernity and change are often presented as undesirable forces (regardless of the politics and intent of the author). The broad strokes often go: it's a fallen, degraded world, its people pining for some lost golden age, waiting on an aristocratic hero to come along and set things aright by restoring traditional values. Some narratives go a step further, and present a full-on fascist narrative in which the aristocratic hero ousts the undesirable outsider and reaffirms a supposedly lost national identity.
While I'd like to believe that an aging hippie hasn't crafted a narrative that's going to end with everything being resolved by a "good king," he has chosen to almost entirely center his narrative around the journeys of elite figures: nobles and the magically destined. To avoid a conservative ending, most of our POVs have to either wind up "losing," or succeed while being portrayed as villains.
That's not out of the question, but I do wonder whether that's what he wants for his characters (it certainly isn't what most readers want for them). While I'd hardly expect him to go so far as to have the smallfolk band together and send the protagonists to the guillotines, any variety of "Character X becomes Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, Character Y becomes Lord/Lady of the North, Character Z becomes King, but this is fine because they're all good guys" style ending is essentially conservative, because it reaffirms the idea that Westeros' problems didn't stem from bad institutions, but from bad apples 'spoiling' what were otherwise fine institutions.
And in my first paragraph, I was referencing that tendency, even though I would go on to criticize its connection to modern conservatism. I am well familiar (and I've quoted often) Northrop Frye's Third essay on Literary Criticism. It's one of my favorite go-tos. And in the first paragraph of his second mythoi:
The Mythos of Summer: Romance
The romance is nearest of all literary forms to the wish-fulfilment dream, and for that reason it has socially a curiously paradoxical role. In every age the ruling social or intellectual class tends to project its ideals in some form of romance, where the virtuous heroes and beautiful heroines represent the ideals and the villains the threats to their ascendancy. This is the general character of chivalric romance in the Middle Ages, aristocratic romance in the Renaissance, bourgeois romance since the eighteenth century, and revolutionary romance in contemporary Russia. Yet there is a genuinely "proletarian" element in romance too which is never satisfied with its various incarnations, and in fact the incarnations themselves indicate that no matter how great a change may take place in society, romance will turn up again, as hungry as ever, looking for new hopes and desires to feed on. The perennially child like quality of romance is marked by its extraordinarily persistent nostalgia, its search for some kind of imaginative golden age in time or space. There has never to my knowledge been any period of Gothic English literature, but the list of Gothic revivalists stretches completely across its entire history, from the Beowulf poet to writers of our own day.
Post by whitewolfstark on May 22, 2019 21:06:48 GMT
Martin's problem though is he keeps trying to merge Romance with Satire & Irony, and while in some respects he does all right, in others it just causes problems, especially the deeper into Irony he goes.
The Mythos of Winter: Irony and Satire
We come now to the mythical patterns of experience, the attempts to give form to the shifting ambiguities and complexities of unidealized existence. We cannot find these patterns merely in the mimetic or representational aspect of such literature, for that aspect is one of content and not form. As structure, the central principle of ironic myth is best approached as a parody of romance: the application of romantic mythical forms to a more realistic content which fits them in unexpected ways. No one in a romance, Don Quixote protests, ever asks who pays for the hero's accommodation.
On the contrary, Bran is the logical choice, god knows how much bran westerosi will need to eat to recover from such prolonged miserable diet.
Bran the Broken is very aptly named as he broke the 7 kingdoms; into 6, with just a slight nod of the head to Sansa, his big sis who loves him so much she doesn't want him as a ruler.
To the victors the spoils. The Starks share Westoros, Bran has the south, Sansa the north, Jon shares the far north, Arya gets the western world.
The poor people of Essos inherit the Dothrakis and the people of Nath get a sour Grey Worm. Nath? WTF do we know about Nath?
And all I know about Naath is that they produce women with very little acting ability.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
And in my first paragraph, I was referencing that tendency, even though I would go on to criticize its connection to modern conservatism. I am well familiar (and I've quoted often) Northrop Frye's Third essay on Literary Criticism. It's one of my favorite go-tos. And in the first paragraph of his second mythoi:
I read and liked your analysis of the politics of the finale, so I don't mean to give the impression that I'm disagreeing with you specifically. Rather, I'm somewhat skeptical about what GRRM will ultimately accomplish, assuming he ever publishes another book--and particularly if it differs greatly from the show. He might recognize the flaws of chivalric romance, but would ASOAIF, in its complete form, be used as a vessel to criticize the genre? Or does he love his characters so much that, at least for some POVs, the ending might trend toward wish fulfillment?
I can. To be fair I have always enjoyed Bronn as a character, but I admit his scene in Winterfell is silly. Still him being LP of the Reach is one of the less insane things in that finale. Just happy it isn't Grand Maester Sam.
Poor Edmure, the show just loves shitting on him.
It's all so frivolous though. I like the actor, he was always entertaining. But come the fuck on. Master of Coin?
This season had more plot holes than plot.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
It's all so frivolous though. I like the actor, he was always entertaining. But come the fuck on. Master of Coin?
This season had more plot holes than plot.
I'm repeating myself from Heresy, but in a finale full of questionable and baffling choices, the two things I find most unbelievable are: -Arya goes West -Every Secondary Named Character That Isn't Dead is Now a Member of the Small Council
I mean, I generally shrug off issues of realism - particularly at this point in the show's life -, but seriously, give me like one person on that council that I haven't heard of, who's just there because they're the best person for the job. Isn't part of the appeal of having the Omni-Bran as king that he'll set aside emotional decisions, and make the best choices for the realm--rather than having a council filled just with people that he knows and likes?
And all I know about Naath is that they produce women with very little acting ability.
In Dollywood, all you need to do is look the part, right?
I have actually brushed up on Naath by now and realise that is where Missandei came from, which explains Grey Worm's need for a pilgrimage.
But it also seems that is where Dany should have stopped over on the way to Westeros. The isle of the Peaceful People who believe in the Lord of Harmony, a good place to prevent an attack of Targ madness.
"Arya did not dare take a bath, even though she smelled as bad as Yoren by now, all sour and stinky. Some of the creatures living in her clothes had come all the way from Flea Bottom with her; it didn’t seem right to drown them."
Isn't part of the appeal of having the Omni-Bran as king that he'll set aside emotional decisions, and make the best choices for the realm--rather than having a council filled just with people that he knows and likes?
You are really asking for too much from a show to introduce new characters at the 11.9th hour; but it could have been done.
As far as Bran having chosen the council, i think not, it seems to me he would only have had some rapport with Sam, surely not with Bronn. So more likely the council is Tyrion's choice.
The impression i got from that first council was that nothing had changed, councilors arguing just like nothing ever happened. What kind of message is that?
"Arya did not dare take a bath, even though she smelled as bad as Yoren by now, all sour and stinky. Some of the creatures living in her clothes had come all the way from Flea Bottom with her; it didn’t seem right to drown them."
Yes! This would have been much better than what we saw---or didn't see since we got a fade to black--- but this gives Jon some power. At least enough to get himself back to his northern troops, because it honestly makes no sense that the Unsullied just put Jon in prison! Nope, Grey Worm the Hateful would realistically just cut Jon's throat, since he was Dany's Master of War now! Also, just the idea that a man who helped kill the Master's of Astapor and Yunkai and Meereen is now happy to be a "Master" makes my teeth hurt. I know it's just a title, but...
There are so many fade to black moments this season when we really should see a reaction. Sansa and Arya's reaction to Jon being a Targaryen comes to mind.
Indeed Grey Worm would have killed Jon there is no doubt in my mind. Still the plot armor is strong.
Also why doesn't everyone just make Jon King after the Unsullied and Dothraki leave? Isn't this what Varys died for? Why Tyrion chose to betray Dany? Its all for Jon until its for Bran, because stories or something.
It's all so frivolous though. I like the actor, he was always entertaining. But come the fuck on. Master of Coin?
This season had more plot holes than plot.
Agreed on the plot holes. I assume its just playing to the actor which D&D love doing. Still who was it going to be? Sweetrobin the quiet? Edmure the floppy failure? The Unnamed Dornish Prince?
Also why isn't Yara master of ships?
Also why don't Dorne and the Iron Islands also want independence?
So many questions but I can't care enough to list them all.
Darkstar will be the next Vulture King.
Craster has 19 daughters and there are 19 castles on the Wall, coincidence I think not!
And all I know about Naath is that they produce women with very little acting ability.
In Dollywood, all you need to do is look the part, right?
I have actually brushed up on Naath by now and realise that is where Missandei came from, which explains Grey Worm's need for a pilgrimage.
But it also seems that is where Dany should have stopped over on the way to Westeros. The isle of the Peaceful People who believe in the Lord of Harmony, a good place to prevent an attack of Targ madness.
All she needed to do was stay there, resupply and relax for a few weeks... the butterflies would take care of the rest. lol.
There are so many fade to black moments this season when we really should see a reaction. Sansa and Arya's reaction to Jon being a Targaryen comes to mind.
Indeed Grey Worm would have killed Jon there is no doubt in my mind. Still the plot armor is strong.
Also why doesn't everyone just make Jon King after the Unsullied and Dothraki leave? Isn't this what Varys died for? Why Tyrion chose to betray Dany? Its all for Jon until its for Bran, because stories or something.
I guess they just didn't know how to write those scenes, and probably if we would have seen them played out before us, that also might have been terrible. d&d really proved in this episode that their lack of directing skills, along with their lack of writing skills, is a glaring weakness. Other episodes they wrote but had someone else direct stood up a bit better, I think.
I agree they should have at least proposed Jon as king, even if Grey Worm refuses, it at least should have been mentioned. And Jon could have still refused to be king, but to leave it unmentioned seems hollow. It seems obvious that none of them really wanted Jon to be king after all! Bran's "story-teller to king" arc is the dumbest thing I could imagine, honestly. If they would have at least alluded to the Night King being in Bran and having a sneaky victory in the end, that would have at least made sense to me. The fact that Grey Worm did not kill Jon for killing Dany is terribly unbelievable. Just prior to Dany's Hitler speech, we see Grey Worm cutting throats in a most casual manner, so there is no reason to suppose he let's the murderer of his Queen live. No reason! Jon had not one ounce of protection in the throne room and Drogan was naughty enough to fly away with one of Jon's weapons's still buried in Dany!
Also why don't Dorne and the Iron Islands also want independence?
I wondered this about Yara as well, but then I remembered that Stannis had placed Davos in charge of his fleet before the Blackwater, and without Tyrion's chain trick and wild fire, the armada would have kicked ass! And he is the "greatest smuggler who ever was" or something, so I guess he can lead the navy.
The second worst thing I might have seen is Sansa pulling out of the 7 Kingdom's and no one else thinking, "hey, that's a great idea, sign us up for succeeding from this stupid union that Aegon forced on us too". As a matter of fact, I think in S6 Yara/Asha already got independence for the Iron Islands as long as she supported Dany in her claim. Yara forget? Or perhaps that agreement went the wayside when Euron became king under Cersei? But he still thought of himself as a king, so they must have been independent. Everyone of those dumb-assess should have wanted independence, too! Soooooooooo many inconsistencies!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
I think what I'm seeing is that the shape of the Night King's symbol kind of reminds me of the silhouette of a raven's skull:
More likely I'm just seeing shapes where they don't exist, but maybe its the design department's nod to the NK's ostensible role as the 3EC's enemy: whereas Brienne's new sigil is the 3EC, the NK's sigil is a crow with its eyes removed.
I agree that the shape is definitely repeated. If they would have alluded to Bran being part of the Night King it would make sense. And maybe this is their subtle way of saying that indeed the Night King is in Bran or is actually Bran, and he won after all, but the story doesn't come across like that.
Honestly, for Bran's kingsguard armor, shouldn't there be a little bit of a direwolf represented? Most everything about Bran's ending was annoying to me. Instead of worrying about feeding people, he is off in a day dream looking for Drogon? What does he care where Drogon is at? The lamest king ever is out daydreaming about dragons while his small council is concerned about building brothel's while Tyrion cries because he's not in the history book (which makes no sense since he has been Hand of the King three times)! Fook!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.