Martin's statement about Gardener's writing sounds great, but I'm not sure he ever fully realized, that one part of a gardener's work is removing the weeds and trimming the hedges.
Gardners also plan their gardens quite thoroughly to. Its nice to plant a seed but its also your responsibility to make sure it doesnt grow out of control.
Literally. I don’t think George really understands what he’s saying when he talks about gardeners and architects. Not sure the fandom understands George’s type of gardening. He sets up 10 things and pays off 1.
The unfinished _Hyperion_ by Keats comes to mind (and Simmons' book too, which GRRM has most definitely read and strewn scattered references to throughout ASoIaF).
It isn't a subversion especially if the majority of his fans do not think he will finish. He also is not the first author to walk this road. He will just be another author with an unfinished magnum opus.
He didn't have to share any of it. It was a pet project, obviously I'm still not happy. More obviously, Jaime is the real main character and will pull a flaming sword from cersei, becoming the real (night) king slayer.
I think ASOIAF is fundamentally about good people having to match their ideals with a brutal reality. I never got the impression that Martin condemns, mocks or condescends idealism with his characters - quite the opposite. “Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice. She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand.” - Chapter 37, AFFC Brienne does not need to get involved. She can just walk away. But in her mind *She has no choice*. She must defend the weak in every instance, at all times, regardless of the odds against her, regardless if it means her own death.
@@AdamNoizer Counterpoint: Then why did most of the heroic characters (Ned, Robb, Catelyn, Oberyn, Jon) die dishonorably while the evil ones (Joffrey and Tywin) died in a way more peaceful way than they deserve? Not to mention the living evil characters like Ramsay, Roose, Walder Frey, Cersei, Varys and Littlefinger can do whatever they want without facing repercussions. And the purpose for the hero like Brienne is to break her oath to Catelyn and kill the zombie Catelyn to save Jaime…which means Catelyn got betrayed over and over again in any lives she lived and loyalty means nothing in this universe. Or Shireen. That poor innocent girl with a chronic illness is gonna be burned alive to resurrect Jon. If that’s not a mockery of idealism and morality, then I don’t know what is.
@@nont18411 Counterpoint to your counterpoint: Evil characters such as Tywin and Joffrey most certainly did not die honourably - in fact their incredibly dishonourable deaths are consequences that stem directly from how they treated others as they lived. They could have avoided being murdered by Tyrion and the Tyrells respectively, had they not been so comically evil. The good characters you mentioned, whilst also being killed in a dishonourable manner, have tangible legacies that other characters actively carry forward into AFFC, ADWD and likely TWOW (if it ever comes out haha). The legacies of Eddard and Robb live on through the conspiracies of Northern Lords still loyal to the Stark cause, most famously Lord Wyman Manderly who will almost certainly defect to Stannis Baratheon now that his host has been sent forth from Bolton-ruled Winterfell to meet him. The remaining lords will defect from Roose/Ramsay at the earliest opportunity, as they command no loyalty or respect. A similar thing can be said for Oberyn and his sister Elia. Both of whom were killed by The Mountain. Putting aside the fact that The Mountain's death was probably the worst in the series so far - suffering and screaming in agony alone for weeks due to Oberyn's poison (deserved imo), only to be resurrected as a mindless zombie, there is the fact that because of how the Lannisters treated the Martells, the entirety of Dorne is now moving to support the cause of Aegon and/or Daenerys. The Lannister regime is all but over by the end of ADWD. Regarding the villains you mentioned having not faced their downfall, I would argue that this is mainly a consequence of Martin taking far too long to release the next two books. We have already seen Cersei destroy the little legacy Tywin left behind, make one stupid decision after another out of pride and paranoia. We can already see the seeds for the downfall of Roose and Ramsay in the form of the aforementioned obvious disloyalty from other Northern Lords. Littlefinger and Varys are the most difficult and I suspect we won't see the collapse of their schemes until a dream of spring.
@@nont18411 Being poisoned is a horrible way to die. Even Tywin had symptoms of widow's blood poisoning, and died shitting on the toilet, stinking horrendously. That's not a peaceful death, just because Tyrion killed him while already slowly dying.
Actually it being a mess of themes and building up so many storylines without finishing any is accodentally genius perhaps because now so many interpretations of themes, solutions to mysteries and continuations of stories now exist through fan theories etc Like seriously, the reasons so many of us are still so invested in this series is because it's unfinished and could go anywhere, so we discuss every little detail and have fun doing that. So in conclusion: The true meaning of a song of Ice and Fire is the friends we made along the way
You're absolutely correct, and that is one of my favorite things about asoiaf too. But right now George needs to tie up the story and that is difficult in a world like that.
This sounds a lot like the Silmarillion. The Elven kingdoms fall one-by-one to Morgoth's forces due to a combination of hubris, infighting, and Morgoth's exploits, retreat to an island, and send Earendil to beg the Valar for forgiveness. The Valar do save the elves but in the process Beleriand sinks beneath the sea, and the elves' human allies become the most powerful race in Arda.
Tolkien was also inspired by war. The worst war to be a solider in, in history. World war 1. He witnessed it all first hand and fought in it and he turned his experience into a story of hope for a better world. Its criminal to talk about Georges influence with the vietnam war, a war he didnt take part in but not mention ww1s influence on Tolkien, who actually did take part in it. If anybody understands war better of the two, its Tolkien.
It's also interesting to note, that the First World War was not at all a war with clear "bad guys" there were no evil villains, just competing Empires and nations. It more closely resembles the power struggles of the Seven Kingdoms, yet Tolkien made his story they way he did.
"And then, Heimdall will blow his might horn announcing Ragnarok, and Loki will come in his cursed ship with the unworthy dead to wage war against Asgard, accompanied by the Jotun and the fire giants, and fall in ruinous combat while also killing Heimdall. The monstrous wolves Haiti and Skol will devour the Sun and the Moon, and Fenrir finally kills the allfather Odin, being slain by his son Vengeance. Then, Thor and Jormungandr will engage in deadly battle, with Thor finally slain the serpent. Covered in the poisonous blood of the serpent of Midgard, Thor laughs, exclaiming "I did it! I've finally slain the serpent of Midgard!", then Thor takes 7 steps and falls to the ground, dead". GRRM: "but what was Odin's tax policy?"
@@goodnesswithfists Honestly now it feels funny because GRRM wrote some of the lore for Elden Ring and he obviously didn't apply the logic of ASOIAF to it because he understood that Elden Ring is a mythic high fantasy which is the same with LOTR.
@@goodnesswithfists Yeah but I think Martin should be honest about his progression, if he has trouble creating an ending for his story he should just be upfront about it. Although I don't fully agree with your interpretation that GRRM is obsessed with deconstructing medievalist fantasy, I do think that having the Others win would bring a good conclusion to the story and themes that GRRM presents in that cynical and ambitious power politics can lead to disastrous results in the long term. I am thinking of starting my own fantasy universe with elves, dwarves and humans competing for alien ruins and technology
In some old review, I read this quote: Martin won a contest Tolkien didn't attend. Tolkien didn´t subvert expectations, because he couldn't. He didn't write a story, he created a world (he wrote a mythology, not "a fiction"). He was the one making rules, there was no reason to violate them. Martin is telling a story about "real" people in a world where rules exist, even conflicting rules. It makes sense for the characters to not stick to them. They must break some to fulfill another.
@@mokarokas-1727 He is right tho. Martin is a writter of an exceptional talent, but this constant need to subvert and outdo Tolkien clearly shows he is lead by envy, not genuine love for storycraft in his work.
@@donaldhysa4836 Cool, we have Martin's personal psychiatrist in the thread now! How come you make up reasons to go after him personally, instead of arguing against his actual points of criticism? Going all ad hominem just makes it seem he's right and ya'll mad about it (which is why I feel the need to remind it's all about fantasy books).
Arya killing the "Night King" is a very poor example to use for an example of how the books might "end" like the show- since the books doesn't mention the presence of a "Night King" whatsoever. He is purely a show fabrication. There is even footage of Dan and Dave saying something to the effect that they thought "Arya" made the most sense for the scene. So they were trying to subvert Azor Ahai - not George. This fact alone is a major contributor to why many fans despise season 8. I doubt that George will screw that part up in the books. :b
Have you even read the books or are you another person who goes around saying "in the books" without really knowing? The Nights King is mentioned several times in the books and is pivotal to the story. The character the show named after him is an entirely original character exclusive to the show but there very much IS a Night/Nights King mentioned in the books.
I think it's fair to assume that George gave D&D the go-ahead on that, since he was involved with the production of the show. I definitely hope that he took the poor reception of the show finale as feedback though, and changed it for the books
@@pyramidion5911 the Night's King in the books is not at all like in the show (as the Big Bad Guy in charge of the Others). He's purely a background story, a legend. Probably a true legend that ties into the deep history of the Watch and the Others, but not at all the character named the same that's in the show who actually shows up on-screen regularly.
@@pyramidion5911lol what? The Night's King as a character existed long long ago and shares absolutely nothing with the show's Night King, except maybe the similar name. There is no indication whatsoever that he will come back and lead the Others. The Night King is D&D's version of the Great Other. In the books, he never touched Bran and definitely won't ride an ice dragon. The fact that they chose to cram the whole threat of the Others into this single destructible character shows their incompetence and lack of familiarity with the books. The stark difference between the Others and the humans is that they DON'T have a leader, especially not one that could be tricked with a sleight of hand and POOF! Winter is over. Part of what makes them so terrifying is their sheer numbers. Cut down one, and ten will rise to replace.
@@FlameQwert not a background character at all. He is one of the most important characters in the entire story and very much alive. Again, did you guys even read the books? Grrm doesn't spell things out, you would be absolutely amazed at how much of the deeper story you can piece together. To the point where it catches up with the current story being told. Connect enough dots and you will realize what happened to the characters in the old stories and where/who they currently are in the timeline.
Btw the themes are post modernism even in morality eg: if you do good, you can lose; if you do good, you can win; if you do evil you can win; if you do evil you can lose . This creates the impression that anything can happen, no one is safe.
I like how Jaime's character is a double subversion. At first he looked like the typical knight in shining armor, turned out to be a child-killing, sister-fucking, oath-breaking asshole. GRRM initially intended for him to sit the iron throne, be the main villain but that would have been too easy. And so he subverted his own expectation and wrote the greatest redemption arc in history. Jaime's character, after 2 subversions, became the one of most complex and well-liked character in the asoiaf universe.
Well, the differences are the beauty of it all. How long would Aragorn etc. last in Westeros? Why does the apple or the orange have to be lesser? Incessantly pitting Tolkien and Martin against each other in some kind of contest really serves to prove the lack of real criticism around here.
@@mokarokas-1727 except for the fact that Martin himself has opened that can of worms. Admittedly, he has said that he respects the Lord of the Rings and Tolkien, but has also criticized it and some of its themes. If he didn’t want these comparisons he shouldn’t have opened his mouth.
@@cubaj8723 Comparisons and criticism doesn't make it a contest, though. Y'all are so stand-offish about this. "He shouldn't have opened his mouth", how dare he criticize MY football team? lol
@@cubaj8723 Martin loves Tolkien while still being able to criticize certain parts of his work. Something you bigoted mfs are clearly unable to achieve.
@@cubaj8723 geirge loves tolkien and his writings. Critisism isnt hate. Nothing is perfect and some of the critisimsss he had were valid. Till this day hardcore lotr fans can tell you a few things tolkien might have done better, that doesnt mean they hate it or think they are better than the man himslef. We are all just trying to take examples and improve and nit make same mistakes.
While I agree with your ending, the only thing I disagree is that Jon somehow barely participated in this at all, considering that he’s a character who’s the most invested in this white walker issue since the beginning. He should be the one to do something about it, not being left out altogether because “subversion”.
Good point, he should have a central role. Maybe he can do something, where he can sacrifice himself (redeeming himself after breaking his oath with Ygritte) to prevent the Others from reaching the Arbor
Jon Snow's role was simply to alert the people of Westeros to the very real threat of the White Walkers and collecting an Alliance to face them. It was simply Jonstans who insisted Jon somehow needed to fight the (non-existent) "Night King".
12 minutes in now and I don't think you're really correct about all of this. "A Song of Ice & Fire" isn't about subverting Tolkien, it's about deconstructing Tolkien. Those are NOT the same things. Subversion is just about making it superficially seem like you're going to do it in the same way, and then pulling the rug out from under people to reveal it is the opposite. But this is not what George does. What he does is he takes a closer look at the assumptions and beliefs inherent in Tolkien's writing and lays out the benefits, the downsides, the flaws, and the nuances of them. Your example about advice is actually a good one to go to in order to illustrate this. Your argument is that Robert and Ned is a subversion of Gandalf and Theodin because in this case good advice just strengthens the bad king's bad qualities. But putting aside whether that's a fair description, I don't really think it is, I would point you to someone like Young Griff. This character is clearly set up to be advised in a better way and, though hardly perfect, to probably be willing to listen to his advisors and make some good decisions too. Daenerys does as well. She struggles to create peace in Meereen, listens to some of her advisors, and helps to create peace. Yes, the peace falls apart due to bad actors but she did still manage to create peace. This nuance is possible because, again, you're not correct about what George is trying to create. He isn't trying to subvert Tolkien, he is trying to deconstruct him. Show all of the nuances, assumptions and investigate them. Martin's world also is not nihilistic, it's existentialist in nature. George's world isn't about saying there is no meaning, it's about saying that people choose their meaning.
I remember reading in Tolkien's letters that he didn't want to subvert Shakespeare's tropes, but instead to "do them right", for example he thought that the way Macbeth "can't be killed except by a man not born of a woman" was clumsily executed. So he wasn't trying to subvert, he was bolstering Shakespeare's tropes, at least in this case
@@goodnesswithfists I believe Godard said the best way to criticize a film is to make a better film. People can debate whether Tolkien did fantasy better than Shakespeare, but at least he has complete works to compare (perhaps the more relevant comparison might be "The Worm Ouroboros" or "The Gods of Pegana", more recent fantasy books that Tolkien criticized). GRRM might have set out to criticize Tolkien by writing what he thought was the more realistic take, but he never got around to the point where he can actually describe a good ruler's tax policy.
I find this analysis is a little myopic, for a couple of reasons, I will try to my best to give a few. First of all, A Song of Ice and Fire isn't specifically a response to Tolkien; the reputation it gets for being "subversive" is in large part owed to the TV show that marketed itself as being adult and subversive of fantasy. Asoiaf is still heavy with tropes and themes, and there is nothing particularly anti-fantasy about it. There are unexpected twists and turns, and quite a few of them, but what makes them shocking is the fact that the story has been silently building to them while we the readers are none the wiser. GRRM's comments about Tolkien are not specifically a criticism of Tolkien himself as a writer but a commentary of the impact his work has had on fantasy (which he himself is not immune to) and the way The Lord of the Rings has shaped the genre in ways Tolkien himself could never have anticipated. As in your commentary about chivalry in the books, I don't think GRRM is critical of the concept of chivalry; quite the contrary. Though yes, the idealism of characters like Sansa and Jaime who revere the knights of the songs and legend gets brutally tested, the Starks are posited as the heroes of the story precisely because of their honor and decency. Rather, I would argue what the story proposes is that chivalry and the strict code of honor the characters subscribe to (at least in theory) is the only failsafe in a system that is very much ripe for exploitation, from people like the Lannisters who have very little scrupples and will do anything to promote their own interests. However family ties are not portrayed as a necessarily bad thing; the Starks suffer for being parted from one another and all struggle to get home. "The lone wolf dies but the pack survives". Familial bonds are important. However they should not hamper one's partiality, as is demonstrated again by the Lannisters. You also mention the famous quote about Aragorn's tax policy and you specifically say 'he'd do what a wise and good King would do' but that's exactly the point... you can be as wise and good as you can, that still can not surmount the limitations of your resources and circumstances (as demonstrated by Daenerys in the books), and when there's a famine a good King may have to take harsh decisions. Politics is complicated, and goodness is not always rewarded in real life; for example, Ned Stark does the honorable thing and gets punished for it, because not everyone is playing by the rules. If they were, meaning, if everyone was chivalrous, then he wouldn't have met that end, but he makes that assumption because of his own morality and that brings about his downfall. I'd argue the framing tricks us here but it's not subversion for subversion's sake, it is the natural conclusion of what the story has been building up to since the beginning. I am also puzzled by your final point about the significance of the "father myth" because the inclusion of a personified god is very much not what makes Tolkien's lore work, and it shouldn't really be, Tolkien draws from a rich tradition of myths and stories, building upon them and weaving them into an intricate tapestry that produces something new. GRRM takes a more nihilistic approach and is critical of systems that can be abused to the detriment of the vulnerable, ergo, he is critical of religion; though it is unclear whether supernatural forces that we might name Gods are at play here, in fact that is heavily suggested. That is also not subversion for subversion's sake, as the philosophical concept of a god who is either indifferent to humanity or not necessarily benevolent is one that predates Martin. Tolkien appeals to our inner goodness and innocence that fables often cater to and as such his universe is governed by benevolent forces and his characters are fundamentally good. Each story is different. Each makes a different point. So each uses different building blocks to get to it. All in all, while I find most of your arguments compelling for the most part, I think the thesis of this video boils down to Tolkien-Good Martin-Bad, and I don't see why that is; they take fundamentally different stances on a lot of matters, but each has its own merits and each brand of fantasy does have a place in the jaded world that we occupy in the present moment. And they are both, at the end of the day, escapism into imagination, if you really think about it. And lastly, I would like to believe that "war is bad" is a pretty much uncontroversial statement. No?
Great analysis, thanks for adding to the conversation. I agree with you, mostly, except for your last point that this video’s ultimate argument is Tolkien good, Martin bad. I think that is the main premise of the first two acts of the video, in order to set up for the third act, the video’s ACTUAL argument: that Martin isn’t just a bad rip off of Tolkien, and that for Martin’s works to make sense in his own world, the story of ASOIAF has to end in tragedy.
@@felixdawson8497 I think the comparison drawn is pretty overt, but I would like to posit that The Lord of the Rings has a pretty sad ending if you think about it; the Shire has been saved, but the Hobbits can never go back to it. They have seen the real world, their innocence left behind in the quest. I think asoiaf can have a "good" ending in the sense that humanity doesn't perish. I'm certain that conflict will not disappear from the world of men even if the white walkers are defeated. The title "a Dream of Spring" suggests at least some modicum of hope. That is, if we ever do get it 😅
@@bilnik6593 “War is bad”. But without war, the regimes like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy would still exist today. Martin’s work condemns good people who tried to do the right thing like Ned and Jon as “stupid and deserve to die” while justifying the war crimes committed by bad people like Tywin Lannister and Littlefinger as “a smart and necessary move”. He seems to identify with the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao and condemns good people who tried to fight against them.
@@nont18411 ??? How??? Did we even read the same books? First of all, I'm not even going to get into all the ways comparing this fictional power struggle to WWII is comparing apples to oranges and defer the question back to you... what is your point? Aggressive regimes exist so militarism is necessary to combat them? Ignoring the fact that this strikes a bit too close to the rhetoric these particular regimes use to justify their aggressions, let's accept that war is unavoidable in many cases, that does not mean it isn't bad. To be more specific, Martin's point is explicitly that the wars of the powerful end up affecting the powerless; the struggle for the throne devastates the country and destroys the livelihood of the peasants. And yeah, that is a pretty solid point. Martin's work does not condemn good people, but I understand why the TV show might give the impression that it does; D&D were very prone to have the characters speak like the fans would and therefore accept the fanbase's verdict that Jon and Ned were goody-goody dum-dumbs who played themselves. That is 100% not how it is treated in the books. See, I don't see where you get GRRM identifying with Stalin and Mao; if anything, Tywin Lannisters cruelty and callousness is very much portrayed as a bad thing that serves to highlight the corruption inherent in the system that not only enables but rewards unscrupulous and immoral people. Again, did we read the same book?
I take umbrage with this video lol. As someone who loves both Tolkien and Martin I think you’ve misunderstood the latter of these two by quite a bit. Let’s go analyze a few points here. “Oaths cannot be taken seriously” No, this is not the case, there are people who *do* keep their oaths generally at great personal cost. That’s what Martin is saying, Duty requires sacrifice, that’s why so many *cant* keep their word, because it’s difficult and comes with a price. Take Ned for example, he chooses to honor his oath to his dying sister at the cost of his own honor, he never breaks his vow to his sister but it certainly wasn’t easy to do so. There is also the point of when is it better to break your oath? Jamie for example was sworn to protect the king but in breaking that oath, saved countless innocent people. You bring up family ties as well, which is rather odd, as there is plenty of familial turmoil in Tolkiens writing. I mean Feanor and Fingolfin are great examples of that, Feanor leaves Fingolfin to die after crossing a frozen sea and hates him because he has a different mother. And Turin’s story is worse, he quite literally falls in love with his sister, she ends up killing herself when she finds out and in his despair Turin has his own sword slay him, there are no victors in his story. Sounds pretty grim dark to me. Or Eol’s son lusting after his own cousin, there is plenty of weird familial drama in Tolkiens tales. I also heavily disagree with your take on Martin’s interpretation of religion, it’s not entirely “false” just esoteric and often misunderstood. Take for example the faith of R’hllor, clearly there is some force at play with the practitioners of this faith, with fire magic, bringing people back to life etc. It is true the Martin criticizes institutions of religion I.e the Catholic Church (which I don’t think anyone would argue has not had plenty of corruption in it) and presents a world where the gods are not readily benevolent. Remember that Martin was also heavily inspired by the works of H.P Lovecraft, where the “gods” of his world are indifferent to humanity. That is more so the type of world George writes about, a place we’re the higher powers seemingly don’t care about humans unless they are willing to do something for the gods first(often in the form of sacrifice) certainly it’s different from a Christian viewpoint but it’s not explicitly anti-religious. There are good religious characters in the story, Thoros of Myr comes to mind You say that George can’t help himself when it comes to “subverting” Tolkien tropes but I don’t think that at all. Sure George can criticize at times the romanticized notions of fantasy ideals but this idea he’s taking everything Tolkien did and making it “oh so dark and edgy” is a very surface level take away from what most of Martin says. A great example of this is, the supposed ruling lineage of the realms. Aragorn is destined to be king because he is descended from the men of Numenor, the great men of old. He can wield the reforged blade of his ancestors, has their healing hands and is the rightful heir to Gondor Now compare that with the Targaryens, George makes the point that just because you are of a certain bloodline does not inherently make you a good person, plenty of Targ kings run the kingdom nearly to ruin because they weren’t fit for the job to rule, but got it anyway because of their lineage. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t good Targaryen kings in the story, there are a couple actually, it’s more that a man’s ideals is what makes him fit to rule not his bloodline. That’s the obvious story of Jon Snow, he’s the right one to rule because he tries his best to live by his adoptive father’s code of honor not because he’s the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. A Song of Ice and Fire is about how often our wants and desires conflict with what doing the right thing is, and how often doing what is right is difficult and costly. A story of people in an uncaring and hostile world still trying to do what they think is right. Not some hopeless world where everyone dies in the end. Illustrated in the conversation between Davos and Stannis when Stannis says “what is the life of one boy compared to the good of the realm.” And Davos says “Everything.” There are people who still do good and persist even when it is the more difficult option, even when the world is against them. This video comes across as praising Tolkien for sharing in your religious beliefs and mocking Martin for not doing so. As such it comes across as really bad faith arguments. That’s my takeaway anyhow, I’d encourage you to read them again with the outlook of the conflicts between, duty, honor, love and desire since that’s what George has said his story is about not a grim dark nihilistic Tolkien hit piece like you seem to think.
2:28: "Maybe that's the reason why George can't finish his sixth book - the ending he'd originally planned is too close to the unpopular show ending." I think you've nailed it. George himself has stated several times that he really liked the secondary/minor threat of Saruman having to be dealt with after the main war with Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, so you can bet your last penny that his books will be, or at least WERE, following this template, which would mean dealing with Cersei after the Night King, in the same way as the show. In this way, the title 'A Song of Ice and Fire' compliments both the 'main' protagonist Joh Snow (born from Fire and Ice) and the twin threats of ice and fire (The Knight King and Daenerys). Personally speaking, I no longer care in the slightest whether Martin finishes the books or not - you've seen the story play out already in the show, and how did you all feel about it? Besides, while the books are undoubtably great examples of fantasy writing, they're not a patch on the first five seasons of Game of Thrones, which managed to cut out all the over-detailed filler (how many buttons are on a waistcoat, for example) that slowed the books to a halt constantly, introduce scenes which had better dialogue, and was far more streamlined (well, we're still waiting on George aren't we). Unless I'm out of other books, I really can't see me returning to A World of Song and Fire in book format (I feel I've gotten all I can from it at now), although I do love House of the Dragon, and consider myself fully on-board with any new series' developments (I'm almost certain we won't see another season 8 of GOT these days).
Many people including me have picked up on those symmetries you mention, "the twin threats of ice and fire", that whether willingly or not, GRRM has ended up with elements of classic "unrealistic" storytelling in ASOIAF, that help the story gain some overarching themes. But it's not enough I'm afraid: even when the series, as you say, cut out the unnecessary plot arcs, its conclusion felt wrong and clumsy. Fundamentally I feel like ASOIAF is a story that has never been meant to be properly finished, because giving stories a proper conclusion goes against GRRM's view of what is realistic and what isn't - hence why he liked that after Sauron's downfall there was still evil in Middle Earth with Saruman.
Except gourge was already struggling with winds before tye show ended so thats clearly not the reason, plus gourge has told what his original ending was to a extent at least from his original outline and its nothing like the show at all, its impossible for the books to have ended anywhere similar to the show since the show removed so many things from the books thats there almost too completely different stories.
I would hate that. If there's stupid throne stuff after the threat of the Others is dealt with, then that defeats the whole purpose of the Others existing.
I think fandom, and the most ASOIAF theoretics for years have been having versions of how to finish ASOIAF. You can take, for example, the best of them David Lightbringer (im my opinion) who goes through endless sea of symbolism and narrative roles present in ASOAIF and deciphers it all into a beautiful tapestry of mythological foreshadowing and (hopefully) future plot. There is nothing wrong that at some point some characters would act out the roles of "chosen ones" and so on, that you think George can't allow them to and therefore, he can't finish the books on a thematical level. Lightbringer's videos show an abundance of thematical coherence in ASOIAF and how exactly those tropes can still be subverted (against in-world prophecies and expectations). He analyzed Azor-Ahai myth, the Others and the possible resolution of the conflict, that is rooted deeply in the fact that George is a hippie in his heart, too. You're saying that it cannot be done only shows that you think it can't, because it is nihilistic in nature and, therefore, should disintegrate into a chaotic mess. Stories don't need an almighty Creator injecting himself into the narrative to wrap up or make sense or obtain the sense of purpose. That is a religious view that purpose can only be given from high above, and if not then everything is meaningless. I can assure you, there's plenty of non-believers out there who don't find life meaningless at all. I just want to say that there's plenty of books written and completed out there, much more nihilistic than ASOIAF ever will be, and they are finished. It is enough to look at plenty of "Grimdark" genre examples to see that even with trope subversion authors can finish books. Heck, even Dune is subverting the chosen one trope with Paul and he still does what hero's journey needs him to do, just in a subversive manner. There's plenty of room to keep with what ASOIAF is doing and go down to Azor Ahai vs Others, and still subvert it, in George's hippie's way, which is what majority of fandom thinks it will be (show sucked here). The fact that Martin can't finish a story is not rooted in the nihilism or subversion of tropes that he has to follow to the T. It is rooted in his absolutely poor writing routine, moody distractions, gardening approach and, probably, his 1987 DOS computer.
I think you're wrong about the knighthood stuff. Yes it was probably a lot more to do with religion and all that in real medieval Europe, but there are plenty of accounts of knights abusing their status and being every bit as depraved as they are in ASOIAF. One example of this that I can think of is, during a tourney a bunch of knights decided to completely ransack and destroy a nearby village basically just for fun doing some very ungodly things while they're at it. Yes chivalry and all that existed, but it also exists in ASOIAF, there are many who break the codes and many who stick to them, this is how humans are in reality too
Right, false knights did exist as exceptions to the rule. But I was talking more about what it meant to become a knight - you couldn't just dub all you followers. And of course knights couldn't make knights - a Lord together with the Church makes knights
@@goodnesswithfists Fair enough I see your point, I have not heard whether or not George intended it to be a 1:1 copy of European medieval culture with dragons and magic though so I suppose that's how that difference could be explained? But I am unsure, maybe he did just incorrectly think this is how it worked
@@jackjones7062 There are *a lot* of things in Westeros that are different from real world medieval societies. For example, in Westeros, girls are married off pretty much the second they bleed. In the Holy Roman Empire, the legal age for marriage was 15, years after menstruation starts for most women. He essentially takes the worst aspects of feudalism and exaggerates them while leaving out a lot of the more reasonable things. We also never hear of any system of guilds and crafts, making you wonder how Westeros' urban economy even functions.
@@tarvoc746 See I get your point, and he probably does include a lot of the darker aspects of medieval society because that's what a lot of people find most interesting, but if westeros is meant to be more like north west Europe than Byzantium, I have read many cases of women being married off at the age of 13 in this part of the world at the time. It is impossible to look at any 1 area and say "ah yes this is what George based westeros on" because he pulled inspiration from many medieval cultures, and I imagine he did make up entirely new things that just seemed to fit with the world
@@jackjones7062 ...Byzantium? I never mentioned Byzantium. The Holy Roman Empire is the name of the Empire covering medieval Germany, Swizerland, Austria, the Benelux and Northern Italy for most of the middle ages. It has nothing to do with Byzantium.
In my heart, I think that GRRM realized one of three things: 1) GRRM has realized he's written himself into a corner and is desperately trying to find a way out of the woods without resorting to killing off characters left and right. He views a mass culling of the named characters as some kind of 'cop out' and is futilely trying to tie up every storyline in a nice bow (even though killing off a huge chunk of the characters would be pretty in line with the real life inspiration for ASoIaF, the War Of The Roses). 2) Like you said in the video, he saw people hate one of his planned endings, and thinks that the only other real option he had, that being the White Walkers come in and kill everyone because they won't stop squabbling for long enough to stop them, would be even worse (even though that'd be kind of awesome imo). 3) He's resigned himself to never finishing the series, or letting any other author finish it, in his lifetime, but it is too chicken to admit that to his audience.
Aside from that, he wrote in Dreamsongs that his career was littered with the corpses of dead series, and that Tuf Voyaging was his breakthrough in writing enough short stories about a character to compile into a book. He progressed from short stories to some standalone novels like Fevre Dream and Armageddon Rag but never wrote a novel series prior to A Song of Ice and Fire, which means he's also never finished such a series. A "gardener" like him might be incapable of finishing any novel series.
George deconstructs all the traditional beliefs and customs of his own civilisation, thats why its called "WESTeros", but when tasked with replacing those things with something better he struggles immensly. Whatever he puts forward will be subjective and even more easily deconstructed. And of course he doesn't have the guts for a truly nihilistic ending.
And THIS is his biggest problem. Martin is an "anti-establishment anarchist" (regarding the standard High Fantasy concept) who doesn't have an answer. He only knows how to point out what's broken and what's terrible, not offer any suggestions to make things better.
@@Wind_Falcon I agree. It's like that person who constantly points out every flaw and mistake in a film because they think they can do better, but they never offer any ways to improve it. Only coloured by an edgelord mentality that blows every negative up into a straw man mockery.
It’s funny that George states that due to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, many fantasy writers created worlds with dark lords and ugly minions, oh no it should be that way, he says. Yet if you analyze his world with the Others/White Walkers and the night king it’s essentially the same concept except you swapped out orc for ice zombie. Brilliant George very original.
Especially funny since his world is just full of dark lords who let their minions brutalise the poor humble small-folk for no reason other than ambivalent malice. He hasn’t deconstructed that trope at all, he’s just made his dark lords as parodies of medieval nobles, gave them selfish reasons for their actions, and called it “grey morality”.
Not really, you are confusing the show with the books, in the books the others aren't zombies, they have been featured very sparingly and in the few times that they have been featured they are described as ghosts, fey, shadows, ice etc. they aren't dark at all they are very bright, almost alien in their appearance. They do use zombies (the wights) but that's that, and the night king mentioned in the books is a mythological character (a lord commander of the Night's Watch) and not the chief Other.
The others are not just "ice zombies", especially if you delve into theories that indicate they are much, much more than a horde of baddies the protagonist has to mow down later. Not to mention that the book's Night's King is not the show's Night King. There is a world of difference between the two, tying into the possible role of the Others in the books (and how this affects the stories of POV characters like Jon, Daenerys, Stannis, etc.
It reminds me of the story of how "Easy Rider" had no ending when filming started; they were originally going to cross the entire country. After six months of shooting mostly useless footage the studio hired a script doctor to write a satisfying, but quick ending. I will not spoil the ending here, but he got paid a lot of money for a few lines of text.
I agree that ASOIAF cannot end without heavy involvement from Bran and the Weirdwoods, and that’s why the Show didn’t work. It systematically reduced the role of magic any time it could thus the ending felt weird and unearned. Therefore the book ending can possibly work. At 16:00 when you talk about possible American fantasy involving a monarch stepping down from power made me immediately think about Brandon Sanderson who has this exact thing happen several times
Martin's self described "gardeners" style of writing may have overwhelmed him. He spent so much time growing the story that it's too big for him to finish.
- A crippled girl like Princess Shireen got burned alive as a blood sacrifice. - An overly detailed sexual assault scene of Ramsay and Jeyne Poole. - A glorification of Tywin Lannister by giving him a cool theme song “Rains of Castamere” to celebrate him committing genocide after genocides. - Robb Stark, a hero, got punished by breaking the oath in a universe that everyone else breaks their oaths without facing consequences. To top that, he got his corpse beheaded and replaced with his wolf’s head as a mockery in death. - Oberyn Martell, who wanted to seek justice for his sister and her children, got his head exploded like a watermelon. - Ned Stark got beheaded and branded as a traitor. - Tyrion Lannister turned into an evil stereotype that everyone else branded him as, which means Tywin, an abuser, won in the end. - Littlefinger, a literal pedophile, is happily grooming Sansa Stark, as a revenge against Catelyn who rejected him. - A crippled boy like Bran got his mind and identity hijacked by a dark magic wizard like Bloodraven. He also got forced to eat his own friend. - Euron Greyjoy, a genocidal dictator and a known rapist, makes fun of religions to spite his own brother Aeron Greyjoy, who’s also one of his rape victims. - Jon Connington is now willing to commit war crimes like Tywin Lannister because he saw how it gave Tywin fame, glory, money and respect. It’s a very cynical series if you ask me and it mocks idealism big time.
@@nont18411 Idealism without challenge is just preaching. Idealism which does win overall when challenged by evil is earned. That is also why Dostoevsky is 100% anti-cinic.
My main beef with the final season of the television show is that the burning of King's landing is the conclusion and not the final battle with the others. I have no problem with the Mother of Dragons going mad and burning everyone and needing to be killed. I have no problem with the Nights King being killed by a little girl with a sword. They are just the wrong way round. I would move the battle of Winterfell to the charred ruins of King's Landing. With snow and falling ash merging. I would probably set it in daytime so we can see what's happening. One of my favourite television endings is Blakes 7. I've always wanted a story to end with evil succeeding and seeing what that means. What does a society of ice zombies do when the warm are all cold? Maybe when spring comes new dragons will hatch and reset the dance. Trees will cover the cities. Spring will bring forth blossom in a world without men. The Titan of Braavos, The Harpy of Yunkai, The faces of the Weirwoods could look out at a silent world of skulls and bones.
25:25 He specifically shows that peace times are good. There are several generations if peace at several times in the franchise. There was a decade of peace after Robert's Rebellion. There was well over half a century of peace during the reigns of Jaeherys and Viserys I.
@@PatrickKniesler It a core difference because Tolkein wasn't just a Catholic, He was a English Catholic who is only two step away from being sedevancatist. Meaning he was more in touch with the theology of his work and the ideal of a Catholic life during the mass reforms of the Second Vatican Council which he himself rejected.
In the idea of subversion, I think Jon would become a big-bad of the Others, as: 1) His story, being most about fighting against the Others, then becomes fighting with the others. 2) As there are many hints of his possibly being Azorahai, the saviour from the darkness, him instead being one of them who brings it upon the world. 3) As being of the Stark blood, which is heavily implied to be mixed with the Others, there might be something of him or at least another stark, to doom the rest of the world not of the Others. 4) Being of the nightswatch, a group often ignored and belittled by the rest of the kingdom, it would be ironic if they would end up destroying the kingdom as puppets of the Others.
I agree. The story can only end the way you stated. Jon becomes leader of the white walkers and wakes up whatever is in the crypts. In the final he gets smoked by Danny who by then should already have the throne with the help of Euron who gets smoked by Arya or or something like that. Everything else doesn't make a lick of sense and goes nowhere. Even taken the straight route I think it's unfinishable since none of the major plots get resolved unless being steamrolled over by convenient misfortunes
Ramsey owns the hounds but I don't know if they'd actually consider him their master, that would be the kennelmaster who takes care of them. They'd only see Ramsey when the hunts happen, and the kennelmaster would be there too.
This is what I've always said, the walkers should destroy the kingdoms and slaughter everyone And I think you're right, it's his only option to end this thing
18:47 I'm sorry, mate, but equating Martin's book with the abomination of a series Dave an Dan created is just wild to me. And I'm very sure that Martin already expressed and hinted quite often at his discontent with how the series ended. I highly doubt Martin seeks to subvert his own bulld up by letting some randon character defear the White Walkers. Also, I don't agree at all with how you paint him as a nihilistic, vengeful hippie who justs wants to show the world how awful it is.
13:40 I’d like to challenge this. George as a history buff understands this very well. The choices he makes are deliberate. He is completely concious of the decisions he is making in even after considering the analogous historical context, as opposed to making decisions with lack of understanding. Where ideals differ, is clearly a choice.
I don't think GRRM knows actual history that well. He's into historical fiction and pop history. He doesn't seem to have any understanding of how often mothers died in childbirth prior to doctors displacing midwives.
Ever since the show ended, I’ve always thought there could only be three potential endings for the series, and you nailed one of them. 1: George’s initial plan for the end was actually very close to how the show ended. But now seeing the kind of reception that got, couldn’t possibly still go with it. 2: One of the main characters manages to unite the Seven Kingdoms together, and banish the threat of the White Walkers. Seeing how much George has beefed with the character of Aragorn, and always seems to portray his story as the modern “response” to LOTR, I couldn’t ever see George swallowing his pride and doing this ending. 3. Much like how you posit, the White Walkers return, the Seven Kingdoms cannot overcome their selfish bickering, and die one by one. Westeros becomes a cold, barren tomb. As fitting as an ending as this is for the series, I kinda doubt George would spend so many years of effort to write a seven book series only to end with “nothing mattered and everyone died” Looking back on it, it kinda seems like ASOIAF was unfinishable from the start. From book one we are told that there will come a time when The Game of Thrones no longer matters and that everyone must unite against the coming threat. But at the same time, almost everything George has written tells us that such a scenario could never happen. These people are just too self-serving, too myopic and conceited to ever unite for a cause that doesn’t directly benefit them. Good video man!
George has communicated a very clear ending to the story which in all probability will end with a semi-democratic system in place in Westeros. Not everyone may have picked this up but it's there. His struggle is bringing all the sprawling narratives back to the conclusion. Tolkien's style reflects the POV of an omniscient narrator which was popular in the early to mid-twentieth-century. I actually find the unreliable narrators in ASOIAF more compelling. As far as the naming convention, that's just English grammar. All of the other titles have countable nouns- game, clash, storm, feast and dream are all countable. Winds is an uncountable noun, so you can't use a or an. There is an overarching narrative that will be revealed even if everyone may not be able to see it at this point. Don't focus so much on Tolkien, GRRM has many influences. Also, he is not going to switch to an omniscient God-like narrator, which would be stupid. Also, you can't rely on the show for the conclusion. It was just foolish. Overall, I think there is some validity to this conclusion, it's just not as nuanced as the real ending will be.
Yes, the democratic ending is the only valid ending for an American story. But the problem with that is that it absolutely breaks with the medieval fantasy setting. GRRM, after creating one of the most cynical and nihilistic fantasy universes, would suddenly turn around and say that medieval lords and peasants were suddenly able to participate in a democracy. I do not believe it. I don't believe any of them would even want democracy. To the people of that time, democracy is morally repugnant to a degree we moderns simply don't understand. Also, it's not about the narrator. While Tolkien's omniscient narrator is popular with me, I don't dislike GRRM's choice of POV. But the POV is not the issue, the issue is that Tolkien's world has a grand plan (from Eru Illuvatar) driving the whole story, while GRRM's world doesn't until now. I'm not suggesting that he "switches to an omniscient God-like narrator" but I think that he should introduce an omniscient God.
@@goodnesswithfists There are already some quazi democratic societies already in play in the world. One of them is making a big play for control in a post apocalyptic Westeros. I'm not suggesting Democracy the way we know it today, but possilby something that allows the elites to choose a leader and eliminates heriditary male primogenitor. But we will probably only get hints of this possibilty as this is not the end point of the story. I don't understand the purpose of an omniscient God in this story. Tolkein is Eru Illuvatar. That was the way literature was written at that time. It's passe now. No one writes like that anymore.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you understand the novels on the same level the show runners of game of thrones did. I'm 13 mins in so far and it seems like you think george is writing things simply to subvert expectations, and to suggest that "nihilism" is some sort of truth. This couldn't be further from the truth and its genuinely sad how many people can miss this in his writing. He writes magical realism, and uses the lens of historical fantasy to explore that idea. In LOTR the characters are idealized versions of "people" but they aren't really "people" they are characters that are nearly perfect in their convictions. In ASOIAF they are simply people, acting with their own interests in mind; Much like the real world. It's strange to look at this and think "george must be nihilistic" unless you are in fact a nihilist yourself. George explores what it REALLY means to be a hero. There are MANY examples of this but lets look at Ned stark. He dies because he didn't want Cerce and her children to be killed, he betrays his honour and names Joff a trueborn son of robert only in the hopes that his daughters might live. To be a hero is give yourself for what you TRULLY believe in. We see Ned as honourable because he wears honour quite convincingly. But in truth what he cares about is family, and family is what he dies for. He forsakes his honour for the sake of his sister and the promise he swore to her (to keep jon safe from robert who wanted to kill all targs), and bears the shame of having a bastard. He forsakes his honour by naming joff trueborn, only once Varys reminds him that if he keeps his honour something might happen to his daughters. He lives and dies for family. The subversion in his character is not that his honour is weak, its that his honour is to his family, not some shallow LOTR style honour. Ok I watched another 30 seconds.... George's inspirations are numerous. Yes, history plays a part in shaping how the story reads, as does his hatred for war. But Norse mythology is CENTRAL to the entire culture of westoros and specifically the north. Verdic Mythos is central to Dany's plot. Tarot cards and comic book references can be seen in just about every inch of the story. Weirwood trees are OBVIOUSLY a parallel to Ygg or the world tree from norse myth. Literally any character who has one eye is an Odin parallel. Kali = khaliessi. Bran falling from the broken tower is a "The tower" reference from tarot cards. the list goes on. I cannot believe you suggested that chivalry and piety were somehow different or uniquely pure in medieval europe. There are countless tales of knights being brutes, or priests who abused their powers. Knights were a product of the church (because the king was the product of the church), and Knights in westoros are the product of the Faith of the Seven (because the king is the product of the faith of the seven. Aegon the conqourer was crowned in the light of the Seven. He does this to give his rule legitimacy) why would you expect them to require land as the Christian knights did? Its a different religion that governs them. I'm at 18:55 and it seems you think George was MUCH more involved in the shows than he was. He stopped talking to the show runners after season 4 and only ever wrote 4 episodes. The plot beats the showrunners used to script the ending (from seasons 6-8) was based on notes written in the style akin Fire and blood but even less detailed. I'm at 24:40 and again it seems like you're missing a lot of the point. Robert's rule was properious but after he's dead (and even during) its clear he's beggared the realm. They borrow and borrow and borrow and its clear that this will come back to bite them. Ned even talks about this before the tourney for the Hand. He complains that the crown is in debt but still borrows. Robert valued appearances and idealized versions of things. He wanted people to keep up appearance and so he raised little finger to master of coin because he was able to do that, but Robert did not care about the long term effects of this. When Ned becomes Hand and actually denis robert, its world shattering for him. I'm at 28:40 and I'm giving up. Its blindly obvious that you don't understand the themes at work. I won't say the ending is "obvious" to predict but every concluded plotline we have is a major hint as to how the story will end. Again Ned is a template/archetype (much like the Seven aspects of god in the Faith's religion); Characters will Give themselves entirely for what they truly believe in. Jon snow wants legitimacy because he was denied it. Tyrion wants revenge for the blame he bore for joff's death. Dany wants to provide home/shelter and free slaves because she never had a home, and knows what it is to be a scared child sold into slavery. If I would be so bold as to make a prediction as to how this all ends here I go: In very broad strokes: Jon is reborn and looked at as a deity for escaping death and rules the night's watch as the original night king did (the book version not the cringe HBO version). He discovers his purpose has something to do with the heart of winter and now that he can't die, he's perfectly suited to travel north. Dany wants to free slaves but is also being counciled by tyrion who wants revenge on the people of king's landing and for the whole tysa situation. Tyrion tricks dany into activating the wild fire caches that are placed all around king's landing. The people view her was a tyrant and a monster so she seeks absolution by answering the call of the night's watch and defeating the others with jon and freeing the thralls (or slaves) of the others . However she will likely have to killself in this process or her dragons, and its very likely that history will not remember her kindly. These are again, broad strokes and characters like Euron will definitely play a part. also at 11:30 you suggest that george wrote the dogs eating ramsey scene in the tv show... which he didn't, that was the showrunners D&D.
@@mokarokas-1727 yes they are way different in the books Yet they are still otherworldly beings that control an army of undead that are the enemies of mortals. While the Night King wasn’t in the books like he was in the show there was still a Night King and he still was evil
@@MrLuisfrossi But that was just a leader of the Night's Watch who went crazy, not a Sauron. lol If anything, you could claim he was seduced by an agent of evil, similar to Théoden. And Sauron doesn't have an army of undead... Aragorn did for a bit, though.
@@mokarokas-1727 still they are the evil faction hellbent on wiping out life on earth. And while the Night King is no Sauron, the Bloodstone Emperor surely is, and he’s heavily implied to have started the Long Night when he took control of Yi Ti, and was stopped by Azhor Ahai, tho the people of that land call him Sparrow
The point about him actually not understanding medieval Europe, especially when it's coming through the lens of an American, who probably only ever got his information through relatively skewed and heavily simplified works, is pretty spot on. Considering he also started writing Asoiaf in the 90s (iirc), where the whole medieval discourse was still heavily misunderstood (as if, widespread belief in the Dark Ages, etc.) it shouldn't be that surprising.
I really loved this video. It was awesome to hear your thoughts. I really liked you're idea of the ending too. Good job man. Entertaining, interesting, respectful, and fun.
Your idea about Bran as the son of a theoretical Weir-god, a role which Bloodraven failed to fulfill, is fantastic-the Second Adam recapitulating what the First failed.
I enjoyed hearing your analysis on this series but I'd have to say that I don't agree with most of your conclusions. I don't necessarily think GRRM has been trying to subvert JRRT in every decision and moreso that JRRTs works are idealistic fantasy where morality is backed by extremely powerful forces and good always wins in the end, and GRRM is writing a fantasy story in a fantasy world which doesn't have any of that. It's a realistic fantasy where for example broken oaths are treated how they would be in real life. There's no magical force making the just decision forcing people into doing the right thing. In GRRMs world very often doing wrong things is what gets you ahead in life, and that's just how in many cases the real world has been proven to work. HOWEVER, GRRM is also I think using this backdrop to tell a story of heroes the same way JRRT did but with the stakes feeling much higher and more personal because of how realistic the world is, and I think this story does subvert but it's also realistic in that in some ways the good guys will win, just at heavy a cost. I think he definitely can't finish this story I'm a satisfying way that aligns with his themes but considering how sprawling this story is, it's taking him a LOT of time.
Genuinely such a good video. So thoughtful and well explained. “A Dream of Spring” being the final words in the book would be something beautiful indeed!
Samwell Tarly does resemble a subverted version of Samwise Gamgee - I wonder if his clinging to Jon is how GRRM saw Sam's relationship to Frodo Btw, Egon is a perfectly normal German name irl, so it was always hilarious to me that Aegon has such a fantasy aura around it
@@goodnesswithfists One thing that I know for sure is that Samwell and Tyrion will not die in his story ever, or at least not until the end of the story, because it’s so clear that Sam and Tyrion are Martin’s self insert characters, especially Sam.
@@nont18411100%, and what a self report it is that these two are the characters he self-inserts into Tolkien meanwhile didn't have a self-insert character as far as I can tell
My suspicion of J.K. Rowling having written half of the books remains. AND: The former has NOTHING to do with GRRM premeditating the murder of Meleys!!! 😭 `Fools like Jon Snow were revived, but Meleys lay dead!´
arguing that tolkien's world is perfectly constructed while painting george as a mess si such a dishonest move when tollkien explicitly says in his letters how he doesn't even know many things fans asked and many silmarilion entries contradict themselves like the origin of orcs.
The thing though about Martin's works is that they're almost historical in nature. Tolkien's work is mostly mythical, like the Bible, it presents itself as a unified moral framework, there is clear good and evil. Martin's work is like that of an unbiased third party recording historical events of a world that is as cruel and chaotic as our own with ever shifting morals, religions, truths. Magic exists, but no one knows if the Gods exist, the religious fanatics may in fact be worshipping some Lovecraftian demons without their knowledge. Unlike Tolkien's work, A song of ice and fire seems very cynical, pointing towards unending suffering, with the inhabitants of its world constantly fighting among each other for power or their truths. It's a cynic's allegory for our own world and because of it, it's unfinishable by design
Brilliantly put. But I just have to say that Martin’s worldview that the real world is "cruel and chaotic" may stem from the fact that he is a childless atheist. It doesn't have to be that way though. Certain aspects of morality remain the same through time. You can discern a grand narrative arc throughout human history, at which point you'll be convinced that it is Tolkien who is the more "realistic" writer.
If I can compare Asoiaf to the Dune series, Frank Herbert had an important moral message for his audience: a warning about charismatic leaders and our need for adventure in life. George R.R. Martin wanted a story where nothing matters, which is why it's so hard to write an ending to it.
I've felt for years that this is the only reasonable end to the series. Humanity has very often faced faceless challenges with denial, infighting, and self-delusion. It'd be very fitting for each lord to see the White Walkers as an opportunity to rid themselves as a rival or consolidate power, all the while having a pet scholar whispering into their ear that the Walkers aren't a real threat and there will be some stratagem or lore that will ensure their own survival.
Great video, your thesis reaches its peak at around 31:00 minutes. I believe that's exactly it for all writers trying to design a random and nihilistic world with no grand narrative in their... narrative.
True, the video's title is finishing Winds but he hardly takled about any plotline from winds, instead ends up talking about fixing DnD's mess from the show and comparing grrm to tolkien.
Well you say that Tolkien was wise not to talk about economics etc. but that is why I cannot get into most fantasy worlds, including Tolkien's. They seem to me paper thin with ''that King was good, that King was bad, they ruled for 100 years and killed Oompaloompas in great War of Shagadoom'' or whatever, GRRMs world is not perfect or amazingly detailed, but it has plenty of details for me to really feel lived in and real. I do not think you always have to subvert expectations, like Jon Snow can be Azor Ahai, kill the white walkers and marry Daeneris and live at least somewhat fine further on, but a lot of fantasy to me seems too simplistic in how they portray humans or elves or whomever... as GRRM says, if somebody is good then they are good, is somebody is evil then they are absolute evil... there are not that many stories with in-between, where characters have various sides to them. I like realism. That is also why I cannot play computer games because especially NPCs irritate me, no matter how detailed the setting is, there are a lot of things that feel cardboard and not real. Maybe if we have real AI NPCs in games in future and you can interact with them and create and run your own stories with them, I might return that that genre of entertainment. The realism aspect in the world is also why I like House of the Dragon because it really is a story which does not have a clear villain at all. It does not have Cersei. Closest that we have so far are Aemond and Daemon and even they are deeply conflicted people with past scars. And that story is finished and we know it's ending and it is a rather realistic and good ending to me, for a tragic story like that. Also, dragons are not treated just as some cool beasts that spew fire, but also as an amazingly powerful weapon that shocks the world to the core, they are not there to make readers and viewers be just in awe of them, but also to fear what they can do.
I've always thought that you can add all those more everyday type things using your own fantasy. The story in Tolkien exists on top of everyday life which, despite the setting, is not too different from our own. GRRM's worldview has its place, and personally, I love ASOIAF, but as it looks right now, he can't finish the story if all he has are flawed characters and there is no grand narrative to the whole universe. Ngl, Aemond and Daemon are my favorite characters in House of the Dragon, though I'm only halfway through season 2.
Nah, he knows where he wants it to go, generally 😊 ... I dont think it's a matter of finding a resolution, it's simply too unwieldy. It's taking forever to deal with continuity. He has written himself into many corners.
GRRM subverts tropes but they aren't LOTR tropes specifically. The influence is there because Martin is a massive fan of Tolkien but he definitely wanted to write his own work that isn't an analogue of Tolkien's work.
G RR Martin does understand closure. A Storm of Swords ended on a highly cathartic note and Daenerys riding Drogon out of the fighting pit was that as well. He even made sure to make the reader feel as uncomfortable as possible before Drogon arrived.
Good point, and you're right of course. But my argument is that the nature of the universe GRRM set up makes it impossible to provide closure like that for the whole story. Too many moving pieces! The only way to do it is to introduce a supernatural reason for why all those characters would behave according to a common scheme - and find closure in the end.
25:00 JRR Tolkien was meticulous in a manner that the envious GRRM (who's so envious that stole the RR from his better) can never even dream to be. Tolkien took into consideration time passage, he took into consideration the amount of time that characters would take travelling between places, not just driving them between dream sequence to dream sequence as the plot demanded. He created several fictional languages for Tolkien's sake! George is just an envious and vengeful with hate for the world. He's a pitiful little creature who is angry that he'll NEVER be able to come close to Tolkien.
You don’t get it. Read the brienne chapters. It’s not about nihilism, it’s not about subversion, it’s about realizing you freedom and doing the right thing with it. The story obviously isn’t devoid of a sense of morality.
There are characters with a sense of morality, that is true, but what morality does the story itself teach? Regarding Brienne, the issue is that GRRM does not understand where knightly virtues come from. They are not just a product of your character, you aren't just born that way. Knightly virtues irl were fostered within the Christian institution of knighthood, beaten into young squires over years and years of training. The fact you find knightly virtues in Brienne and the Hound, outside the institution of knighthood, calls into question the whole purpose of it. I maintain - GRRM always subverts.
@@goodnesswithfists I agree GGRM subverts a lot, but this whole argument of morals only cames from christianity and its not inherent to mankind is just absolutely not true: IRL Samurai were not christians as well and they also had honor.
@@goodnesswithfistsIt shows morality is not always cut and dry, life is messy. Jaime is the hero who saved King's Landing from burning and yet he is the villain who broke his oath in Ned's eyes. Is it honorable to keep your oath and let thousands die? Is it moral to let thousands die in order to keep your honor?
I broadly like your ending, but... I think the whole "divine intervention" stuff with the Allmaker is dumb. The point of the Old Gods is that they are a "divinity" crafted from the souls of basically every dead firstman in history. It's like, what if God was just the average human soul? Would you expect him to be good? Or would you expect him to be vengeful and cruel? That's what the old gods are. That's what Blood Raven has hooked himself up to. The White Walkers are going to try destroy Westeros regardless of if the humans to the south deserve it or not. It's not Divine Justice, it's more a force of nature. The test isn't even a moral one. Humanity doesn't need to become "good" in order to defeat the white walkers. It doesn't need to found a democracy, or achieve certain moral virtues. It just needs to unite. It's in the vast majority of people's own selfish interest to defeat the white walkers. I agree with you though that a lack of some unifying message is part of the reason this story is taking so long. But, I doubt that can change even at this point. GRRM is more interested in world building than he is at writing characters. The Winds of Winter is never coming.
A lot of people ask “but could Aragorn survive in asoiaf?” In mocking fashion my answer is yes and easily as middle earth is far harder for good people to survive in. The real question is can your asoiaf characters survive in middle earth? They can’t outwit Sauron and they are to wicked (for the most part) to join the men of the west so they’d become Sauron’s thralls. The few “good” characters would have to join under the heir of Isildur or die. To further on Aragorn surviving Westeros I would talk about how he brought order and (relative) safety to eriador. In the hobbit Aragorn was 11 and it was shown to be a place where you would run into trolls on the regular. Aragorn trained in imladris he rode under theodred in Rohan he served as a captain in Gondor and led them to sack umbar (this inspired denethors one sided rivalry which helped lead to his distaste for faramir who was much like Aragorn) he then went back to his people and led them to bring further safety to eriador a place safe enough for bilbo to walk through with little escort and no trouble. He hunted gollum alone for many years and succeeded when he had no right to. He alone brought strength to Rohan at helms deep. He rode with little rest for several days and nights to bring aid to Minas Tirith. He saved his city and came out of the battle unscathed he won when he had not right to. He did what was thought by men at the time to be impossible and became king of Gondor and Arnor. He is wise and inspiring many a young captain would be eager to join him. He is strong and wise and his hands bring healing yet none can withstand his sword in his fury. Knowing all this what can Westeros have that he hasn’t seen and conquered before? (And don’t say political intrigue Aragorn didn’t enter the city after the battle of pelenor fields to avoid that. He understands it.)
Re: Subverting the prince and princess expectations. I'd argue that Tolkien already did this with Eowyn and "not by man's hand he will die". So I don't think this will be much of a subvered expectation today.
English speakers really should stop laying so much emphazis on this "man". When the german translation was made, the translator Margaret Carroux asked Tolkien about her translation of this as "Von keines Mannes Hand wird er sterben" = "not by man's hand he will die", since she was unsure if german "Mann" that is simply "man", with no possibility to understand it as "human" would destroy the ambiguity of the prophecy. Tolkien sanctified this translation. If he would have wanted it to be something ambigous, he would have asked that not a literal but instead a more poetic and the ambiguity keeping german translation would be choosen.
@@anonymussicarius8899 Just for your info, I'm German as well and read the books in German. 😁 But nonetheless Tolkien uses the prophecy to play with the expectations. In retrospect, it's meaning is quite clear, but I'm not sure, how many first time readers guessed, that it means, the Witch King will die by a woman's hand. I certainly didn't.
I don't think there is actually that much of a problem in finishing the book in a subversive way. George wants to subvert the idea of the "just final battle against evil" which is being set up with mankind against the others. This could be done by having it turn out that the others were seeking to save humanity from the children. If the show is to be believed the others were men who the children of the forest tried to turn into a anti-human army, but that went rogue. What a perfect subversion it would it be if it turned out all this time the goal of the others was to build an army to defeat the children and stop them from "taking westeros back from mankind". If we take the conclusion that there are no gods in ASOIAF then Bran is actually a man possessed by the visions sent to him by the telepathic COTF via the weirwood trees. He is the final victory of the COTF and the doom of mankind. So with a few minor changes the ending of the show is actually very subversive and very dark. It also makes sense that the prophecies are real, but the goal is to manipulate man into destroying themselves in a final battle against the saviours of mankind rather than against "death".
Ok this is brilliant. The real villains are the COTF. The Others turn out to be based Ice Giants who free humanity from the hivemind slavery the COTF want to impose through Bran. I like it. Nordic ice gods destroying the chthonic hivemind. This would be the less biblical, more Germanic ending.
If the ASOIAF series is ever completed (by George it has to be George or it won’t “count” to enough people for this to matter) then it will become a equal to the LOTR series hands down. I’ll go a step further and say in 100 years it will be a back to back required reading for public high school students. You can basically read LOTR and learn how fantasy was started, how Tolkien’s work was so good it became how we even visualize fantasy itself with all the different tropes and characters. Then you would read Georges work and learn how he turned all of that on its head and even though without LOTR we wouldn’t have ASOIAF (or if we did it wouldn’t hit as hard as it does) George was still able to equal or even surpass Tolkiens work with his own.
@@goodnesswithfists oh for sure. I don’t think it will even be enough that it gets “finished” if it’s not finished by George himself. Idk why this man is playing so fast and loose with his legacy. Even if (which I’m sure it is) the book is hard to finish in a satisfying way while still subverting all the tropes and keeping the same quality we’ve come to expect from George. He could play it safe and lean more into the traditional fantasy elements to help wrap up the story faster and i don’t think anyone would really complain about it. The story, as is, has so many great moments he wouldn’t have to “shock” or “awe” us anymore and the series would still be considered timeless. In fact the show proved that if he tries to keep subverting expectations too much it would probably ruin the story more than help it. Loved the video!
I think the base of your argument against GRRM's works isn't quite accurate. Sure he subverts expectations a lot, but I don't think he does that just for the sake of it, ESPECIALLY the books. The show slowly turns trash when they outpaced the books, and the small changes to characters or combined storyline/characters become either pivotal missing links in the later seasons or just... improvised trash. With that out of the way, I would like to point out that ideas like chivalry, virtue, family, oaths, are not subverted just for the sake of it. I think the opposite is true, that GRRM tries to champion these values in the minority of characters who held tight or try to adopt them in a world where it is very taxing to do so (Brienne, Jaime, Jon, Dany, Stannis to a degree, etc). He contrasts them with characters who don't care about those values, and during the process we are given glimpses of the possible outcomes of keeping faith with those values even though they might be long in coming (e.g.The Grand Northern Conspiracy). Regarding GRRM not being able to finish the books, as a long time fan I agree that he has a really difficult time wrapping up some storylines, especially since he doesn't seem to restrain himself too much on adding new characters/plot points. However, recently I stumbled upon some deep dives into ASOIAF theories. Years ago, the most mind-blowing theory I knew was perhaps the Battle of Ice (Stannis vs the Boltons prediction). This theory and prediction based on the clues GRRM has given in small doses in previous chapters - without taking away the amazing eye for detail and the skill to put those clues together in a coherent way - is focused on things that might happen in the future on a physical level. The deep dives I stumbled upon is much more compelling, in that they also delve into the symbolisms and motifs that most would not pick up right away in their second or third re-read (check out David Lightbringer on TH-cam). I've finished the books 4 times, but I never had the knowledge or training to pick these up, so in those 4 times the best kind of new information/revelation I picked up on was the sort of things like Tom o' Sevenstreams being a spy for the BwB inside Jaime's camp besieging Riverrun, Young Griff's true identity and Illyrio's game, Jaqen's success in infiltrating the Citadel, Alleras' true identity, things that have much to do with certain character motivations and identities. Needless to say, after encountering deeper theories (Empire of the Dawn, House Dayne, Euron Crow's Eye, House Hightower, Night's King, Night's Watch, green men, etc), I re-read them again with a whole new perspective. I kind of understand why it's difficult to write ASOIAF, with the wealth of details that we have experienced in the last 5 books. I might grumble and complain, but I'll keep waiting for those books until I grow old. Regarding Beric Dondarrion, I am convinced he is one of the most honourable individual in recent times. The whole reason he did all the things he did was because he was charged by Ned to bring the Mountain to justice. He held trials to prove the innocence of the accused. He suffered repeatedly but kept on fighting because he was driven by duty. He even gave his life to Lady Stoneheart because he swore on his honour as a knight to Arya that he would return her to her mother's arms. Did he have to do this? No. The only thing that kept him going was his honour and duty. His means are questionable, but I couldn't see a cynic doing what he did. Even Thoros who started as a cynic rediscovered his faith, turned more serious and more purpose-driven, and even went so far as being discouraged when Lady Stoneheart started turning the BwB into something uglier. Writing all these has reminded me that I need to read the books again to cope with TWOW still not being released.
This video needs to be forwarded to Preston Jacobs because he is the most likely candidate to finish the story before George. It is urgent that he understands importance of mythological structure so that his fan-fiction may be as great as can be. Please get on that, Internet🙏.
I've been saying a version of this for years. A Feast for Crows set the victory in stone. A long winter on the way and the river lands are a mess with the harvest lost, so is the North. The Nights watch's neutrality has been irreparably damaged by its boy commander who intervened in politics and attempted to desert. Cersei will further alienate the Tyrells who're having their territories raided by the Iron Born, and the capital of the Storm land's has been taken by an exiled Lord and new claimant to the throne. And all of this distracts from Bran who's being seasoned for a body snatching so the Children's 'last green seer' can upgrade from the dying body he stole from the once strong and formidable Brynden Rivers. The Children are the faction that's hiding in plain sight in this game of thrones. If Bran ends up on the Iron throne, it will be bran in body/flesh only, and the last green seer in spirit/actuality. The only fitting end is a Nymeria type of story where few Westerosis survive, take ship, and become refugees in the lands tot he East. The the bed of thorny roses that're growing out of his planted seed, but maybe that's not a big enough subversion 😅 Excellent video 😘
Ironically, Martin has shown his disbelief in video games as art and yet the answer to his story has already been done by a game, Dark Souls. A world almost devoid of hope, where the same vicious cycle or the same wheel is kept spinning by the actions of beings either for selfish reasons or by ignorance, and in the bitter sweet ending George seems to aim his series towards, the wheel is broken by letting the fire fades, by allowing the status quo to be broken and a new word to be born. His answer comes from the one place he is ignoring for so long. It is interesting that the other, in the book at least, are not mindless zombies but a misunderstood race, just as those who's soul is dark, humanity itself in the case of the DS universe, and perhaps in Martin's world as well.
This is not even a good argument and just misses the point that both stories are trying to tell. Predicated on the assumption that all stories must be about hope winning in the end. I disagree with this mindset entirely lol. What about every other stories that ended with the dark winning? Are they now completely bad devoid of any meaning?
@@erenja3ger871 Yeah. How many stories do you know of about the dark winning that are actually good and popular? I actually only know one. Devilman Crybaby. And even in that, the victory the darkness pulled off in the end turned out to be its own eternal punishment, doomed to repeat over and over again until eternity. So it didn't really win.
I would rather GRRM never publish winds than turn it into a boring Tolkien parody, I trust him to do much better and give us a somewhat satisfying ending, even if it's not a grand epic I would be good with it as long as his world keeps feeling alive unlike Tolkien's fairy tale ending.
Bro economic policy is extremely important, it's the reason why in the real world things are so messy. TLDR "The Dictator's HandBook - Why Bad Behaviour is almost always good politics" changes one's viewpoint of the way politics interferes with reality. Choosing whom to disappoint when managing finite resources is costly, people always come with baggage and they'll undermine your agenda. Your allies always feel like they deserve to be fairly paid, the problem is that the resources mean you must disappoint people. Some people you can disappoint free of charge and others come with a nasty price you must pay.
Right, but the question is: should you put a realistic simulation of an economic system into your fantasy universe, especially if you're not very familiar with economic principles?
@@goodnesswithfists you make a fair point, sure sloppy implementation of economic systems is annoying; nevertheless, similar to science fiction being written by scientifically illiterate people - I've conceded, that that is just the reality. I choose to suspend my disbelief at errors, though I know that it hurts to read amateurs writing about a scientific discipline you really know well.
This is a good video, lots of interesting theories and ideas. Not sure I can agree with them all, but still a good watch. Here's hoping George has what it takes to prove us all wrong. The Others winning and causing another Long Night would be amazing, but I'd settle for them just making it past the first castle...
Even as an American I'd never recommend some universal democracy with that travesty it's been I and many others would prefer limited suffrage star ship troopers style. The best ending for Game of thrones would have been some sort of constitutional monarchy with elected lords from a pre Woodrow Wilson American perspective.
I too think that the white walkers will likely be able to archive multiple victories and yeah humanity will win at the end but will be left in shambles.
Instead of waiting for Martin, I plan to make my own fantasy series, inspired both by Martin, and Tolkien (and Sapkowski and others), with the slight twist that instead of many realistic languages it´s gonna have many realistic machines and technologies (as Im an engineer, not a linguist). The point and reason why I´ve decided to create my own story is that I consider Martin to be short sighted, slightly turning his story into a dead-end road. He definitely likes the intricacies of his story, and without a clear plan how to end everything, he´s gonna have to get rid of them, which is gonna force him into either extremely predictable, or extremely stupid (think the GoT season 6-8) decisions, and he just now realized that. You need at least a vague plan. Writing without a plan is perfectly fine when you write something simple, but creating the world´s most complicated stories without a plan leads directly into a dead-end road followed by writer´s block. There´s also the problem with subverting expectations. You can do it only so many times until it becomes THE expectation.
@@goodnesswithfists Czech, but I plan to translate it to English myself as soon as it is finished. The first story will be comprised of 3 books, which are still expected to take several years to finish. But unlike Martin, I expect to be done with the first story entirely in next 12 years, and the next stories are only going to share the world they take place in, and little else.
You have to probe the subtext to catch it, but the Seven in Westeros do hold sway over the affairs of men. This guy is twisting GRRM's themes to fit his narrative in some of these examples.
Knighthood is a semi-religious through the seven and the reason why we see so few northern knights as the north worships the old gots not the seven, and are often sworn in at a sept. several different orders and sects of the seven exert political influence and run facilities. The silent sisters are one such organization and are very common. The people of the land go to septs to hear sermons and pray and are religious and the faith effects how some people think. The seven has much power in Westeros
What he means is that, unlike the Valars, the seven are 100% fake (while some other cults with a darker side are shown to match some kind of supernatural powers). The peasants believe in it, but most of the learned. nobility doesn't
The tv show is george r r martins ending. They got the major character outcomes from him. Why does everyone assume he'll change it when he says the opposite
Maybe the ending would be the same but not in the same way, Bran most likely would become King but various other things might take a different part. And yes, GRRm did give them certain inevitable conclusions to DnD but from season 5 the show took a complete different path than the books by abandoning so many plotline like faegon,stannis in north and its conspiracies, davos in skagos, euron, stoneheart and so many more , all which are important to the story and are going to impact the book's ending in a different way.
Martin's statement about Gardener's writing sounds great, but I'm not sure he ever fully realized, that one part of a gardener's work is removing the weeds and trimming the hedges.
@@Sebastian-lw5qb Martin kinda forgot that he had to trim his garden
Hes got multiple gardens and trying to now fit them all into someones backyard.
Gardners also plan their gardens quite thoroughly to. Its nice to plant a seed but its also your responsibility to make sure it doesnt grow out of control.
Bro out here gardening in the Amazonian jungle
Literally. I don’t think George really understands what he’s saying when he talks about gardeners and architects. Not sure the fandom understands George’s type of gardening.
He sets up 10 things and pays off 1.
Maybe him not finishing the book series _is_ his ultimate subversion of tropes
The unfinished _Hyperion_ by Keats comes to mind (and Simmons' book too, which GRRM has most definitely read and strewn scattered references to throughout ASoIaF).
It isn't a subversion especially if the majority of his fans do not think he will finish. He also is not the first author to walk this road. He will just be another author with an unfinished magnum opus.
🤣🤣🤣
He didn't have to share any of it. It was a pet project, obviously I'm still not happy. More obviously, Jaime is the real main character and will pull a flaming sword from cersei, becoming the real (night) king slayer.
I think ASOIAF is fundamentally about good people having to match their ideals with a brutal reality. I never got the impression that Martin condemns, mocks or condescends idealism with his characters - quite the opposite.
“Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice.
She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand.” - Chapter 37, AFFC
Brienne does not need to get involved. She can just walk away. But in her mind *She has no choice*. She must defend the weak in every instance, at all times, regardless of the odds against her, regardless if it means her own death.
@@AdamNoizer Counterpoint: Then why did most of the heroic characters (Ned, Robb, Catelyn, Oberyn, Jon) die dishonorably while the evil ones (Joffrey and Tywin) died in a way more peaceful way than they deserve? Not to mention the living evil characters like Ramsay, Roose, Walder Frey, Cersei, Varys and Littlefinger can do whatever they want without facing repercussions.
And the purpose for the hero like Brienne is to break her oath to Catelyn and kill the zombie Catelyn to save Jaime…which means Catelyn got betrayed over and over again in any lives she lived and loyalty means nothing in this universe.
Or Shireen. That poor innocent girl with a chronic illness is gonna be burned alive to resurrect Jon.
If that’s not a mockery of idealism and morality, then I don’t know what is.
@@nont18411 Counterpoint to your counterpoint: Evil characters such as Tywin and Joffrey most certainly did not die honourably - in fact their incredibly dishonourable deaths are consequences that stem directly from how they treated others as they lived. They could have avoided being murdered by Tyrion and the Tyrells respectively, had they not been so comically evil.
The good characters you mentioned, whilst also being killed in a dishonourable manner, have tangible legacies that other characters actively carry forward into AFFC, ADWD and likely TWOW (if it ever comes out haha). The legacies of Eddard and Robb live on through the conspiracies of Northern Lords still loyal to the Stark cause, most famously Lord Wyman Manderly who will almost certainly defect to Stannis Baratheon now that his host has been sent forth from Bolton-ruled Winterfell to meet him. The remaining lords will defect from Roose/Ramsay at the earliest opportunity, as they command no loyalty or respect.
A similar thing can be said for Oberyn and his sister Elia. Both of whom were killed by The Mountain. Putting aside the fact that The Mountain's death was probably the worst in the series so far - suffering and screaming in agony alone for weeks due to Oberyn's poison (deserved imo), only to be resurrected as a mindless zombie, there is the fact that because of how the Lannisters treated the Martells, the entirety of Dorne is now moving to support the cause of Aegon and/or Daenerys. The Lannister regime is all but over by the end of ADWD.
Regarding the villains you mentioned having not faced their downfall, I would argue that this is mainly a consequence of Martin taking far too long to release the next two books. We have already seen Cersei destroy the little legacy Tywin left behind, make one stupid decision after another out of pride and paranoia. We can already see the seeds for the downfall of Roose and Ramsay in the form of the aforementioned obvious disloyalty from other Northern Lords. Littlefinger and Varys are the most difficult and I suspect we won't see the collapse of their schemes until a dream of spring.
@@nont18411 honorably? Joffrey died painfully during his wedding and only 2 assholes gave a shit about him
Tiwyn died while taking a shit
@@AdamNoizergreat analysis 🎉
@@nont18411 Being poisoned is a horrible way to die. Even Tywin had symptoms of widow's blood poisoning, and died shitting on the toilet, stinking horrendously. That's not a peaceful death, just because Tyrion killed him while already slowly dying.
Actually it being a mess of themes and building up so many storylines without finishing any is accodentally genius perhaps because now so many interpretations of themes, solutions to mysteries and continuations of stories now exist through fan theories etc
Like seriously, the reasons so many of us are still so invested in this series is because it's unfinished and could go anywhere, so we discuss every little detail and have fun doing that.
So in conclusion: The true meaning of a song of Ice and Fire is the friends we made along the way
You're absolutely correct, and that is one of my favorite things about asoiaf too. But right now George needs to tie up the story and that is difficult in a world like that.
This sounds a lot like the Silmarillion. The Elven kingdoms fall one-by-one to Morgoth's forces due to a combination of hubris, infighting, and Morgoth's exploits, retreat to an island, and send Earendil to beg the Valar for forgiveness. The Valar do save the elves but in the process Beleriand sinks beneath the sea, and the elves' human allies become the most powerful race in Arda.
Tolkien always wins 😈😂
Tolkien was also inspired by war. The worst war to be a solider in, in history. World war 1. He witnessed it all first hand and fought in it and he turned his experience into a story of hope for a better world. Its criminal to talk about Georges influence with the vietnam war, a war he didnt take part in but not mention ww1s influence on Tolkien, who actually did take part in it. If anybody understands war better of the two, its Tolkien.
Yep, Tolkien faced the worst of humanity, yet he still tried the most to give the readers hope.
It's also interesting to note, that the First World War was not at all a war with clear "bad guys" there were no evil villains, just competing Empires and nations. It more closely resembles the power struggles of the Seven Kingdoms, yet Tolkien made his story they way he did.
Amazing comment!
so you have to be a soldier to understand war?😂
Nah bro georges depiction of war is very more realistic. And there is no argument, you are plain wrong if you desaagree.
"And then, Heimdall will blow his might horn announcing Ragnarok, and Loki will come in his cursed ship with the unworthy dead to wage war against Asgard, accompanied by the Jotun and the fire giants, and fall in ruinous combat while also killing Heimdall. The monstrous wolves Haiti and Skol will devour the Sun and the Moon, and Fenrir finally kills the allfather Odin, being slain by his son Vengeance. Then, Thor and Jormungandr will engage in deadly battle, with Thor finally slain the serpent. Covered in the poisonous blood of the serpent of Midgard, Thor laughs, exclaiming "I did it! I've finally slain the serpent of Midgard!", then Thor takes 7 steps and falls to the ground, dead".
GRRM: "but what was Odin's tax policy?"
I enjoyed reading that :D
@@goodnesswithfists Honestly now it feels funny because GRRM wrote some of the lore for Elden Ring and he obviously didn't apply the logic of ASOIAF to it because he understood that Elden Ring is a mythic high fantasy which is the same with LOTR.
@@hamizanyunos1502 Yes! I think he also took a lesson from his writing difficulties
@@goodnesswithfists Yeah but I think Martin should be honest about his progression, if he has trouble creating an ending for his story he should just be upfront about it. Although I don't fully agree with your interpretation that GRRM is obsessed with deconstructing medievalist fantasy, I do think that having the Others win would bring a good conclusion to the story and themes that GRRM presents in that cynical and ambitious power politics can lead to disastrous results in the long term.
I am thinking of starting my own fantasy universe with elves, dwarves and humans competing for alien ruins and technology
@@hamizanyunos1502 Absolutely f**king not. You're insane if you think that would be in any way, shape, or form a decent ending.
In some old review, I read this quote: Martin won a contest Tolkien didn't attend. Tolkien didn´t subvert expectations, because he couldn't. He didn't write a story, he created a world (he wrote a mythology, not "a fiction"). He was the one making rules, there was no reason to violate them. Martin is telling a story about "real" people in a world where rules exist, even conflicting rules. It makes sense for the characters to not stick to them. They must break some to fulfill another.
Tolkien is the God of his world.
George is simply the arrogant and envious Devil.
@@user-je3sk8cj6g Yo wtf dude, we're talking about fantasy books here. Calm down.
@@user-je3sk8cj6gDetail… it’s always the Devil’s business. Just saying! 😂
@@mokarokas-1727 He is right tho. Martin is a writter of an exceptional talent, but this constant need to subvert and outdo Tolkien clearly shows he is lead by envy, not genuine love for storycraft in his work.
@@donaldhysa4836 Cool, we have Martin's personal psychiatrist in the thread now! How come you make up reasons to go after him personally, instead of arguing against his actual points of criticism? Going all ad hominem just makes it seem he's right and ya'll mad about it (which is why I feel the need to remind it's all about fantasy books).
Arya killing the "Night King" is a very poor example to use for an example of how the books might "end" like the show- since the books doesn't mention the presence of a "Night King" whatsoever. He is purely a show fabrication. There is even footage of Dan and Dave saying something to the effect that they thought "Arya" made the most sense for the scene. So they were trying to subvert Azor Ahai - not George. This fact alone is a major contributor to why many fans despise season 8. I doubt that George will screw that part up in the books. :b
Have you even read the books or are you another person who goes around saying "in the books" without really knowing? The Nights King is mentioned several times in the books and is pivotal to the story. The character the show named after him is an entirely original character exclusive to the show but there very much IS a Night/Nights King mentioned in the books.
I think it's fair to assume that George gave D&D the go-ahead on that, since he was involved with the production of the show.
I definitely hope that he took the poor reception of the show finale as feedback though, and changed it for the books
@@pyramidion5911 the Night's King in the books is not at all like in the show (as the Big Bad Guy in charge of the Others). He's purely a background story, a legend. Probably a true legend that ties into the deep history of the Watch and the Others, but not at all the character named the same that's in the show who actually shows up on-screen regularly.
@@pyramidion5911lol what? The Night's King as a character existed long long ago and shares absolutely nothing with the show's Night King, except maybe the similar name. There is no indication whatsoever that he will come back and lead the Others. The Night King is D&D's version of the Great Other. In the books, he never touched Bran and definitely won't ride an ice dragon. The fact that they chose to cram the whole threat of the Others into this single destructible character shows their incompetence and lack of familiarity with the books. The stark difference between the Others and the humans is that they DON'T have a leader, especially not one that could be tricked with a sleight of hand and POOF! Winter is over. Part of what makes them so terrifying is their sheer numbers. Cut down one, and ten will rise to replace.
@@FlameQwert not a background character at all. He is one of the most important characters in the entire story and very much alive. Again, did you guys even read the books? Grrm doesn't spell things out, you would be absolutely amazed at how much of the deeper story you can piece together. To the point where it catches up with the current story being told. Connect enough dots and you will realize what happened to the characters in the old stories and where/who they currently are in the timeline.
Btw the themes are post modernism even in morality eg:
if you do good, you can lose;
if you do good, you can win;
if you do evil you can win;
if you do evil you can lose .
This creates the impression that anything can happen, no one is safe.
I like how Jaime's character is a double subversion. At first he looked like the typical knight in shining armor, turned out to be a child-killing, sister-fucking, oath-breaking asshole. GRRM initially intended for him to sit the iron throne, be the main villain but that would have been too easy. And so he subverted his own expectation and wrote the greatest redemption arc in history. Jaime's character, after 2 subversions, became the one of most complex and well-liked character in the asoiaf universe.
He should have been the one who kills the Night King - the Kingslayer would have lived up to his name.
High fantasy written by a devout Catholic vs. High fantasy written by an agnostic postmodernist
Well, the differences are the beauty of it all. How long would Aragorn etc. last in Westeros? Why does the apple or the orange have to be lesser? Incessantly pitting Tolkien and Martin against each other in some kind of contest really serves to prove the lack of real criticism around here.
@@mokarokas-1727 except for the fact that Martin himself has opened that can of worms. Admittedly, he has said that he respects the Lord of the Rings and Tolkien, but has also criticized it and some of its themes. If he didn’t want these comparisons he shouldn’t have opened his mouth.
@@cubaj8723 Comparisons and criticism doesn't make it a contest, though. Y'all are so stand-offish about this. "He shouldn't have opened his mouth", how dare he criticize MY football team? lol
@@cubaj8723 Martin loves Tolkien while still being able to criticize certain parts of his work. Something you bigoted mfs are clearly unable to achieve.
@@cubaj8723 geirge loves tolkien and his writings. Critisism isnt hate. Nothing is perfect and some of the critisimsss he had were valid. Till this day hardcore lotr fans can tell you a few things tolkien might have done better, that doesnt mean they hate it or think they are better than the man himslef. We are all just trying to take examples and improve and nit make same mistakes.
He already broke his naming convention with A Feast for Crows
How?
@@adamantiiispencespence4012 Look at the third word
@@awesomo925 Yeah
At this point, people waiting for the Rapture sound more convincing than fans waiting for aSoIaF to ever finish.
While I agree with your ending, the only thing I disagree is that Jon somehow barely participated in this at all, considering that he’s a character who’s the most invested in this white walker issue since the beginning. He should be the one to do something about it, not being left out altogether because “subversion”.
Good point, he should have a central role. Maybe he can do something, where he can sacrifice himself (redeeming himself after breaking his oath with Ygritte) to prevent the Others from reaching the Arbor
Jon Snow's role was simply to alert the people of Westeros to the very real threat of the White Walkers and collecting an Alliance to face them. It was simply Jonstans who insisted Jon somehow needed to fight the (non-existent) "Night King".
12 minutes in now and I don't think you're really correct about all of this. "A Song of Ice & Fire" isn't about subverting Tolkien, it's about deconstructing Tolkien. Those are NOT the same things.
Subversion is just about making it superficially seem like you're going to do it in the same way, and then pulling the rug out from under people to reveal it is the opposite.
But this is not what George does. What he does is he takes a closer look at the assumptions and beliefs inherent in Tolkien's writing and lays out the benefits, the downsides, the flaws, and the nuances of them.
Your example about advice is actually a good one to go to in order to illustrate this. Your argument is that Robert and Ned is a subversion of Gandalf and Theodin because in this case good advice just strengthens the bad king's bad qualities. But putting aside whether that's a fair description, I don't really think it is, I would point you to someone like Young Griff. This character is clearly set up to be advised in a better way and, though hardly perfect, to probably be willing to listen to his advisors and make some good decisions too. Daenerys does as well. She struggles to create peace in Meereen, listens to some of her advisors, and helps to create peace. Yes, the peace falls apart due to bad actors but she did still manage to create peace.
This nuance is possible because, again, you're not correct about what George is trying to create. He isn't trying to subvert Tolkien, he is trying to deconstruct him. Show all of the nuances, assumptions and investigate them. Martin's world also is not nihilistic, it's existentialist in nature. George's world isn't about saying there is no meaning, it's about saying that people choose their meaning.
Tolkien himself delighted in subverting or distorting Shakespeare. Macbeth gets quite a bit of this.
I remember reading in Tolkien's letters that he didn't want to subvert Shakespeare's tropes, but instead to "do them right", for example he thought that the way Macbeth "can't be killed except by a man not born of a woman" was clumsily executed. So he wasn't trying to subvert, he was bolstering Shakespeare's tropes, at least in this case
@@goodnesswithfists I believe Godard said the best way to criticize a film is to make a better film. People can debate whether Tolkien did fantasy better than Shakespeare, but at least he has complete works to compare (perhaps the more relevant comparison might be "The Worm Ouroboros" or "The Gods of Pegana", more recent fantasy books that Tolkien criticized). GRRM might have set out to criticize Tolkien by writing what he thought was the more realistic take, but he never got around to the point where he can actually describe a good ruler's tax policy.
I find this analysis is a little myopic, for a couple of reasons, I will try to my best to give a few.
First of all, A Song of Ice and Fire isn't specifically a response to Tolkien; the reputation it gets for being "subversive" is in large part owed to the TV show that marketed itself as being adult and subversive of fantasy. Asoiaf is still heavy with tropes and themes, and there is nothing particularly anti-fantasy about it. There are unexpected twists and turns, and quite a few of them, but what makes them shocking is the fact that the story has been silently building to them while we the readers are none the wiser. GRRM's comments about Tolkien are not specifically a criticism of Tolkien himself as a writer but a commentary of the impact his work has had on fantasy (which he himself is not immune to) and the way The Lord of the Rings has shaped the genre in ways Tolkien himself could never have anticipated.
As in your commentary about chivalry in the books, I don't think GRRM is critical of the concept of chivalry; quite the contrary. Though yes, the idealism of characters like Sansa and Jaime who revere the knights of the songs and legend gets brutally tested, the Starks are posited as the heroes of the story precisely because of their honor and decency. Rather, I would argue what the story proposes is that chivalry and the strict code of honor the characters subscribe to (at least in theory) is the only failsafe in a system that is very much ripe for exploitation, from people like the Lannisters who have very little scrupples and will do anything to promote their own interests. However family ties are not portrayed as a necessarily bad thing; the Starks suffer for being parted from one another and all struggle to get home. "The lone wolf dies but the pack survives". Familial bonds are important. However they should not hamper one's partiality, as is demonstrated again by the Lannisters.
You also mention the famous quote about Aragorn's tax policy and you specifically say 'he'd do what a wise and good King would do' but that's exactly the point... you can be as wise and good as you can, that still can not surmount the limitations of your resources and circumstances (as demonstrated by Daenerys in the books), and when there's a famine a good King may have to take harsh decisions. Politics is complicated, and goodness is not always rewarded in real life; for example, Ned Stark does the honorable thing and gets punished for it, because not everyone is playing by the rules. If they were, meaning, if everyone was chivalrous, then he wouldn't have met that end, but he makes that assumption because of his own morality and that brings about his downfall. I'd argue the framing tricks us here but it's not subversion for subversion's sake, it is the natural conclusion of what the story has been building up to since the beginning.
I am also puzzled by your final point about the significance of the "father myth" because the inclusion of a personified god is very much not what makes Tolkien's lore work, and it shouldn't really be, Tolkien draws from a rich tradition of myths and stories, building upon them and weaving them into an intricate tapestry that produces something new. GRRM takes a more nihilistic approach and is critical of systems that can be abused to the detriment of the vulnerable, ergo, he is critical of religion; though it is unclear whether supernatural forces that we might name Gods are at play here, in fact that is heavily suggested. That is also not subversion for subversion's sake, as the philosophical concept of a god who is either indifferent to humanity or not necessarily benevolent is one that predates Martin. Tolkien appeals to our inner goodness and innocence that fables often cater to and as such his universe is governed by benevolent forces and his characters are fundamentally good. Each story is different. Each makes a different point. So each uses different building blocks to get to it.
All in all, while I find most of your arguments compelling for the most part, I think the thesis of this video boils down to Tolkien-Good Martin-Bad, and I don't see why that is; they take fundamentally different stances on a lot of matters, but each has its own merits and each brand of fantasy does have a place in the jaded world that we occupy in the present moment. And they are both, at the end of the day, escapism into imagination, if you really think about it.
And lastly, I would like to believe that "war is bad" is a pretty much uncontroversial statement. No?
Great analysis, thanks for adding to the conversation. I agree with you, mostly, except for your last point that this video’s ultimate argument is Tolkien good, Martin bad. I think that is the main premise of the first two acts of the video, in order to set up for the third act, the video’s ACTUAL argument: that Martin isn’t just a bad rip off of Tolkien, and that for Martin’s works to make sense in his own world, the story of ASOIAF has to end in tragedy.
@@felixdawson8497 I think the comparison drawn is pretty overt, but I would like to posit that The Lord of the Rings has a pretty sad ending if you think about it; the Shire has been saved, but the Hobbits can never go back to it. They have seen the real world, their innocence left behind in the quest. I think asoiaf can have a "good" ending in the sense that humanity doesn't perish. I'm certain that conflict will not disappear from the world of men even if the white walkers are defeated. The title "a Dream of Spring" suggests at least some modicum of hope. That is, if we ever do get it 😅
@@bilnik6593 “War is bad”.
But without war, the regimes like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy would still exist today.
Martin’s work condemns good people who tried to do the right thing like Ned and Jon as “stupid and deserve to die” while justifying the war crimes committed by bad people like Tywin Lannister and Littlefinger as “a smart and necessary move”.
He seems to identify with the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao and condemns good people who tried to fight against them.
@@nont18411 ??? How??? Did we even read the same books?
First of all, I'm not even going to get into all the ways comparing this fictional power struggle to WWII is comparing apples to oranges and defer the question back to you... what is your point? Aggressive regimes exist so militarism is necessary to combat them? Ignoring the fact that this strikes a bit too close to the rhetoric these particular regimes use to justify their aggressions, let's accept that war is unavoidable in many cases, that does not mean it isn't bad. To be more specific, Martin's point is explicitly that the wars of the powerful end up affecting the powerless; the struggle for the throne devastates the country and destroys the livelihood of the peasants. And yeah, that is a pretty solid point.
Martin's work does not condemn good people, but I understand why the TV show might give the impression that it does; D&D were very prone to have the characters speak like the fans would and therefore accept the fanbase's verdict that Jon and Ned were goody-goody dum-dumbs who played themselves. That is 100% not how it is treated in the books.
See, I don't see where you get GRRM identifying with Stalin and Mao; if anything, Tywin Lannisters cruelty and callousness is very much portrayed as a bad thing that serves to highlight the corruption inherent in the system that not only enables but rewards unscrupulous and immoral people.
Again, did we read the same book?
@@bilnik6593 thank you for those words
I take umbrage with this video lol.
As someone who loves both Tolkien and Martin I think you’ve misunderstood the latter of these two by quite a bit.
Let’s go analyze a few points here.
“Oaths cannot be taken seriously”
No, this is not the case, there are people who *do* keep their oaths generally at great personal cost. That’s what Martin is saying, Duty requires sacrifice, that’s why so many *cant* keep their word, because it’s difficult and comes with a price. Take Ned for example, he chooses to honor his oath to his dying sister at the cost of his own honor, he never breaks his vow to his sister but it certainly wasn’t easy to do so. There is also the point of when is it better to break your oath? Jamie for example was sworn to protect the king but in breaking that oath, saved countless innocent people.
You bring up family ties as well, which is rather odd, as there is plenty of familial turmoil in Tolkiens writing. I mean Feanor and Fingolfin are great examples of that, Feanor leaves Fingolfin to die after crossing a frozen sea and hates him because he has a different mother. And Turin’s story is worse, he quite literally falls in love with his sister, she ends up killing herself when she finds out and in his despair Turin has his own sword slay him, there are no victors in his story. Sounds pretty grim dark to me. Or Eol’s son lusting after his own cousin, there is plenty of weird familial drama in Tolkiens tales.
I also heavily disagree with your take on Martin’s interpretation of religion, it’s not entirely “false” just esoteric and often misunderstood. Take for example the faith of R’hllor, clearly there is some force at play with the practitioners of this faith, with fire magic, bringing people back to life etc. It is true the Martin criticizes institutions of religion I.e the Catholic Church (which I don’t think anyone would argue has not had plenty of corruption in it) and presents a world where the gods are not readily benevolent. Remember that Martin was also heavily inspired by the works of H.P Lovecraft, where the “gods” of his world are indifferent to humanity. That is more so the type of world George writes about, a place we’re the higher powers seemingly don’t care about humans unless they are willing to do something for the gods first(often in the form of sacrifice)
certainly it’s different from a Christian viewpoint but it’s not explicitly anti-religious.
There are good religious characters in the story, Thoros of Myr comes to mind
You say that George can’t help himself when it comes to “subverting” Tolkien tropes but I don’t think that at all. Sure George can criticize at times the romanticized notions of fantasy ideals but this idea he’s taking everything Tolkien did and making it “oh so dark and edgy” is a very surface level take away from what most of Martin says.
A great example of this is, the supposed ruling lineage of the realms. Aragorn is destined to be king because he is descended from the men of Numenor, the great men of old. He can wield the reforged blade of his ancestors, has their healing hands and is the rightful heir to Gondor
Now compare that with the Targaryens, George makes the point that just because you are of a certain bloodline does not inherently make you a good person, plenty of Targ kings run the kingdom nearly to ruin because they weren’t fit for the job to rule, but got it anyway because of their lineage.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t good Targaryen kings in the story, there are a couple actually, it’s more that a man’s ideals is what makes him fit to rule not his bloodline.
That’s the obvious story of Jon Snow, he’s the right one to rule because he tries his best to live by his adoptive father’s code of honor not because he’s the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.
A Song of Ice and Fire is about how often our wants and desires conflict with what doing the right thing is, and how often doing what is right is difficult and costly. A story of people in an uncaring and hostile world still trying to do what they think is right. Not some hopeless world where everyone dies in the end.
Illustrated in the conversation between Davos and Stannis when Stannis says “what is the life of one boy compared to the good of the realm.” And Davos says “Everything.”
There are people who still do good and persist even when it is the more difficult option, even when the world is against them.
This video comes across as praising Tolkien for sharing in your religious beliefs and mocking Martin for not doing so. As such it comes across as really bad faith arguments. That’s my takeaway anyhow, I’d encourage you to read them again with the outlook of the conflicts between, duty, honor, love and desire since that’s what George has said his story is about not a grim dark nihilistic Tolkien hit piece like you seem to think.
This video misses the mark for sure.
2:28: "Maybe that's the reason why George can't finish his sixth book - the ending he'd originally planned is too close to the unpopular show ending."
I think you've nailed it. George himself has stated several times that he really liked the secondary/minor threat of Saruman having to be dealt with after the main war with Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, so you can bet your last penny that his books will be, or at least WERE, following this template, which would mean dealing with Cersei after the Night King, in the same way as the show.
In this way, the title 'A Song of Ice and Fire' compliments both the 'main' protagonist Joh Snow (born from Fire and Ice) and the twin threats of ice and fire (The Knight King and Daenerys).
Personally speaking, I no longer care in the slightest whether Martin finishes the books or not - you've seen the story play out already in the show, and how did you all feel about it?
Besides, while the books are undoubtably great examples of fantasy writing, they're not a patch on the first five seasons of Game of Thrones, which managed to cut out all the over-detailed filler (how many buttons are on a waistcoat, for example) that slowed the books to a halt constantly, introduce scenes which had better dialogue, and was far more streamlined (well, we're still waiting on George aren't we).
Unless I'm out of other books, I really can't see me returning to A World of Song and Fire in book format (I feel I've gotten all I can from it at now), although I do love House of the Dragon, and consider myself fully on-board with any new series' developments (I'm almost certain we won't see another season 8 of GOT these days).
Many people including me have picked up on those symmetries you mention, "the twin threats of ice and fire", that whether willingly or not, GRRM has ended up with elements of classic "unrealistic" storytelling in ASOIAF, that help the story gain some overarching themes. But it's not enough I'm afraid: even when the series, as you say, cut out the unnecessary plot arcs, its conclusion felt wrong and clumsy. Fundamentally I feel like ASOIAF is a story that has never been meant to be properly finished, because giving stories a proper conclusion goes against GRRM's view of what is realistic and what isn't - hence why he liked that after Sauron's downfall there was still evil in Middle Earth with Saruman.
Except gourge was already struggling with winds before tye show ended so thats clearly not the reason, plus gourge has told what his original ending was to a extent at least from his original outline and its nothing like the show at all, its impossible for the books to have ended anywhere similar to the show since the show removed so many things from the books thats there almost too completely different stories.
Dude wtf are you talkin about, what NK and what Cersi, she is nothing compared to Saruman, she is delusional, paranoic pawn
I would hate that. If there's stupid throne stuff after the threat of the Others is dealt with, then that defeats the whole purpose of the Others existing.
@@thatoneblackdude3333 He was struggling because the story was spiralling out of control, size-wise.
A Wind of Winter just doesn’t sound good, thank goodness he’s breaking the convention. 😂
A Wind In Winter maybe... eh, still kinda mid
@@goodnesswithfists why not A Winter Wind
I think its supposed to indicate "THE" real enemy. Not just "A" enemy.
@@raphaeltw Good point!
George doesn't believe in good and evil. To me thats the biggest difference between him and Tolkien. Personally I appreciate the difference
@@BubblegumCrash332 Agreed.
I think fandom, and the most ASOIAF theoretics for years have been having versions of how to finish ASOIAF. You can take, for example, the best of them David Lightbringer (im my opinion) who goes through endless sea of symbolism and narrative roles present in ASOAIF and deciphers it all into a beautiful tapestry of mythological foreshadowing and (hopefully) future plot. There is nothing wrong that at some point some characters would act out the roles of "chosen ones" and so on, that you think George can't allow them to and therefore, he can't finish the books on a thematical level. Lightbringer's videos show an abundance of thematical coherence in ASOIAF and how exactly those tropes can still be subverted (against in-world prophecies and expectations). He analyzed Azor-Ahai myth, the Others and the possible resolution of the conflict, that is rooted deeply in the fact that George is a hippie in his heart, too. You're saying that it cannot be done only shows that you think it can't, because it is nihilistic in nature and, therefore, should disintegrate into a chaotic mess. Stories don't need an almighty Creator injecting himself into the narrative to wrap up or make sense or obtain the sense of purpose. That is a religious view that purpose can only be given from high above, and if not then everything is meaningless. I can assure you, there's plenty of non-believers out there who don't find life meaningless at all.
I just want to say that there's plenty of books written and completed out there, much more nihilistic than ASOIAF ever will be, and they are finished. It is enough to look at plenty of "Grimdark" genre examples to see that even with trope subversion authors can finish books. Heck, even Dune is subverting the chosen one trope with Paul and he still does what hero's journey needs him to do, just in a subversive manner. There's plenty of room to keep with what ASOIAF is doing and go down to Azor Ahai vs Others, and still subvert it, in George's hippie's way, which is what majority of fandom thinks it will be (show sucked here).
The fact that Martin can't finish a story is not rooted in the nihilism or subversion of tropes that he has to follow to the T. It is rooted in his absolutely poor writing routine, moody distractions, gardening approach and, probably, his 1987 DOS computer.
I think you're wrong about the knighthood stuff. Yes it was probably a lot more to do with religion and all that in real medieval Europe, but there are plenty of accounts of knights abusing their status and being every bit as depraved as they are in ASOIAF. One example of this that I can think of is, during a tourney a bunch of knights decided to completely ransack and destroy a nearby village basically just for fun doing some very ungodly things while they're at it. Yes chivalry and all that existed, but it also exists in ASOIAF, there are many who break the codes and many who stick to them, this is how humans are in reality too
Right, false knights did exist as exceptions to the rule. But I was talking more about what it meant to become a knight - you couldn't just dub all you followers. And of course knights couldn't make knights - a Lord together with the Church makes knights
@@goodnesswithfists Fair enough I see your point, I have not heard whether or not George intended it to be a 1:1 copy of European medieval culture with dragons and magic though so I suppose that's how that difference could be explained? But I am unsure, maybe he did just incorrectly think this is how it worked
@@jackjones7062 There are *a lot* of things in Westeros that are different from real world medieval societies. For example, in Westeros, girls are married off pretty much the second they bleed. In the Holy Roman Empire, the legal age for marriage was 15, years after menstruation starts for most women. He essentially takes the worst aspects of feudalism and exaggerates them while leaving out a lot of the more reasonable things. We also never hear of any system of guilds and crafts, making you wonder how Westeros' urban economy even functions.
@@tarvoc746 See I get your point, and he probably does include a lot of the darker aspects of medieval society because that's what a lot of people find most interesting, but if westeros is meant to be more like north west Europe than Byzantium, I have read many cases of women being married off at the age of 13 in this part of the world at the time. It is impossible to look at any 1 area and say "ah yes this is what George based westeros on" because he pulled inspiration from many medieval cultures, and I imagine he did make up entirely new things that just seemed to fit with the world
@@jackjones7062 ...Byzantium? I never mentioned Byzantium. The Holy Roman Empire is the name of the Empire covering medieval Germany, Swizerland, Austria, the Benelux and Northern Italy for most of the middle ages. It has nothing to do with Byzantium.
In my heart, I think that GRRM realized one of three things:
1) GRRM has realized he's written himself into a corner and is desperately trying to find a way out of the woods without resorting to killing off characters left and right. He views a mass culling of the named characters as some kind of 'cop out' and is futilely trying to tie up every storyline in a nice bow (even though killing off a huge chunk of the characters would be pretty in line with the real life inspiration for ASoIaF, the War Of The Roses).
2) Like you said in the video, he saw people hate one of his planned endings, and thinks that the only other real option he had, that being the White Walkers come in and kill everyone because they won't stop squabbling for long enough to stop them, would be even worse (even though that'd be kind of awesome imo).
3) He's resigned himself to never finishing the series, or letting any other author finish it, in his lifetime, but it is too chicken to admit that to his audience.
Aside from that, he wrote in Dreamsongs that his career was littered with the corpses of dead series, and that Tuf Voyaging was his breakthrough in writing enough short stories about a character to compile into a book. He progressed from short stories to some standalone novels like Fevre Dream and Armageddon Rag but never wrote a novel series prior to A Song of Ice and Fire, which means he's also never finished such a series. A "gardener" like him might be incapable of finishing any novel series.
George deconstructs all the traditional beliefs and customs of his own civilisation, thats why its called "WESTeros", but when tasked with replacing those things with something better he struggles immensly. Whatever he puts forward will be subjective and even more easily deconstructed. And of course he doesn't have the guts for a truly nihilistic ending.
And THIS is his biggest problem. Martin is an "anti-establishment anarchist" (regarding the standard High Fantasy concept) who doesn't have an answer. He only knows how to point out what's broken and what's terrible, not offer any suggestions to make things better.
@@morlath4767 Thing is, what he points to as "broken and terrible" is not even really true, its an angsty edgelord teen's idea of that.
@@Wind_Falcon I agree. It's like that person who constantly points out every flaw and mistake in a film because they think they can do better, but they never offer any ways to improve it. Only coloured by an edgelord mentality that blows every negative up into a straw man mockery.
@@morlath4767 Exactly, and in real life he backs BlackRock Dems, go figure.
It’s funny that George states that due to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, many fantasy writers created worlds with dark lords and ugly minions, oh no it should be that way, he says. Yet if you analyze his world with the Others/White Walkers and the night king it’s essentially the same concept except you swapped out orc for ice zombie. Brilliant George very original.
Especially funny since his world is just full of dark lords who let their minions brutalise the poor humble small-folk for no reason other than ambivalent malice. He hasn’t deconstructed that trope at all, he’s just made his dark lords as parodies of medieval nobles, gave them selfish reasons for their actions, and called it “grey morality”.
The difference is that the Others only appear in a few chapters, and haven't been viewed since A Storm of Swords back in 2000.
Not really, you are confusing the show with the books, in the books the others aren't zombies, they have been featured very sparingly and in the few times that they have been featured they are described as ghosts, fey, shadows, ice etc. they aren't dark at all they are very bright, almost alien in their appearance. They do use zombies (the wights) but that's that, and the night king mentioned in the books is a mythological character (a lord commander of the Night's Watch) and not the chief Other.
@@tsioulak He's not called the "Night King" in the books, but instead the "Night's King" as in "Night's Watch".
The others are not just "ice zombies", especially if you delve into theories that indicate they are much, much more than a horde of baddies the protagonist has to mow down later. Not to mention that the book's Night's King is not the show's Night King. There is a world of difference between the two, tying into the possible role of the Others in the books (and how this affects the stories of POV characters like Jon, Daenerys, Stannis, etc.
It reminds me of the story of how "Easy Rider" had no ending when filming started; they were originally going to cross the entire country. After six months of shooting mostly useless footage the studio hired a script doctor to write a satisfying, but quick ending. I will not spoil the ending here, but he got paid a lot of money for a few lines of text.
The ending makes the film
I agree that ASOIAF cannot end without heavy involvement from Bran and the Weirdwoods, and that’s why the Show didn’t work. It systematically reduced the role of magic any time it could thus the ending felt weird and unearned. Therefore the book ending can possibly work.
At 16:00 when you talk about possible American fantasy involving a monarch stepping down from power made me immediately think about Brandon Sanderson who has this exact thing happen several times
In Lotr, beauty is not always good. Look at how Sauron was Annatar for a long time and undermined both the elves and the numenoreans
Martin's self described "gardeners" style of writing may have overwhelmed him. He spent so much time growing the story that it's too big for him to finish.
This is exactly right
100%
I do not think Martin's work is as cold and cynical as some people belive it to be. If anything it seems he never mocks idealism.
- A crippled girl like Princess Shireen got burned alive as a blood sacrifice.
- An overly detailed sexual assault scene of Ramsay and Jeyne Poole.
- A glorification of Tywin Lannister by giving him a cool theme song “Rains of Castamere” to celebrate him committing genocide after genocides.
- Robb Stark, a hero, got punished by breaking the oath in a universe that everyone else breaks their oaths without facing consequences. To top that, he got his corpse beheaded and replaced with his wolf’s head as a mockery in death.
- Oberyn Martell, who wanted to seek justice for his sister and her children, got his head exploded like a watermelon.
- Ned Stark got beheaded and branded as a traitor.
- Tyrion Lannister turned into an evil stereotype that everyone else branded him as, which means Tywin, an abuser, won in the end.
- Littlefinger, a literal pedophile, is happily grooming Sansa Stark, as a revenge against Catelyn who rejected him.
- A crippled boy like Bran got his mind and identity hijacked by a dark magic wizard like Bloodraven. He also got forced to eat his own friend.
- Euron Greyjoy, a genocidal dictator and a known rapist, makes fun of religions to spite his own brother Aeron Greyjoy, who’s also one of his rape victims.
- Jon Connington is now willing to commit war crimes like Tywin Lannister because he saw how it gave Tywin fame, glory, money and respect.
It’s a very cynical series if you ask me and it mocks idealism big time.
@@nont18411 Idealism without challenge is just preaching. Idealism which does win overall when challenged by evil is earned.
That is also why Dostoevsky is 100% anti-cinic.
My main beef with the final season of the television show is that the burning of King's landing is the conclusion and not the final battle with the others. I have no problem with the Mother of Dragons going mad and burning everyone and needing to be killed. I have no problem with the Nights King being killed by a little girl with a sword. They are just the wrong way round. I would move the battle of Winterfell to the charred ruins of King's Landing. With snow and falling ash merging. I would probably set it in daytime so we can see what's happening. One of my favourite television endings is Blakes 7. I've always wanted a story to end with evil succeeding and seeing what that means. What does a society of ice zombies do when the warm are all cold? Maybe when spring comes new dragons will hatch and reset the dance. Trees will cover the cities. Spring will bring forth blossom in a world without men. The Titan of Braavos, The Harpy of Yunkai, The faces of the Weirwoods could look out at a silent world of skulls and bones.
25:25 He specifically shows that peace times are good. There are several generations if peace at several times in the franchise. There was a decade of peace after Robert's Rebellion. There was well over half a century of peace during the reigns of Jaeherys and Viserys I.
The difference between a fantasy world written by a Catholic VS an EX-catholic.
I think this is the core difference
@@goodnesswithfists mommy and daddy made me pick up my toys but I'm an ADULT and I never need to put them away, now!
@@goodnesswithfistsi think youre a fanatic Christian cause youre probably gay
@@PatrickKniesler It a core difference because Tolkein wasn't just a Catholic, He was a English Catholic who is only two step away from being sedevancatist.
Meaning he was more in touch with the theology of his work and the ideal of a Catholic life during the mass reforms of the Second Vatican Council which he himself rejected.
@@lettuceman9439 He was very right to reject 2nd vatican council
Respect for recognizing Lord Tywin as the real MC. One of the top 3 characters in all of fantasy
Sand dan Glokta is #1 btw for those wondering
In the idea of subversion, I think Jon would become a big-bad of the Others, as:
1) His story, being most about fighting against the Others, then becomes fighting with the others.
2) As there are many hints of his possibly being Azorahai, the saviour from the darkness, him instead being one of them who brings it upon the world.
3) As being of the Stark blood, which is heavily implied to be mixed with the Others, there might be something of him or at least another stark, to doom the rest of the world not of the Others.
4) Being of the nightswatch, a group often ignored and belittled by the rest of the kingdom, it would be ironic if they would end up destroying the kingdom as puppets of the Others.
I agree. The story can only end the way you stated. Jon becomes leader of the white walkers and wakes up whatever is in the crypts. In the final he gets smoked by Danny who by then should already have the throne with the help of Euron who gets smoked by Arya or or something like that. Everything else doesn't make a lick of sense and goes nowhere. Even taken the straight route I think it's unfinishable since none of the major plots get resolved unless being steamrolled over by convenient misfortunes
Euron Greyjoy is going to be The Witch King of the series.
Ramsey owns the hounds but I don't know if they'd actually consider him their master, that would be the kennelmaster who takes care of them. They'd only see Ramsey when the hunts happen, and the kennelmaster would be there too.
This is what I've always said, the walkers should destroy the kingdoms and slaughter everyone
And I think you're right, it's his only option to end this thing
18:47 I'm sorry, mate, but equating Martin's book with the abomination of a series Dave an Dan created is just wild to me. And I'm very sure that Martin already expressed and hinted quite often at his discontent with how the series ended. I highly doubt Martin seeks to subvert his own bulld up by letting some randon character defear the White Walkers.
Also, I don't agree at all with how you paint him as a nihilistic, vengeful hippie who justs wants to show the world how awful it is.
The thought of The Others winning in the end made me more excited than any other theory for years.
ASOIAF is too post modernistic and deconstructionist. That's why it's so hard for George to conceptualize a high quality continuation to his story.
This ending is just perfect, I will consider this my canon ending if no more books are released.
13:40 I’d like to challenge this. George as a history buff understands this very well.
The choices he makes are deliberate. He is completely concious of the decisions he is making in even after considering the analogous historical context, as opposed to making decisions with lack of understanding. Where ideals differ, is clearly a choice.
I don't think GRRM knows actual history that well. He's into historical fiction and pop history. He doesn't seem to have any understanding of how often mothers died in childbirth prior to doctors displacing midwives.
Ever since the show ended, I’ve always thought there could only be three potential endings for the series, and you nailed one of them.
1: George’s initial plan for the end was actually very close to how the show ended. But now seeing the kind of reception that got, couldn’t possibly still go with it.
2: One of the main characters manages to unite the Seven Kingdoms together, and banish the threat of the White Walkers. Seeing how much George has beefed with the character of Aragorn, and always seems to portray his story as the modern “response” to LOTR, I couldn’t ever see George swallowing his pride and doing this ending.
3. Much like how you posit, the White Walkers return, the Seven Kingdoms cannot overcome their selfish bickering, and die one by one. Westeros becomes a cold, barren tomb. As fitting as an ending as this is for the series, I kinda doubt George would spend so many years of effort to write a seven book series only to end with “nothing mattered and everyone died”
Looking back on it, it kinda seems like ASOIAF was unfinishable from the start. From book one we are told that there will come a time when The Game of Thrones no longer matters and that everyone must unite against the coming threat. But at the same time, almost everything George has written tells us that such a scenario could never happen. These people are just too self-serving, too myopic and conceited to ever unite for a cause that doesn’t directly benefit them. Good video man!
George has communicated a very clear ending to the story which in all probability will end with a semi-democratic system in place in Westeros. Not everyone may have picked this up but it's there. His struggle is bringing all the sprawling narratives back to the conclusion. Tolkien's style reflects the POV of an omniscient narrator which was popular in the early to mid-twentieth-century. I actually find the unreliable narrators in ASOIAF more compelling. As far as the naming convention, that's just English grammar. All of the other titles have countable nouns- game, clash, storm, feast and dream are all countable. Winds is an uncountable noun, so you can't use a or an. There is an overarching narrative that will be revealed even if everyone may not be able to see it at this point. Don't focus so much on Tolkien, GRRM has many influences. Also, he is not going to switch to an omniscient God-like narrator, which would be stupid. Also, you can't rely on the show for the conclusion. It was just foolish. Overall, I think there is some validity to this conclusion, it's just not as nuanced as the real ending will be.
Yes, the democratic ending is the only valid ending for an American story. But the problem with that is that it absolutely breaks with the medieval fantasy setting. GRRM, after creating one of the most cynical and nihilistic fantasy universes, would suddenly turn around and say that medieval lords and peasants were suddenly able to participate in a democracy. I do not believe it. I don't believe any of them would even want democracy. To the people of that time, democracy is morally repugnant to a degree we moderns simply don't understand.
Also, it's not about the narrator. While Tolkien's omniscient narrator is popular with me, I don't dislike GRRM's choice of POV. But the POV is not the issue, the issue is that Tolkien's world has a grand plan (from Eru Illuvatar) driving the whole story, while GRRM's world doesn't until now.
I'm not suggesting that he "switches to an omniscient God-like narrator" but I think that he should introduce an omniscient God.
@@goodnesswithfists There are already some quazi democratic societies already in play in the world. One of them is making a big play for control in a post apocalyptic Westeros. I'm not suggesting Democracy the way we know it today, but possilby something that allows the elites to choose a leader and eliminates heriditary male primogenitor. But we will probably only get hints of this possibilty as this is not the end point of the story. I don't understand the purpose of an omniscient God in this story. Tolkein is Eru Illuvatar. That was the way literature was written at that time. It's passe now. No one writes like that anymore.
@@goodnesswithfistsIn which ways is ASOIAF nihilistic in general? I think you're totally wrong.
I love that you draw the line at dogs. Kudos to you. No one should be allowed to smear good dogos.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you understand the novels on the same level the show runners of game of thrones did.
I'm 13 mins in so far and it seems like you think george is writing things simply to subvert expectations, and to suggest that "nihilism" is some sort of truth. This couldn't be further from the truth and its genuinely sad how many people can miss this in his writing. He writes magical realism, and uses the lens of historical fantasy to explore that idea. In LOTR the characters are idealized versions of "people" but they aren't really "people" they are characters that are nearly perfect in their convictions. In ASOIAF they are simply people, acting with their own interests in mind; Much like the real world. It's strange to look at this and think "george must be nihilistic" unless you are in fact a nihilist yourself.
George explores what it REALLY means to be a hero. There are MANY examples of this but lets look at Ned stark. He dies because he didn't want Cerce and her children to be killed, he betrays his honour and names Joff a trueborn son of robert only in the hopes that his daughters might live. To be a hero is give yourself for what you TRULLY believe in. We see Ned as honourable because he wears honour quite convincingly. But in truth what he cares about is family, and family is what he dies for. He forsakes his honour for the sake of his sister and the promise he swore to her (to keep jon safe from robert who wanted to kill all targs), and bears the shame of having a bastard. He forsakes his honour by naming joff trueborn, only once Varys reminds him that if he keeps his honour something might happen to his daughters. He lives and dies for family. The subversion in his character is not that his honour is weak, its that his honour is to his family, not some shallow LOTR style honour.
Ok I watched another 30 seconds.... George's inspirations are numerous. Yes, history plays a part in shaping how the story reads, as does his hatred for war. But Norse mythology is CENTRAL to the entire culture of westoros and specifically the north. Verdic Mythos is central to Dany's plot. Tarot cards and comic book references can be seen in just about every inch of the story. Weirwood trees are OBVIOUSLY a parallel to Ygg or the world tree from norse myth. Literally any character who has one eye is an Odin parallel. Kali = khaliessi. Bran falling from the broken tower is a "The tower" reference from tarot cards. the list goes on.
I cannot believe you suggested that chivalry and piety were somehow different or uniquely pure in medieval europe. There are countless tales of knights being brutes, or priests who abused their powers. Knights were a product of the church (because the king was the product of the church), and Knights in westoros are the product of the Faith of the Seven (because the king is the product of the faith of the seven. Aegon the conqourer was crowned in the light of the Seven. He does this to give his rule legitimacy) why would you expect them to require land as the Christian knights did? Its a different religion that governs them.
I'm at 18:55 and it seems you think George was MUCH more involved in the shows than he was. He stopped talking to the show runners after season 4 and only ever wrote 4 episodes. The plot beats the showrunners used to script the ending (from seasons 6-8) was based on notes written in the style akin Fire and blood but even less detailed.
I'm at 24:40 and again it seems like you're missing a lot of the point. Robert's rule was properious but after he's dead (and even during) its clear he's beggared the realm. They borrow and borrow and borrow and its clear that this will come back to bite them. Ned even talks about this before the tourney for the Hand. He complains that the crown is in debt but still borrows. Robert valued appearances and idealized versions of things. He wanted people to keep up appearance and so he raised little finger to master of coin because he was able to do that, but Robert did not care about the long term effects of this. When Ned becomes Hand and actually denis robert, its world shattering for him.
I'm at 28:40 and I'm giving up. Its blindly obvious that you don't understand the themes at work. I won't say the ending is "obvious" to predict but every concluded plotline we have is a major hint as to how the story will end. Again Ned is a template/archetype (much like the Seven aspects of god in the Faith's religion); Characters will Give themselves entirely for what they truly believe in. Jon snow wants legitimacy because he was denied it. Tyrion wants revenge for the blame he bore for joff's death. Dany wants to provide home/shelter and free slaves because she never had a home, and knows what it is to be a scared child sold into slavery. If I would be so bold as to make a prediction as to how this all ends here I go:
In very broad strokes: Jon is reborn and looked at as a deity for escaping death and rules the night's watch as the original night king did (the book version not the cringe HBO version). He discovers his purpose has something to do with the heart of winter and now that he can't die, he's perfectly suited to travel north. Dany wants to free slaves but is also being counciled by tyrion who wants revenge on the people of king's landing and for the whole tysa situation. Tyrion tricks dany into activating the wild fire caches that are placed all around king's landing. The people view her was a tyrant and a monster so she seeks absolution by answering the call of the night's watch and defeating the others with jon and freeing the thralls (or slaves) of the others . However she will likely have to killself in this process or her dragons, and its very likely that history will not remember her kindly. These are again, broad strokes and characters like Euron will definitely play a part.
also at 11:30 you suggest that george wrote the dogs eating ramsey scene in the tv show... which he didn't, that was the showrunners D&D.
Thank you, it seems the video maker is a bit clueless about ASOIAF and how little the second half of the show resembles the canon.
GRMM: Complains about Dark Lords and Evil Minions
Also GRMM: Creates the Others and their Zombie Army
They even retcon HotD so the entire lore is about wights
In what ways are they similar though, really? Have you seen how they're described in the books?
@@mokarokas-1727 yes they are way different in the books
Yet they are still otherworldly beings that control an army of undead that are the enemies of mortals. While the Night King wasn’t in the books like he was in the show there was still a Night King and he still was evil
@@MrLuisfrossi But that was just a leader of the Night's Watch who went crazy, not a Sauron. lol
If anything, you could claim he was seduced by an agent of evil, similar to Théoden.
And Sauron doesn't have an army of undead... Aragorn did for a bit, though.
@@mokarokas-1727 still they are the evil faction hellbent on wiping out life on earth. And while the Night King is no Sauron, the Bloodstone Emperor surely is, and he’s heavily implied to have started the Long Night when he took control of Yi Ti, and was stopped by Azhor Ahai, tho the people of that land call him Sparrow
The point about him actually not understanding medieval Europe, especially when it's coming through the lens of an American, who probably only ever got his information through relatively skewed and heavily simplified works, is pretty spot on. Considering he also started writing Asoiaf in the 90s (iirc), where the whole medieval discourse was still heavily misunderstood (as if, widespread belief in the Dark Ages, etc.) it shouldn't be that surprising.
You're absolutely right. I'm surprised no one else commented on the anti-American bit
I really loved this video. It was awesome to hear your thoughts. I really liked you're idea of the ending too. Good job man. Entertaining, interesting, respectful, and fun.
Thank you! I really appreciate it
Your idea about Bran as the son of a theoretical Weir-god, a role which Bloodraven failed to fulfill, is fantastic-the Second Adam recapitulating what the First failed.
this is really well argued! You brought up a lot of the issues that I have had with the morality of the series and the character arcs!
Thank you!
I enjoyed hearing your analysis on this series but I'd have to say that I don't agree with most of your conclusions. I don't necessarily think GRRM has been trying to subvert JRRT in every decision and moreso that JRRTs works are idealistic fantasy where morality is backed by extremely powerful forces and good always wins in the end, and GRRM is writing a fantasy story in a fantasy world which doesn't have any of that. It's a realistic fantasy where for example broken oaths are treated how they would be in real life. There's no magical force making the just decision forcing people into doing the right thing. In GRRMs world very often doing wrong things is what gets you ahead in life, and that's just how in many cases the real world has been proven to work. HOWEVER, GRRM is also I think using this backdrop to tell a story of heroes the same way JRRT did but with the stakes feeling much higher and more personal because of how realistic the world is, and I think this story does subvert but it's also realistic in that in some ways the good guys will win, just at heavy a cost. I think he definitely can't finish this story I'm a satisfying way that aligns with his themes but considering how sprawling this story is, it's taking him a LOT of time.
Genuinely such a good video. So thoughtful and well explained. “A Dream of Spring” being the final words in the book would be something beautiful indeed!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
solid video my man, the quote that ofc comes to mind: "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven’t been paying attention."
@@Huntardization GRRM: “If you think this will ever have an ending, you haven’t been paying attention.”
Samwise Gamgee = Samwell Tarly
Pippin = Pyp
Aragorn = Aegon (Jon)
Sauron = Euron
J “RR” Tolkien = George “RR” Martin
Samwell Tarly does resemble a subverted version of Samwise Gamgee - I wonder if his clinging to Jon is how GRRM saw Sam's relationship to Frodo
Btw, Egon is a perfectly normal German name irl, so it was always hilarious to me that Aegon has such a fantasy aura around it
@@goodnesswithfists One thing that I know for sure is that Samwell and Tyrion will not die in his story ever, or at least not until the end of the story, because it’s so clear that Sam and Tyrion are Martin’s self insert characters, especially Sam.
@@nont18411100%, and what a self report it is that these two are the characters he self-inserts into
Tolkien meanwhile didn't have a self-insert character as far as I can tell
@@goodnesswithfists
Also
Melkor (Morgoth) = Maegor the Cruel
@@nont18411 He's not only doing it in ASoIaF, but in other projects he's worked on too. Imagine replacing only one single letter in "Morgoth".
I have to say that at the beginning of this video I wasn't sure that the point you made was right, but in the end it made a lot of sense.
My suspicion of J.K. Rowling having written half of the books remains. AND: The former has NOTHING to do with GRRM premeditating the murder of Meleys!!! 😭 `Fools like Jon Snow were revived, but Meleys lay dead!´
arguing that tolkien's world is perfectly constructed while painting george as a mess si such a dishonest move when tollkien explicitly says in his letters how he doesn't even know many things fans asked and many silmarilion entries contradict themselves like the origin of orcs.
find one plot hole or contradiction in Tolkien (Tom Bombadil doesn't count, he is made to be an enigma on purpose)
Not being able to answer fan questions is different from published writing fitting together.
The thing though about Martin's works is that they're almost historical in nature. Tolkien's work is mostly mythical, like the Bible, it presents itself as a unified moral framework, there is clear good and evil.
Martin's work is like that of an unbiased third party recording historical events of a world that is as cruel and chaotic as our own with ever shifting morals, religions, truths. Magic exists, but no one knows if the Gods exist, the religious fanatics may in fact be worshipping some Lovecraftian demons without their knowledge. Unlike Tolkien's work, A song of ice and fire seems very cynical, pointing towards unending suffering, with the inhabitants of its world constantly fighting among each other for power or their truths. It's a cynic's allegory for our own world and because of it, it's unfinishable by design
Brilliantly put. But I just have to say that Martin’s worldview that the real world is "cruel and chaotic" may stem from the fact that he is a childless atheist. It doesn't have to be that way though. Certain aspects of morality remain the same through time. You can discern a grand narrative arc throughout human history, at which point you'll be convinced that it is Tolkien who is the more "realistic" writer.
This is great! You have passion in this and I can feel it through the screen a little bit.
If I can compare Asoiaf to the Dune series, Frank Herbert had an important moral message for his audience: a warning about charismatic leaders and our need for adventure in life. George R.R. Martin wanted a story where nothing matters, which is why it's so hard to write an ending to it.
I've felt for years that this is the only reasonable end to the series. Humanity has very often faced faceless challenges with denial, infighting, and self-delusion. It'd be very fitting for each lord to see the White Walkers as an opportunity to rid themselves as a rival or consolidate power, all the while having a pet scholar whispering into their ear that the Walkers aren't a real threat and there will be some stratagem or lore that will ensure their own survival.
Great video, your thesis reaches its peak at around 31:00 minutes. I believe that's exactly it for all writers trying to design a random and nihilistic world with no grand narrative in their... narrative.
Whoa, I didn't expect you to come across this video! I've been subscribed to you for ages on my personal account.
Thank you!
It doesn't seem like you actually read the books.
True, the video's title is finishing Winds but he hardly takled about any plotline from winds, instead ends up talking about fixing DnD's mess from the show and comparing grrm to tolkien.
Well you say that Tolkien was wise not to talk about economics etc. but that is why I cannot get into most fantasy worlds, including Tolkien's. They seem to me paper thin with ''that King was good, that King was bad, they ruled for 100 years and killed Oompaloompas in great War of Shagadoom'' or whatever, GRRMs world is not perfect or amazingly detailed, but it has plenty of details for me to really feel lived in and real. I do not think you always have to subvert expectations, like Jon Snow can be Azor Ahai, kill the white walkers and marry Daeneris and live at least somewhat fine further on, but a lot of fantasy to me seems too simplistic in how they portray humans or elves or whomever... as GRRM says, if somebody is good then they are good, is somebody is evil then they are absolute evil... there are not that many stories with in-between, where characters have various sides to them. I like realism. That is also why I cannot play computer games because especially NPCs irritate me, no matter how detailed the setting is, there are a lot of things that feel cardboard and not real. Maybe if we have real AI NPCs in games in future and you can interact with them and create and run your own stories with them, I might return that that genre of entertainment.
The realism aspect in the world is also why I like House of the Dragon because it really is a story which does not have a clear villain at all. It does not have Cersei. Closest that we have so far are Aemond and Daemon and even they are deeply conflicted people with past scars. And that story is finished and we know it's ending and it is a rather realistic and good ending to me, for a tragic story like that. Also, dragons are not treated just as some cool beasts that spew fire, but also as an amazingly powerful weapon that shocks the world to the core, they are not there to make readers and viewers be just in awe of them, but also to fear what they can do.
I've always thought that you can add all those more everyday type things using your own fantasy. The story in Tolkien exists on top of everyday life which, despite the setting, is not too different from our own.
GRRM's worldview has its place, and personally, I love ASOIAF, but as it looks right now, he can't finish the story if all he has are flawed characters and there is no grand narrative to the whole universe.
Ngl, Aemond and Daemon are my favorite characters in House of the Dragon, though I'm only halfway through season 2.
Nah, he knows where he wants it to go, generally 😊 ... I dont think it's a matter of finding a resolution, it's simply too unwieldy. It's taking forever to deal with continuity. He has written himself into many corners.
GRRM subverts tropes but they aren't LOTR tropes specifically. The influence is there because Martin is a massive fan of Tolkien but he definitely wanted to write his own work that isn't an analogue of Tolkien's work.
not gonna lie, and I don't mean to sound judgemental...but I feel like Tyrion Lannister is talking to us
Ok but what if grrm subverts the subversion and the good guys win?
Based monarch over cringe and gay democracy and I'm not even a monarchist I,agree with the Council
G RR Martin does understand closure. A Storm of Swords ended on a highly cathartic note and Daenerys riding Drogon out of the fighting pit was that as well. He even made sure to make the reader feel as uncomfortable as possible before Drogon arrived.
Good point, and you're right of course. But my argument is that the nature of the universe GRRM set up makes it impossible to provide closure like that for the whole story. Too many moving pieces! The only way to do it is to introduce a supernatural reason for why all those characters would behave according to a common scheme - and find closure in the end.
25:00 JRR Tolkien was meticulous in a manner that the envious GRRM (who's so envious that stole the RR from his better) can never even dream to be. Tolkien took into consideration time passage, he took into consideration the amount of time that characters would take travelling between places, not just driving them between dream sequence to dream sequence as the plot demanded. He created several fictional languages for Tolkien's sake!
George is just an envious and vengeful with hate for the world. He's a pitiful little creature who is angry that he'll NEVER be able to come close to Tolkien.
This is brilliant. GRRM has to overcome own pride and subvert the ultimate expectation that is of his own writing.
You don’t get it. Read the brienne chapters. It’s not about nihilism, it’s not about subversion, it’s about realizing you freedom and doing the right thing with it. The story obviously isn’t devoid of a sense of morality.
There are characters with a sense of morality, that is true, but what morality does the story itself teach?
Regarding Brienne, the issue is that GRRM does not understand where knightly virtues come from. They are not just a product of your character, you aren't just born that way. Knightly virtues irl were fostered within the Christian institution of knighthood, beaten into young squires over years and years of training. The fact you find knightly virtues in Brienne and the Hound, outside the institution of knighthood, calls into question the whole purpose of it.
I maintain - GRRM always subverts.
@@goodnesswithfists I agree GGRM subverts a lot, but this whole argument of morals only cames from christianity and its not inherent to mankind is just absolutely not true: IRL Samurai were not christians as well and they also had honor.
@@goodnesswithfistsIt shows morality is not always cut and dry, life is messy. Jaime is the hero who saved King's Landing from burning and yet he is the villain who broke his oath in Ned's eyes. Is it honorable to keep your oath and let thousands die? Is it moral to let thousands die in order to keep your honor?
The Winds of Winter is an old name originally intended for the third and final book back when the series was planned to be a trilogy
I broadly like your ending, but... I think the whole "divine intervention" stuff with the Allmaker is dumb. The point of the Old Gods is that they are a "divinity" crafted from the souls of basically every dead firstman in history. It's like, what if God was just the average human soul? Would you expect him to be good? Or would you expect him to be vengeful and cruel? That's what the old gods are. That's what Blood Raven has hooked himself up to.
The White Walkers are going to try destroy Westeros regardless of if the humans to the south deserve it or not. It's not Divine Justice, it's more a force of nature. The test isn't even a moral one. Humanity doesn't need to become "good" in order to defeat the white walkers. It doesn't need to found a democracy, or achieve certain moral virtues. It just needs to unite. It's in the vast majority of people's own selfish interest to defeat the white walkers.
I agree with you though that a lack of some unifying message is part of the reason this story is taking so long. But, I doubt that can change even at this point. GRRM is more interested in world building than he is at writing characters. The Winds of Winter is never coming.
A lot of people ask “but could Aragorn survive in asoiaf?” In mocking fashion my answer is yes and easily as middle earth is far harder for good people to survive in. The real question is can your asoiaf characters survive in middle earth? They can’t outwit Sauron and they are to wicked (for the most part) to join the men of the west so they’d become Sauron’s thralls. The few “good” characters would have to join under the heir of Isildur or die.
To further on Aragorn surviving Westeros I would talk about how he brought order and (relative) safety to eriador. In the hobbit Aragorn was 11 and it was shown to be a place where you would run into trolls on the regular. Aragorn trained in imladris he rode under theodred in Rohan he served as a captain in Gondor and led them to sack umbar (this inspired denethors one sided rivalry which helped lead to his distaste for faramir who was much like Aragorn) he then went back to his people and led them to bring further safety to eriador a place safe enough for bilbo to walk through with little escort and no trouble. He hunted gollum alone for many years and succeeded when he had no right to. He alone brought strength to Rohan at helms deep. He rode with little rest for several days and nights to bring aid to Minas Tirith. He saved his city and came out of the battle unscathed he won when he had not right to. He did what was thought by men at the time to be impossible and became king of Gondor and Arnor. He is wise and inspiring many a young captain would be eager to join him. He is strong and wise and his hands bring healing yet none can withstand his sword in his fury. Knowing all this what can Westeros have that he hasn’t seen and conquered before? (And don’t say political intrigue Aragorn didn’t enter the city after the battle of pelenor fields to avoid that. He understands it.)
Re: Subverting the prince and princess expectations. I'd argue that Tolkien already did this with Eowyn and "not by man's hand he will die". So I don't think this will be much of a subvered expectation today.
English speakers really should stop laying so much emphazis on this "man". When the german translation was made, the translator Margaret Carroux asked Tolkien about her translation of this as "Von keines Mannes Hand wird er sterben" = "not by man's hand he will die", since she was unsure if german "Mann" that is simply "man", with no possibility to understand it as "human" would destroy the ambiguity of the prophecy. Tolkien sanctified this translation. If he would have wanted it to be something ambigous, he would have asked that not a literal but instead a more poetic and the ambiguity keeping german translation would be choosen.
@@anonymussicarius8899 Just for your info, I'm German as well and read the books in German. 😁 But nonetheless Tolkien uses the prophecy to play with the expectations. In retrospect, it's meaning is quite clear, but I'm not sure, how many first time readers guessed, that it means, the Witch King will die by a woman's hand. I certainly didn't.
AFAIK the Angmar prophecy was a deliberate subversion of the prophecy in Shakespeare's Macbeth. So yes, even Tolkien already subverted tropes.
I don't think there is actually that much of a problem in finishing the book in a subversive way. George wants to subvert the idea of the "just final battle against evil" which is being set up with mankind against the others. This could be done by having it turn out that the others were seeking to save humanity from the children. If the show is to be believed the others were men who the children of the forest tried to turn into a anti-human army, but that went rogue. What a perfect subversion it would it be if it turned out all this time the goal of the others was to build an army to defeat the children and stop them from "taking westeros back from mankind". If we take the conclusion that there are no gods in ASOIAF then Bran is actually a man possessed by the visions sent to him by the telepathic COTF via the weirwood trees. He is the final victory of the COTF and the doom of mankind. So with a few minor changes the ending of the show is actually very subversive and very dark. It also makes sense that the prophecies are real, but the goal is to manipulate man into destroying themselves in a final battle against the saviours of mankind rather than against "death".
Ok this is brilliant.
The real villains are the COTF. The Others turn out to be based Ice Giants who free humanity from the hivemind slavery the COTF want to impose through Bran.
I like it. Nordic ice gods destroying the chthonic hivemind.
This would be the less biblical, more Germanic ending.
If the ASOIAF series is ever completed (by George it has to be George or it won’t “count” to enough people for this to matter) then it will become a equal to the LOTR series hands down. I’ll go a step further and say in 100 years it will be a back to back required reading for public high school students. You can basically read LOTR and learn how fantasy was started, how Tolkien’s work was so good it became how we even visualize fantasy itself with all the different tropes and characters. Then you would read Georges work and learn how he turned all of that on its head and even though without LOTR we wouldn’t have ASOIAF (or if we did it wouldn’t hit as hard as it does) George was still able to equal or even surpass Tolkiens work with his own.
I agree 100%. Right now though, in its unfinished state, it is more of a cautionary tale for fantasy writers
@@goodnesswithfists oh for sure. I don’t think it will even be enough that it gets “finished” if it’s not finished by George himself. Idk why this man is playing so fast and loose with his legacy. Even if (which I’m sure it is) the book is hard to finish in a satisfying way while still subverting all the tropes and keeping the same quality we’ve come to expect from George. He could play it safe and lean more into the traditional fantasy elements to help wrap up the story faster and i don’t think anyone would really complain about it. The story, as is, has so many great moments he wouldn’t have to “shock” or “awe” us anymore and the series would still be considered timeless. In fact the show proved that if he tries to keep subverting expectations too much it would probably ruin the story more than help it. Loved the video!
I think the base of your argument against GRRM's works isn't quite accurate. Sure he subverts expectations a lot, but I don't think he does that just for the sake of it, ESPECIALLY the books. The show slowly turns trash when they outpaced the books, and the small changes to characters or combined storyline/characters become either pivotal missing links in the later seasons or just... improvised trash.
With that out of the way, I would like to point out that ideas like chivalry, virtue, family, oaths, are not subverted just for the sake of it. I think the opposite is true, that GRRM tries to champion these values in the minority of characters who held tight or try to adopt them in a world where it is very taxing to do so (Brienne, Jaime, Jon, Dany, Stannis to a degree, etc). He contrasts them with characters who don't care about those values, and during the process we are given glimpses of the possible outcomes of keeping faith with those values even though they might be long in coming (e.g.The Grand Northern Conspiracy).
Regarding GRRM not being able to finish the books, as a long time fan I agree that he has a really difficult time wrapping up some storylines, especially since he doesn't seem to restrain himself too much on adding new characters/plot points. However, recently I stumbled upon some deep dives into ASOIAF theories. Years ago, the most mind-blowing theory I knew was perhaps the Battle of Ice (Stannis vs the Boltons prediction). This theory and prediction based on the clues GRRM has given in small doses in previous chapters - without taking away the amazing eye for detail and the skill to put those clues together in a coherent way - is focused on things that might happen in the future on a physical level. The deep dives I stumbled upon is much more compelling, in that they also delve into the symbolisms and motifs that most would not pick up right away in their second or third re-read (check out David Lightbringer on TH-cam). I've finished the books 4 times, but I never had the knowledge or training to pick these up, so in those 4 times the best kind of new information/revelation I picked up on was the sort of things like Tom o' Sevenstreams being a spy for the BwB inside Jaime's camp besieging Riverrun, Young Griff's true identity and Illyrio's game, Jaqen's success in infiltrating the Citadel, Alleras' true identity, things that have much to do with certain character motivations and identities. Needless to say, after encountering deeper theories (Empire of the Dawn, House Dayne, Euron Crow's Eye, House Hightower, Night's King, Night's Watch, green men, etc), I re-read them again with a whole new perspective. I kind of understand why it's difficult to write ASOIAF, with the wealth of details that we have experienced in the last 5 books. I might grumble and complain, but I'll keep waiting for those books until I grow old.
Regarding Beric Dondarrion, I am convinced he is one of the most honourable individual in recent times. The whole reason he did all the things he did was because he was charged by Ned to bring the Mountain to justice. He held trials to prove the innocence of the accused. He suffered repeatedly but kept on fighting because he was driven by duty. He even gave his life to Lady Stoneheart because he swore on his honour as a knight to Arya that he would return her to her mother's arms. Did he have to do this? No. The only thing that kept him going was his honour and duty. His means are questionable, but I couldn't see a cynic doing what he did. Even Thoros who started as a cynic rediscovered his faith, turned more serious and more purpose-driven, and even went so far as being discouraged when Lady Stoneheart started turning the BwB into something uglier.
Writing all these has reminded me that I need to read the books again to cope with TWOW still not being released.
This video needs to be forwarded to Preston Jacobs because he is the most likely candidate to finish the story before George.
It is urgent that he understands importance of mythological structure so that his fan-fiction may be as great as can be.
Please get on that, Internet🙏.
Yep, Preston's fanfic is pretty good
I've been saying a version of this for years. A Feast for Crows set the victory in stone. A long winter on the way and the river lands are a mess with the harvest lost, so is the North. The Nights watch's neutrality has been irreparably damaged by its boy commander who intervened in politics and attempted to desert. Cersei will further alienate the Tyrells who're having their territories raided by the Iron Born, and the capital of the Storm land's has been taken by an exiled Lord and new claimant to the throne. And all of this distracts from Bran who's being seasoned for a body snatching so the Children's 'last green seer' can upgrade from the dying body he stole from the once strong and formidable Brynden Rivers. The Children are the faction that's hiding in plain sight in this game of thrones. If Bran ends up on the Iron throne, it will be bran in body/flesh only, and the last green seer in spirit/actuality. The only fitting end is a Nymeria type of story where few Westerosis survive, take ship, and become refugees in the lands tot he East. The the bed of thorny roses that're growing out of his planted seed, but maybe that's not a big enough subversion 😅 Excellent video 😘
Thank you for this excellent comment, 100% accurate
@@goodnesswithfists ☺
Ironically, Martin has shown his disbelief in video games as art and yet the answer to his story has already been done by a game, Dark Souls. A world almost devoid of hope, where the same vicious cycle or the same wheel is kept spinning by the actions of beings either for selfish reasons or by ignorance, and in the bitter sweet ending George seems to aim his series towards, the wheel is broken by letting the fire fades, by allowing the status quo to be broken and a new word to be born. His answer comes from the one place he is ignoring for so long.
It is interesting that the other, in the book at least, are not mindless zombies but a misunderstood race, just as those who's soul is dark, humanity itself in the case of the DS universe, and perhaps in Martin's world as well.
This is not even a good argument and just misses the point that both stories are trying to tell. Predicated on the assumption that all stories must be about hope winning in the end.
I disagree with this mindset entirely lol. What about every other stories that ended with the dark winning? Are they now completely bad devoid of any meaning?
@@erenja3ger871 Yeah. How many stories do you know of about the dark winning that are actually good and popular? I actually only know one. Devilman Crybaby. And even in that, the victory the darkness pulled off in the end turned out to be its own eternal punishment, doomed to repeat over and over again until eternity. So it didn't really win.
He’s right about video games, they’re just fun little distractions, not art.
@@mcbeaty3971 That is retarded
I would rather GRRM never publish winds than turn it into a boring Tolkien parody, I trust him to do much better and give us a somewhat satisfying ending, even if it's not a grand epic I would be good with it as long as his world keeps feeling alive unlike Tolkien's fairy tale ending.
Bro economic policy is extremely important, it's the reason why in the real world things are so messy. TLDR "The Dictator's HandBook - Why Bad Behaviour is almost always good politics" changes one's viewpoint of the way politics interferes with reality.
Choosing whom to disappoint when managing finite resources is costly, people always come with baggage and they'll undermine your agenda. Your allies always feel like they deserve to be fairly paid, the problem is that the resources mean you must disappoint people. Some people you can disappoint free of charge and others come with a nasty price you must pay.
Right, but the question is: should you put a realistic simulation of an economic system into your fantasy universe, especially if you're not very familiar with economic principles?
@@goodnesswithfists you make a fair point, sure sloppy implementation of economic systems is annoying; nevertheless, similar to science fiction being written by scientifically illiterate people - I've conceded, that that is just the reality. I choose to suspend my disbelief at errors, though I know that it hurts to read amateurs writing about a scientific discipline you really know well.
No its not. None of the greatest storiest ever told are about the economy. What are you even talking about?
10 minutes in and I'm still waiting for a point of some kind.
This is a good video, lots of interesting theories and ideas. Not sure I can agree with them all, but still a good watch. Here's hoping George has what it takes to prove us all wrong. The Others winning and causing another Long Night would be amazing, but I'd settle for them just making it past the first castle...
20 minutes on and now he's quoting LoTR like it's a point.
It really just comes down do GRRM’s contempt for Christian morality in spite of borrowing from it to justify his ludicrous view of relativism.
@@noelyanes2455 That is really the fundamental issue. But it looks like you can't write a completed story based only on your rebellion against God.
@@goodnesswithfists R. Scott Bakker wrote a complete nihilist fantasy series called The Second Apocalypse. I haven't read it though.
Even as an American I'd never recommend some universal democracy with that travesty it's been I and many others would prefer limited suffrage star ship troopers style. The best ending for Game of thrones would have been some sort of constitutional monarchy with elected lords from a pre Woodrow Wilson American perspective.
I too think that the white walkers will likely be able to archive multiple victories and yeah humanity will win at the end but will be left in shambles.
Another comment pointed out that that would follow the scenario of the mythological Ragnarök
Instead of waiting for Martin, I plan to make my own fantasy series, inspired both by Martin, and Tolkien (and Sapkowski and others), with the slight twist that instead of many realistic languages it´s gonna have many realistic machines and technologies (as Im an engineer, not a linguist).
The point and reason why I´ve decided to create my own story is that I consider Martin to be short sighted, slightly turning his story into a dead-end road. He definitely likes the intricacies of his story, and without a clear plan how to end everything, he´s gonna have to get rid of them, which is gonna force him into either extremely predictable, or extremely stupid (think the GoT season 6-8) decisions, and he just now realized that. You need at least a vague plan. Writing without a plan is perfectly fine when you write something simple, but creating the world´s most complicated stories without a plan leads directly into a dead-end road followed by writer´s block.
There´s also the problem with subverting expectations. You can do it only so many times until it becomes THE expectation.
Are you writing in English or Czech?
@@goodnesswithfists Czech, but I plan to translate it to English myself as soon as it is finished. The first story will be comprised of 3 books, which are still expected to take several years to finish. But unlike Martin, I expect to be done with the first story entirely in next 12 years, and the next stories are only going to share the world they take place in, and little else.
You have to probe the subtext to catch it, but the Seven in Westeros do hold sway over the affairs of men. This guy is twisting GRRM's themes to fit his narrative in some of these examples.
I thought they really didn’t, but I have never read the books so could you elaborate on this
Knighthood is a semi-religious through the seven and the reason why we see so few northern knights as the north worships the old gots not the seven, and are often sworn in at a sept. several different orders and sects of the seven exert political influence and run facilities. The silent sisters are one such organization and are very common. The people of the land go to septs to hear sermons and pray and are religious and the faith effects how some people think. The seven has much power in Westeros
What he means is that, unlike the Valars, the seven are 100% fake (while some other cults with a darker side are shown to match some kind of supernatural powers). The peasants believe in it, but most of the learned. nobility doesn't
Someone loves dogs a little too much. The expression goes, “see how loyal a hungry dog is”for a reason
The tv show is george r r martins ending. They got the major character outcomes from him. Why does everyone assume he'll change it when he says the opposite
Exactly. Even when he didn't actively participate in the writing they were always in touch with him.
Maybe the ending would be the same but not in the same way, Bran most likely would become King but various other things might take a different part. And yes, GRRm did give them certain inevitable conclusions to DnD but from season 5 the show took a complete different path than the books by abandoning so many plotline like faegon,stannis in north and its conspiracies, davos in skagos, euron, stoneheart and so many more , all which are important to the story and are going to impact the book's ending in a different way.
Bruh idk what you’re talking about? I wanna know all about fantasy taxes, those extra layers really add to the world building