@@kf7876 No, there isn't. I've read everything GRRM has ever written and all his books are like this. Think about the magic we've seen so far in a song of ice and fire, it's either telekenesis, people coming back from the dead, or telepathy, with the glass candle visions and Bloodraven speaking to people through the trees.
@@Jesse-fd5bv umm i think what grrm doesnt want is what you just did. You can't englobe all magic from the world he built in asoiaf since magic is something that is very hard to control, and a lot of cultures are not completely known and the capabilities of necromancers and other types of "wizards" are a mystery, even to him. Saying that magic is just telekenesis and telepathy (which is also not true) leaves behind other important techniques that are practised throughout the story.
@@BB-848-VAC but the line is cold no matter who wrote it. maybe its different in the books but it doesnt change the line being cool in the context it was used
@@marthaghost1344 I don't think it's just laziness tbh. From what he's said before he seems to be a bit of a perfectionist when he's writing Winds of Winter. I guess part of it may be that the hype for the book just keeps getting higher to the point where it may end up never fulfilling those expectations, and so Martin may feel he has to be careful in everything he writes so as not to disappoint his increasingly hungry audience.
@@marthaghost1344 you can't be lazy, when you have build a world like him. I think it is more of a writers block and he struggles to make the lose ends work.
When I reflect on Theon's nightmare in ACOK (Theon V|ACOK) where he dines with the deceased Starks/Stark associates, I've always focused on two details. One- that Lyanna seems to be depicted in a wedding dress, and two- Benjen's absence from the dream, which indicates he's still alive. What I failed to notice until recently was another major absence--Lady Catelyn. Robb and Greywind were in this dream, appearing in accordance w/their Red Wedding deaths. So theoretically, Cat should have been as well. This was such a cool and covert Stoneheart foreshadowing; masked perfectly by the other two details and their implications on the story. I hate being tricked but I love how George does it. Others take him! Now that I think on it, if Ned and Ashara in fact loved each other as some theorize, you might expect to see her in this dream as well. That Ashara is absent could indicate that either she and Ned never had an affair, that she's not truly dead, or both. Hmm...
@@omgisthatvik For Barristan's sake I'm hoping so!!! And if true, I hope George reveals this through Ser Barristan's POV. It would be an awesome revelation through and for a character that was never intended to be a viewpoint for readers. Have Barristan's POV be worth more than the solution for the Meereneese knot.
@@omgisthatvik The main issue I have with Lemore, why did Tyrion not recognize her eyes? Ashara is said to have haunting violet eyes. And not many have purple eyes.
I look forward to seeing Jon’s transformation when/if he returns, he won’t be the same character and might even lose colour in his hair (Targaryen trait).
i'd have him come back radically changed to the point he's more ruthless more pissed of and more ambitious instead of wanting to just lead he wants to Rule and he builds up armies of wildings,Westerosi Mercs,Outcasts and Bastards and he have it be him that recruits the Golden company and they serve to be his Unsullied with The wildings being his dothraki and he retakes winterfell from the boltons and this puts him on both Cersei and Dany's radars Cersei immediately sees him as a threat but Daenereys sees his deeds of fighting tyranny and accepting outcasts and bastards as attractive and wants to desperately meet him and make an ally of him hence leading to their inevitable love affair or unrequited love from daenereys either way.
I have to disagree with Martin about Gandalf the White; I think he has lost a great deal when he returns. Yes, he is more powerful, more confident - but he is also more aloof, more detached, less human. One of the things that makes Gandalf the Grey so endearing is his how human he is, how deeply he cares for his mortal companions despite his status as a divine (or partially divine) being. Gandalf the White still cares, but he cares as a god would, not as a man would. That is a loss, I think, particularly in the mythology of LOTR, in which the mortality of humankind is portrayed as their greatest gift, as well as a curse. Gandalf has done what no man can, which is pass beyond the veil of death and return. Hence, he is no longer a man when he returns, and is both magnified and diminished by that fact.
I love both versions. I think him being more aloof as Gandalf the White is due to his mind being 100% focused on the mission. When he was the Grey he got the chance to know humanity, know the Hobbits, now if he wants to protect what he came to love he has to be badass and almost ruthless. I don't think he becomes less human, I think he becomes fully aware of the stakes and that he's not willing to leave anything to chance against Sauron.
Well, I feel that Martin actually does agree with that statement entirely, hence why he says he doesn't really like Gandalf the White. GTW is less human than GTG. His main point isn't so much that Tolkien didn't change Gandalf, it's that he disliked his revival as a plot element, plain and simple. I don't think he's saying that reviving your characters is always a bad thing, otherwise he wouldn't do it himself, just that there need to be severe consequences to it. It's likely that he views Berric Dondarion in the same light as he views Gandalf, only with the added bonus that Berric is, in his own words, a minor character. There is a severe difference between bringing back a major player like Gandalf, slightly less human or humane but otherwise still equally or more powerful and THEREFORE a boon to the fellowship, and on the other hand, bringing back a seemingly innocuous character like Berric Dondarion, each time less and less his former self, with no real "benefits" to these revivals, and only minor effects on the overal plot. (though minor effects that could in the end prove to be essential for the outcome of the entire story.) As an added example (spoiler alert!): Catelyn stark comes back as Lady Stoneheart, but LS could not be further from Catelyn Stark in any sense than she already is. LS is pure vengeful spite, utterly merciless, and blinded by hatred, as we see in the final Brienne chapter of A Feast for Crows. Catelyn Stark would never have harmed Brienne, but LS does so in the blink of an eye, killing a young, innocent squire in the process as well. So the point is not "Was Gandalf the same upon his revival". Martin seems to be very well aware that he isn't. It's just that he dislikes the particular manner in which that revival was handled, with no real downsides or genuine consequences to the overall plot other than a positive one, and in his mind, a damaging effect on the general theme of loss, handling the loss of a mentor figure in an increasingly hostile world, and losing a very powerful ally to our heroes, who they had come to rely on for guidance and strength. Keep in mind that I'm not neccesarily saying I personally dislike Gandalf, in either of his forms. I simply believe this is how Martin thinks, and I don't see anything wrong with preferring a story to be this way rather than another way. It will largely come down to one's preference.
@@RedFloyd469 I think he doesn't consider that Gandalf was a vehicle for subtle, yet direct intervention by Illuvitar. Also, Tolkien was not shooting for gritty reality like Martin was. Apples and orange comparison in my book.
One of the things that i admire of mr. Martin is that he's always true sincere, in every interview that i've see or hear, he's always true on his answers. He has no problem, on this interview for a tiny example 3:50, in assumed that religions on his books are inspire from catholic medieval religion (he doesn't even mention the world medieval anyways).
Whilst closely analogous to a medieval setting due to feudalism and heraldry etc, grrm himself borrows from his knowledge of history and literature from all eras and all areas and I think sometimes shies away from that direct comparison as a consequence.
It depends who you are asking, there are some people who believe because of his wargish powers, he will remain the same, but nonetheless, he will be scarred and deformed...BUT I ASSURE YOU, MY RESOLVE HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER. THE REMAINING JEDI, WILL BE HUNTED DOWN AND DEFEATED!
Not only was Jon unchanged in the show, everybody else around him seemed unphased by him coming back to life. I’d imagine some people would be terrified of Jon and others would be in awe of him not unlike Lady Stoneheart.
I realise that Jon's resurrection in the future books is the worst-kept secret in the universe _ but as far as I'm concerned, it will break GRRM's own "Gandalf rule" (which he explains above).
A moment from Jon’s revival scene that I think is very telling about the nature of religion and power is when Melisandre tries, and fails, to resurrect Jon using the power of the lord of light. We’ve seen her do enough magic things at this point to where we can’t question her powers. But for some reason she fails and leaves the room. It’s Davos, muttering under his breath and pleading with whatever is out there to bring Jon back because he ‘can’t be dead’ is what I believe brings him back to life. There is magic out there to be used by anyone, not just the people who have dedicated their life to a religion. Perhaps religion is a way this power can be accessed but not the only way.
Damn that description of the character losing himself every time he dies and sticking to his mission as it’s all he has is like dark souls, no wonder he was asked to help make Elden ring
Was there gold hidden in the village? Silver, gems? Was there more food? Where was Lord Beric Dondarrion? Which of the village folk had aided him? When he rode off, where did he go? How many men were with them? How many knights, how many bowmen, how many men-at-arms? How were they armed? How many were horsed? How many were wounded? What other enemy had they seen? How many? When? What banners did they fly? Where did they go?
It's amazing to note how much history and philosophy has inspired George. David and Dan were probably inspired by the sound a train makes while it runs on tracks.
The part about The Seven, where he says he based it on the Catholic Religion, I think showcases his flaw as an author and why he hasn't finished the books yet. He took the Catholic religion, and he complicated it. He pushed it from Three to Seven. I also saw an interview where he said in hindsight, maybe he should have done 5 kingdoms instead of 7. If you read the books, I think this whole situation really becomes apparent. Game of Thrones works as a TV show because you can move things along at a quicker place by leaving out some of the details, that's what D&D excelled at - uncomplicating things. However, when it comes to the books, you can add more detail. And that's FINE - it works at first. It's alright in the first book because most of the characters are in the same place, and it keeps the story moving, but then A Clash of Kings comes and characters get separated. This REALLY slows the pace down because chapters are much longer reads in the books. You get to an exciting point in someones story, and you look ahead and realise you have to get through 100 pages of other stuff to find out what happens. Luckily, in the second book, most of the stories have kicked off, due to what happened to Ned Stark, so all the stories are interesting and things are happening. Then you have Storm of Swords, which infamously finishes a storyline with the Red Wedding, but that means other than Jon and Dany's stories - everything is laser focused on Kings Landing, and the pacing speeds up and things conclude to kick off act 2. I remember getting really hooked on that book because of how focused it was on one major storyline, it was great. However, after this is where things went wrong. A Feast for Crows and Dance of Dragons - George introduces characters in ALL the seven kingdoms and other characters get separated again. Sansa goes to the Eyrie, Arya goes across the narrow sea, Jaime and Brienne go on their own adventures, and it introduces storylines in Dorne and the Iron Islands, Theon is brought back... Suddenly, you're juggling 10 different storylines all in different locations and many of them are just starting out again, which means half the characters you're reading about you don't know, in locations you don't know. I remember reading the books together, I got to an exciting part of a characters storyline and the chapter ended - then I realised I had to read 400 pages of other stuff to find out what happened in this storyline. Things got so complicated George split the books geographically, rather than chronologically! D&D tried to tend to it by taking different storylines and fusing them together, but this failed because it meant characters had to do things that didn't fit their characterisation - They fused Theons and Sansa's storylines by making Sansa take the place of a friend of hers who the boltons say is Arya. However, this means, to get Sansa there, Littlefinger had to let her go and give her to Ramsey, which in chess is like sacrificing your queen for no fucking reason whatsoever. So yeah. George seems to have a complexity complex or something, I dunno. He often said he's a gardener, he plants the roots and lets them grow. However, to keep that analogy going, he's let them get too overgrown and seems hesitant to cut things down. This is why it's taking him so long to finish the books, he's tending to his garden that he's let get too big to do on his own.
I definitely agree that as a writer, such extreme complexity probably negatively affects your ability to tie things together and provide satisfying character arcs and resolutions as well as tell the main stories you wanted to tell in the first place; that much is pretty obvious. But as the comment above me points out - one of my absolutely favourite things about ASOIAF *was* just the sheer scale and the excessive complexity of it - the branching out of so many characters and locations, so many different areas of magic, politics, religion, conspiracies. I have just recently finished A Feast for Crows and moving on to Dance, but I really enjoyed what I read from Feast, even though a lot of my favourite characters and storylines weren't included like Tyrion, Bran and The Wall with Stannis and Jon. I grew to genuinely enjoy Jaime and Brienne's chapters, and everything with Lady Stoneheart was very intriguing - not to mention how much I loved Arya in Braavos. The Iron Islands was very engaging as well, and the only storyline I thought was inferior to everything else was Dorne and even that gets interesting by the end. And all of this would never be possible if George didn't include as many PoV characters and storylines as he did. I just hope that George stops expanding more in Winds and just tries to tie in all the storylines together and resolve them in satisfying ways. He is an extremely competent writer and if anyone can do it, it's him. But the sheer difficulty of doing it is probably the reason we haven't gotten Winds yet.
@@SKAron25 I agree - I'm not saying the complexity is something you shouldn't enjoy. Heck, I love the complexity of it, it's like 10 novels in one, all intertwining in different ways, it's awesome. But it seems to me George is struggling because he made it a little too complex, and that's why it's taking so long. That's my only critique. Most authors wouldn't be able to attempt something at a 10th of the scale, and it's awesome reading about something so incredibly epic - but it's obviously come at a cost, in this case. I guess the question is - is that complexity worth the strong possibility of it never being finished? I think it's worth the first 3 books, since they actually have some form of conclusion within most of their storylines, - but where Feast and Dance have left things with a lot of cliffhangers, I can understand the frustration of some readers.
@@WillRock07 Yeah, that's fair, honestly. Feast and Dance (I've heard) both leave most of their arcs in cliffhangers and at the rate it's going, GRRM might never finish even Winds, let alone Dream of Spring. So I can completely understand and feel the frustration over no ending/closure/destination myself. I suppose when you look at it that way, it really isn't worth all the complexity, and perhaps it would have been better to leave some of the side-plots to their separate spin-off novels which George seems to love writing more than Winds.
I have a theory that I learnt somewhere else, Beric's last thought before being resurrected was to complete the mission set for him so after he get resurrected he continues to do anything to complete that mission. Catelyn last thought is grief, hatred and urning for revenge against the Freys, so after she's resurrected she kills multiple Freys and is taking out her revenge. Now we have a pattern, I think once Jon returns he's going to have the personality of his last thoughts which are 2 things: number one is taking out the mutineers I think this is a pretty obvious one, second one is rescuing fake Arya so I think he's going to join Stannis in capturing Winterfell. Now this isn't certain because his soul isn't going to be that affected because it's in Ghost, it won't be corrupted like the others unless Bloodraven decides to make him puppet because Bloodraven clearly controls the Direwolves.
@@dubudubudan thank you, obviously it isn't my theory completely I did say that but I did change a couple of things that I didn't agree with so it isn't blatantly copying
@@goldykanda4899 yes, I'll give you two cases where that has happened. First of all, when Stannis was asking Jon to accept being legitimized and hailing him as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North he was about to accept, he remember when he wanted Ned to go to the King and get legitimized but it never happened. Then suddenly he got all these memories of people telling him he's not a Stark and he will never be, like him and Robb sparring, he called himself King in the North but Robb told him he's not a Stark he's a Bastard. How did he get these memories all of a sudden you ask? Well he looked at Ghost right before all of these memories came rushing, Bloodraven didn't want Jon to become Lord of Winterfell, he either needs him at the wall being Lord Commander or B become King of Westeros (highly unlikely imo). Second incident is where Ghost literally found Obsidian for them to kill wites and White Walkers (Others), I don't think a normal direwolf would know about it but a one controlled by a past Lord Commander and one of the Great Bastards of Aegon IV would know. Things like this point to the direwolves being controlled by Bloodraven, he's the one that controlled the mother to reach south of the wall to the Starks.
Going to be interesting to see how different Jon is in the book if he comes back. The show had such a lackluster ending I can't help but want to go to the books to see how things "really" end.
I think John will come back but he will be more like ghost, the one thing that makes the starks great but weak is their honour and complete transparency to the point of naivete and stupidity. Which is where John comes a cropper. Ghost is silent, discrete, more solitary and much more predatory I think those are the characteristics John will embody. Also it seems pretty likely that his spirit will live on within ghost while his body waits to be resurrected, so his ability to use ghost to see other things and obtain information will become much more pronounced. Up until now it has been subconscious or accidental, he doesn’t actually know how to become ghost and see what ghost sees at will. So all of that is likely to increase. I also think his single-mindedness will become much more about his family after he was stabbed, just like it was in the show and that will be his driving mission.
Though I'm not the most well read on Tolkien, it's my understanding that Gandalf's spirit returned to Valinor (Gandalf, like the Elves has an immortal spirit). The Valar, realizing Gandalf was still needed in Middle Earth, embued his spirit with greater power, basically making him equivalent to Saruman in strength. Further, Gandalf remembers but also doesn't remember his "Grey" avatar. I guess having been resurrected, he was a new person though he took a familiar guise for the benefit of mortal men and the fellowship. In that context, his resurrection is pretty neat.
Elves dont have immortal spirits, though they can be resurrected in the undying lands (Valinor) such as with Finrod by the Valar. Nor does Gandalf - or the other Istari (and Maiar), for that matter. So when "darkness took" him, he fell into a state of nothingness and was revived not by the Valar, in his case, but by Eru Ilúvatar himself, to return to arda and to guide middle-earth in vanquishing Sauron.
It seems House of the Dragon doesn't focus at all on the magic aspect of the world, hopefully future seasons do because it's one of my favourite parts of the universe.
1:15 I disagree, because you learn that Gandalf is a Maia just like the Balrog was and that he is actually a spirit. He returns to the West or to the halls of Mandos when he "dies" and the Balrog goes to the void with Morgoth. More main characters should have died though
@@luans.40 Not, it wasn't. Tolkien was perfectly utilizing every aspect of his world. Gandalf was a maiar, an angelic being taking the form of a man, he was immortal. He returned back as Gandalf the white to fulfill his purpose...
There was actually lots of trade across Hadrian's wall and it didn't really demarcate the boundary, I think the most respected belief now is that it was something like a toll-gate. So the soldiers there probably had a good idea what was beyond the wall and interacted fairly often with those people. That wouldn't make for a great fantasty novel though.
The thing about Gandalf is that it is known he is NOT just an old man but something greater. And the reasoning on why he came back is great. He’s the only one of the Istari still trying to actively help Middle Earth and was rewarded with full use of his powers and sent back.
"My characters that have come back from death are the worse for wear. In some ways they're not even the same characters anymore." Yasss this is why I assume if Jon comes back that he'll feel no pain or emotions or become obsessed with his last thoughts before he died kind of like Lady Stoneheart.
@@ethemerdogan1855 it's been awhile since I've read the Silmarillion but I'm pretty sure his race can't die, technically. But they are for all intents and purposes he pretty much was dead for the story.
@@aureliusva well maiar I think k it is...they are like angels i think. So they reform and he returned as the white as the existing white (saruman) was corrupted. The Balrog were also the same race but corrupted 1000s yrs prior etc
Gandalf is the embodiment of a Maiar spirit from the undying lands. He is a lesser heavenly being created from Eru's (Tolkien's God) thought, like the Valar. Like the evil demigod entities, who don't die but get banished, Gandalf is unkillable... GRRM isn't talking about the technical aspects of the LOR. He's commenting on the author's decision, at a metalevel, to allow a main character to die and return leveled up.
Dragon Ball Z Miss A major opportunity then. Imagine whenever a character comes back to life something about them changes, instead of being like: cool well that was rough
Honestly would’ve loved to see Renly revived; his brother is a family killer and wasn’t very popular. Plus his character really isn’t fleshed out; he pretty much got tossed the main “developing” character role for Danearys
Even if I disagree with George I can’t help but respect that he has his own strong opinions on Tolkien. I love LOTR and I find it an almost perfect story. I find it admirable that George’s respects and loves LOTR as well but finds things he doesn’t like and accepts them while still loving the material.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who has no love for Catelyn Stark and was not happy to see her come back. If anything bad happens to Jamie in WoW I'm going to be SO pissed 😭😭
I dont agree about Gandalf not coming back. Tolkien meant him to come back it wasent an afterthought. Gandalf is a maia a halfgod An ordinary man would ofc. die But Gandalf is not an ordinary man.
Yeh. I love Martin but i never understood his stance on Gandalf’s death in LOTR. He’s literally one of the most important and interesting characters. I couldn’t imagine LOTR without him.
Me neither. He follows it up with an explanation that his characters revivals change them. Gandalf was certainly different when he came back. Idk his stance on it is weird.
He wanted Gandalf to change for the worse when he came back not just change, and certainly not improve and get an upgrade, regardless of what Gandalf is, his resurrection makes death less powerful in LOTR. I can see how the story could still happen without Gandalf after his death, which certainly would have made his sacrifice more powerful.
Yeah, I think that's what he meant. If you die and you come back to life, but you come back as LESS than what you were, death still has its consequences. Gandalf just died and then came back even more powerful, and just as good as before. That on the other hand damages the feeling that deaths have consequences.
@@megashark1013 Well then he don't get it at all Gandalf defeated the Balrog unfortunately they didn't show it in the movie. But in the book you get to know that they fought down in the underworld. This is why Gandalf become Gandalf the white.
Leaving Gandalf dead would be powerful storywise, but it doesn't really make sense in the lore. being a Valar (basically a god) his presence in middle earth is just a part of him. He can not truly die from dying in middle earth. So when he dies he is brought back into middle earth as his presence is needed. (taking the role of the white wizard as Saruman failed his duty) He restricts himself to a certain amount of power because the last time two Valars fought, a continent was destroyed and since then they are not allowed to unleash their full potential.
I both agree and disagree with Martin in his assessment of Gandalf. I think the story he's trying to tell is very different to that of Tolkien and therefore his approach to characters and their deaths is also very different, by necessity. Neither is better nor worse. Just different. Very glad we get to read both fantastic works. I just hope Martin finishes it!
To those who think bringing Gandalf back is bad writing. Well that's certainly an opinion. If the author (in this case, Tolkien) purposely wanted the readers to realize that a character was an angel sent by the divinities, who didn't fail his task morally (like Saruman), and therefore was revived by the One above all, IMO: what's wrong with doing that? Tolkien never truly revealed Gandalf's nature in the Lord of the Rings, but hinted, with story telling. * Or as Tolkien would have said, I think, Gandalf's nature and his sacrifice led to his revival, things just work that way. Tolkien didn't bring Boromir back. Anyway, Gandalf was brought back, lost a bit of his former self, but "enhanced in power and knowledge". "When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman". Jon Snow in the Show, however, is brought back and still knows nothing. Nothing seems to have changed in him, except maybe he's boring now: "muh Queen". Now that's bad writing.
This interview has nothing to do with the TV show, it's about the books which are way different. Jon dies as well in the books (the reason was a bit different) and is still dead. It's likely that he'll get resurrected in the next book.
Jon will come back, but he won't really remember his family. It's going to make it even more heart breaking if he ever does reunite with Sansa or Arya.
I don’t think he will forget Arya in fact I think it will be the opposite he dies trying to save her from Ramsay she was the only reason he decided to break his vows, not to mention his last thought being “stick them with the pointy end.” He was more obsessed trying to go rescue her himself from Ramsay after the pink letter. As for Sansa it wouldn’t be that heartbreaking the two weren’t even that close.
I have to disagree with GRRM here. I like Gandalf the White more and one of the best moments is when he casts of his cloak before Theoden and exorcises Saruman. I never saw it as Gandalf dying either I saw it as part of his transformation to become a truly powerful wizard that could combat Saruman.
Yeah, Gandalf the White is more focused, more determined, he knows he's got no time to f*ck around anymore. I like both versions, but it's the White who has really the strength to get things done.
Its closest real-world inspirations are actually Zoroastrianism, a much older religion that has impacted the formation of many other faiths, including all the Abrahamic faiths; and to a lesser extent Manichaeism, which was a rival to early Christianity and also predated Islam. Both, however, come from what we would now call Iran, and thus may have influenced Islam in both its cultural expression and articles of faith.
Always wondered what a person would be like after being revived. A period of brain death... Would you remember who you were? Would you function? So many questions.
George said here that death is a transformative experience, and that’s how he portrays it in his writing. Can that not be said of Gandalf? He died and came back and was not the same as before either.
The difference is that Gandalf just came back way stronger and slightly more aloof I guess. He was still just as heroic, just as kind, just as charismatic. I think what George means is that death should have negative consequences in that they change the characters in negative ways.
Christopher Lee...who was actually friends with Tolkein...pronounced it...Tall..keen....Nobody ever pronounces it accurately (including myself...in the past)
George said many times that the way he wrote his magic is very inspired by magic in the Lord of the Rings books specifically, i don't know why people keep saying that there is no magic in ASOIAF or that everything is telekinesis because of his other works, honestly just sounds like lack of imagination. GRRM's magic is as subtle and real as LOTR's, its just used to do more heinous things.
I only watched the LOTR movies so I'm definitely not in a good position to judge Tolkien's works, but I find the movies, while excellent in their own way, only tell a typical good vs evil fantasy story. The majority of the characters are pretty 2-dimensional and one-sided. The only character from the fellowship who dies in this supposedly super perilous journey is the character with some shades of grey. All the other good guys survive. It's an epic story but at the end of the day, still a fairy-tale, and nothing like ASOIAF. I'm not saying that George is the better writer compared to Tolkien, but the world he builds resembles far more our own and I find his stories much much more compelling because it's not a good vs evil story and those who are better won't necessarily emerge victorious in the end.
I do disagree on Gandalf, he is like servant of the gods he’s not really human n he only comes back because Saruman loses his status because of corruption. Also Gandalf doesn’t really die in a sense his spirit returns to its original forum n he’s sent back. I think that one direct interference really heightens the threat that was Sauron
I don't agree about Gandalf. The moment when Gandalf realizes Frodo did it when Sauron falls and the final scene in Grey Havens is not something I would ever give up on, not to mention his sheer badassery during the siege of Minas Tirith, not to mention his arrival at Helms' Deep. These moments are just too good to lose for what - extra realism and grittiness? Nah.
Got to correct GRRM on history... but the folks on the other side of Hadrian's wall were 'picts'. Not 'scots'. 'scots' was a Roman name for people in Ireland, and they would migrate to Scotland during the period of migrations after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how cryptic and mysterious magic is in his world.
Because it isn't traditionally ''magic'' It's either telekenesis, or telepathy.
@@Jesse-fd5bv
Lmao no, that’s how Star Wars magic works. Game of Thrones magic is more like blood magic.
@@kf7876 No, there isn't. I've read everything GRRM has ever written and all his books are like this. Think about the magic we've seen so far in a song of ice and fire, it's either telekenesis, people coming back from the dead, or telepathy, with the glass candle visions and Bloodraven speaking to people through the trees.
@@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU Maybe if you don't know what you're saying don't say anything
@@Jesse-fd5bv umm i think what grrm doesnt want is what you just did. You can't englobe all magic from the world he built in asoiaf since magic is something that is very hard to control, and a lot of cultures are not completely known and the capabilities of necromancers and other types of "wizards" are a mystery, even to him. Saying that magic is just telekenesis and telepathy (which is also not true) leaves behind other important techniques that are practised throughout the story.
Lady Melisandre: Youve been to the other side.
Beric Dondarrion: The other side? There is no other side. I have been to the darkness, my Lady.
That was her first waiver of faith.
This is only in show. Not in Book.
@wernerwernerowy8761 well it's a banger either way.
@@MrHeart12 nah it changes everything if it doesnt come from the author
@@BB-848-VAC but the line is cold no matter who wrote it. maybe its different in the books but it doesnt change the line being cool in the context it was used
I'm excited to see Jon Snow coming back from death & what he's gonna lose because of that.
Brain, like he did in the series
@@mihajloje1829 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Maybe he doesn't.
Hope to see him lose his “humanity” and somehow become the villain like another main character of another story I pretty much like
@Joe Dirt I think he will be revived in the books too
GRRM is an imaginatively intriguing writer.
it's really his wife doing all the work
It's such a pity that he is a lazy one! I mean, it passed 10 years andd still no Winds of winter published...
@@ffxiarcadius what do you mean?
@@marthaghost1344 I don't think it's just laziness tbh. From what he's said before he seems to be a bit of a perfectionist when he's writing Winds of Winter. I guess part of it may be that the hype for the book just keeps getting higher to the point where it may end up never fulfilling those expectations, and so Martin may feel he has to be careful in everything he writes so as not to disappoint his increasingly hungry audience.
@@marthaghost1344 you can't be lazy, when you have build a world like him. I think it is more of a writers block and he struggles to make the lose ends work.
When I reflect on Theon's nightmare in ACOK (Theon V|ACOK) where he dines with the deceased Starks/Stark associates, I've always focused on two details. One- that Lyanna seems to be depicted in a wedding dress, and two- Benjen's absence from the dream, which indicates he's still alive. What I failed to notice until recently was another major absence--Lady Catelyn. Robb and Greywind were in this dream, appearing in accordance w/their Red Wedding deaths. So theoretically, Cat should have been as well. This was such a cool and covert Stoneheart foreshadowing; masked perfectly by the other two details and their implications on the story. I hate being tricked but I love how George does it. Others take him!
Now that I think on it, if Ned and Ashara in fact loved each other as some theorize, you might expect to see her in this dream as well. That Ashara is absent could indicate that either she and Ned never had an affair, that she's not truly dead, or both. Hmm...
Perhaps because she’s posing as a Septa... perhaps by the name of Lemore 👀
@@omgisthatvik For Barristan's sake I'm hoping so!!! And if true, I hope George reveals this through Ser Barristan's POV. It would be an awesome revelation through and for a character that was never intended to be a viewpoint for readers. Have Barristan's POV be worth more than the solution for the Meereneese knot.
@@ashleyofnaath Yeaa absolutely agreed! Can’t wait for Windsssss 😅😭
Benjen is coldhands?
@@omgisthatvik The main issue I have with Lemore, why did Tyrion not recognize her eyes? Ashara is said to have haunting violet eyes. And not many have purple eyes.
I look forward to seeing Jon’s transformation when/if he returns, he won’t be the same character and might even lose colour in his hair (Targaryen trait).
It will be much more interesting and costly than it was in the show.
i'd have him come back radically changed to the point he's more ruthless more pissed of and more ambitious
instead of wanting to just lead he wants to Rule and he builds up armies of wildings,Westerosi Mercs,Outcasts and Bastards and he have it be him that recruits the Golden company and they serve to be his Unsullied with The wildings being his dothraki and he retakes winterfell from the boltons and this puts him on both Cersei and Dany's radars Cersei immediately sees him as a threat but Daenereys sees his deeds of fighting tyranny and accepting outcasts and bastards as attractive and wants to desperately meet him and make an ally of him hence leading to their inevitable love affair or unrequited love from daenereys either way.
@@michaelkean5969 That would be very interesting.
Well hes gone into ghost, and the longer you are in your beast the more like it you become. So he’ll definitely be coming back more wolfish
@@michaelkean5969 except for the Golden Company, I agree
Also, accepting* outcasts
I have to disagree with Martin about Gandalf the White; I think he has lost a great deal when he returns. Yes, he is more powerful, more confident - but he is also more aloof, more detached, less human. One of the things that makes Gandalf the Grey so endearing is his how human he is, how deeply he cares for his mortal companions despite his status as a divine (or partially divine) being. Gandalf the White still cares, but he cares as a god would, not as a man would.
That is a loss, I think, particularly in the mythology of LOTR, in which the mortality of humankind is portrayed as their greatest gift, as well as a curse. Gandalf has done what no man can, which is pass beyond the veil of death and return. Hence, he is no longer a man when he returns, and is both magnified and diminished by that fact.
I love both versions. I think him being more aloof as Gandalf the White is due to his mind being 100% focused on the mission. When he was the Grey he got the chance to know humanity, know the Hobbits, now if he wants to protect what he came to love he has to be badass and almost ruthless. I don't think he becomes less human, I think he becomes fully aware of the stakes and that he's not willing to leave anything to chance against Sauron.
Well, I feel that Martin actually does agree with that statement entirely, hence why he says he doesn't really like Gandalf the White. GTW is less human than GTG.
His main point isn't so much that Tolkien didn't change Gandalf, it's that he disliked his revival as a plot element, plain and simple. I don't think he's saying that reviving your characters is always a bad thing, otherwise he wouldn't do it himself, just that there need to be severe consequences to it.
It's likely that he views Berric Dondarion in the same light as he views Gandalf, only with the added bonus that Berric is, in his own words, a minor character. There is a severe difference between bringing back a major player like Gandalf, slightly less human or humane but otherwise still equally or more powerful and THEREFORE a boon to the fellowship, and on the other hand, bringing back a seemingly innocuous character like Berric Dondarion, each time less and less his former self, with no real "benefits" to these revivals, and only minor effects on the overal plot. (though minor effects that could in the end prove to be essential for the outcome of the entire story.)
As an added example (spoiler alert!): Catelyn stark comes back as Lady Stoneheart, but LS could not be further from Catelyn Stark in any sense than she already is. LS is pure vengeful spite, utterly merciless, and blinded by hatred, as we see in the final Brienne chapter of A Feast for Crows. Catelyn Stark would never have harmed Brienne, but LS does so in the blink of an eye, killing a young, innocent squire in the process as well.
So the point is not "Was Gandalf the same upon his revival". Martin seems to be very well aware that he isn't. It's just that he dislikes the particular manner in which that revival was handled, with no real downsides or genuine consequences to the overall plot other than a positive one, and in his mind, a damaging effect on the general theme of loss, handling the loss of a mentor figure in an increasingly hostile world, and losing a very powerful ally to our heroes, who they had come to rely on for guidance and strength.
Keep in mind that I'm not neccesarily saying I personally dislike Gandalf, in either of his forms. I simply believe this is how Martin thinks, and I don't see anything wrong with preferring a story to be this way rather than another way. It will largely come down to one's preference.
Fool of a Took!
I love this take
@@RedFloyd469 I think he doesn't consider that Gandalf was a vehicle for subtle, yet direct intervention by Illuvitar. Also, Tolkien was not shooting for gritty reality like Martin was. Apples and orange comparison in my book.
I love that the interviewer called Real Life "the primary world". That's my kind of guy.
One of the things that i admire of mr. Martin is that he's always true sincere, in every interview that i've see or hear, he's always true on his answers. He has no problem, on this interview for a tiny example 3:50, in assumed that religions on his books are inspire from catholic medieval religion (he doesn't even mention the world medieval anyways).
Whilst closely analogous to a medieval setting due to feudalism and heraldry etc, grrm himself borrows from his knowledge of history and literature from all eras and all areas and I think sometimes shies away from that direct comparison as a consequence.
I’m excited to see how Jon comes back in A Song of Ice and Fire. I hated how he came back in the show, he ultimately was unchanged in anyway.
It depends who you are asking, there are some people who believe because of his wargish powers, he will remain the same, but nonetheless, he will be scarred and deformed...BUT I ASSURE YOU, MY RESOLVE HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER. THE REMAINING JEDI, WILL BE HUNTED DOWN AND DEFEATED!
Not only was Jon unchanged in the show, everybody else around him seemed unphased by him coming back to life. I’d imagine some people would be terrified of Jon and others would be in awe of him not unlike Lady Stoneheart.
@@hiluminatul6750 lol god tier comment.
What r u saying .. Jon completely changed from being charismatic to “uah mah queeeeennnn”
I realise that Jon's resurrection in the future books is the worst-kept secret in the universe _ but as far as I'm concerned, it will break GRRM's own "Gandalf rule" (which he explains above).
A moment from Jon’s revival scene that I think is very telling about the nature of religion and power is when Melisandre tries, and fails, to resurrect Jon using the power of the lord of light. We’ve seen her do enough magic things at this point to where we can’t question her powers. But for some reason she fails and leaves the room. It’s Davos, muttering under his breath and pleading with whatever is out there to bring Jon back because he ‘can’t be dead’ is what I believe brings him back to life.
There is magic out there to be used by anyone, not just the people who have dedicated their life to a religion. Perhaps religion is a way this power can be accessed but not the only way.
Meanwhile... TV-show Jon Snow post-revival was [fill in the blank!]
Literally blank as shit
To assassinate me because the writers hate me and wanted the Starks to win.
heavily plot-armored
You’re mu Queen
Ah don wunnit
Ah neva hav’
Brain damaged
I love how in all the artworks the stranger has stary eyes, always reminds me of how the others eyes are described
If he had to revive Gandalf, he probably would have made him Gandalf the black.
he would have made the orcs and Saruman into single mothers.
He would've carried an AK47
Why’s he got to be black
He would've ousted Sauron as Dark Lord and humiliated Saruman
@@stefthorman8548 I'd make a single mother out of Saruman 😏
Damn that description of the character losing himself every time he dies and sticking to his mission as it’s all he has is like dark souls, no wonder he was asked to help make Elden ring
I thought exactly the same, right down to using the word humanity in association with mortality
Was there gold hidden in the village? Silver, gems? Was there more food? Where was Lord Beric Dondarrion? Which of the village folk had aided him? When he rode off, where did he go? How many men were with them? How many knights, how many bowmen, how many men-at-arms? How were they armed? How many were horsed? How many were wounded? What other enemy had they seen? How many? When? What banners did they fly? Where did they go?
*stab stab stab stab stab stab stab stab*
He always asked the same questions, but he changed the tickling every day.
Why the fuck did you ban me from darkwingsdankmemes
HOWMANYHOWMANYHOWMANY
It's amazing to note how much history and philosophy has inspired George.
David and Dan were probably inspired by the sound a train makes while it runs on tracks.
And the show brought back Jon from death unchanged. They did the very thing GRRM said he doesn't want to do in his his story.
So basically like going hollow in Dark Souls... I LOVE IT!
I really wish Lady Stoneheart was a thing in the show.
Yeah.
One of the million things that D&D cut short...
She's a privilege to us readers
The part about The Seven, where he says he based it on the Catholic Religion, I think showcases his flaw as an author and why he hasn't finished the books yet. He took the Catholic religion, and he complicated it. He pushed it from Three to Seven. I also saw an interview where he said in hindsight, maybe he should have done 5 kingdoms instead of 7.
If you read the books, I think this whole situation really becomes apparent. Game of Thrones works as a TV show because you can move things along at a quicker place by leaving out some of the details, that's what D&D excelled at - uncomplicating things. However, when it comes to the books, you can add more detail. And that's FINE - it works at first. It's alright in the first book because most of the characters are in the same place, and it keeps the story moving, but then A Clash of Kings comes and characters get separated. This REALLY slows the pace down because chapters are much longer reads in the books. You get to an exciting point in someones story, and you look ahead and realise you have to get through 100 pages of other stuff to find out what happens. Luckily, in the second book, most of the stories have kicked off, due to what happened to Ned Stark, so all the stories are interesting and things are happening. Then you have Storm of Swords, which infamously finishes a storyline with the Red Wedding, but that means other than Jon and Dany's stories - everything is laser focused on Kings Landing, and the pacing speeds up and things conclude to kick off act 2. I remember getting really hooked on that book because of how focused it was on one major storyline, it was great.
However, after this is where things went wrong. A Feast for Crows and Dance of Dragons - George introduces characters in ALL the seven kingdoms and other characters get separated again. Sansa goes to the Eyrie, Arya goes across the narrow sea, Jaime and Brienne go on their own adventures, and it introduces storylines in Dorne and the Iron Islands, Theon is brought back... Suddenly, you're juggling 10 different storylines all in different locations and many of them are just starting out again, which means half the characters you're reading about you don't know, in locations you don't know. I remember reading the books together, I got to an exciting part of a characters storyline and the chapter ended - then I realised I had to read 400 pages of other stuff to find out what happened in this storyline. Things got so complicated George split the books geographically, rather than chronologically!
D&D tried to tend to it by taking different storylines and fusing them together, but this failed because it meant characters had to do things that didn't fit their characterisation - They fused Theons and Sansa's storylines by making Sansa take the place of a friend of hers who the boltons say is Arya. However, this means, to get Sansa there, Littlefinger had to let her go and give her to Ramsey, which in chess is like sacrificing your queen for no fucking reason whatsoever.
So yeah. George seems to have a complexity complex or something, I dunno. He often said he's a gardener, he plants the roots and lets them grow. However, to keep that analogy going, he's let them get too overgrown and seems hesitant to cut things down. This is why it's taking him so long to finish the books, he's tending to his garden that he's let get too big to do on his own.
I have one little thing to say, just one tiny thing. Some people like the excessive complexity.
I definitely agree that as a writer, such extreme complexity probably negatively affects your ability to tie things together and provide satisfying character arcs and resolutions as well as tell the main stories you wanted to tell in the first place; that much is pretty obvious.
But as the comment above me points out - one of my absolutely favourite things about ASOIAF *was* just the sheer scale and the excessive complexity of it - the branching out of so many characters and locations, so many different areas of magic, politics, religion, conspiracies.
I have just recently finished A Feast for Crows and moving on to Dance, but I really enjoyed what I read from Feast, even though a lot of my favourite characters and storylines weren't included like Tyrion, Bran and The Wall with Stannis and Jon. I grew to genuinely enjoy Jaime and Brienne's chapters, and everything with Lady Stoneheart was very intriguing - not to mention how much I loved Arya in Braavos. The Iron Islands was very engaging as well, and the only storyline I thought was inferior to everything else was Dorne and even that gets interesting by the end. And all of this would never be possible if George didn't include as many PoV characters and storylines as he did.
I just hope that George stops expanding more in Winds and just tries to tie in all the storylines together and resolve them in satisfying ways. He is an extremely competent writer and if anyone can do it, it's him. But the sheer difficulty of doing it is probably the reason we haven't gotten Winds yet.
@@SKAron25 I agree - I'm not saying the complexity is something you shouldn't enjoy. Heck, I love the complexity of it, it's like 10 novels in one, all intertwining in different ways, it's awesome.
But it seems to me George is struggling because he made it a little too complex, and that's why it's taking so long. That's my only critique. Most authors wouldn't be able to attempt something at a 10th of the scale, and it's awesome reading about something so incredibly epic - but it's obviously come at a cost, in this case.
I guess the question is - is that complexity worth the strong possibility of it never being finished? I think it's worth the first 3 books, since they actually have some form of conclusion within most of their storylines, - but where Feast and Dance have left things with a lot of cliffhangers, I can understand the frustration of some readers.
@@WillRock07 Yeah, that's fair, honestly. Feast and Dance (I've heard) both leave most of their arcs in cliffhangers and at the rate it's going, GRRM might never finish even Winds, let alone Dream of Spring. So I can completely understand and feel the frustration over no ending/closure/destination myself. I suppose when you look at it that way, it really isn't worth all the complexity, and perhaps it would have been better to leave some of the side-plots to their separate spin-off novels which George seems to love writing more than Winds.
I have a theory that I learnt somewhere else, Beric's last thought before being resurrected was to complete the mission set for him so after he get resurrected he continues to do anything to complete that mission. Catelyn last thought is grief, hatred and urning for revenge against the Freys, so after she's resurrected she kills multiple Freys and is taking out her revenge. Now we have a pattern, I think once Jon returns he's going to have the personality of his last thoughts which are 2 things: number one is taking out the mutineers I think this is a pretty obvious one, second one is rescuing fake Arya so I think he's going to join Stannis in capturing Winterfell. Now this isn't certain because his soul isn't going to be that affected because it's in Ghost, it won't be corrupted like the others unless Bloodraven decides to make him puppet because Bloodraven clearly controls the Direwolves.
good theory!
@@dubudubudan thank you, obviously it isn't my theory completely I did say that but I did change a couple of things that I didn't agree with so it isn't blatantly copying
bloodraven controls the direwolves?
@@goldykanda4899 yes, I'll give you two cases where that has happened. First of all, when Stannis was asking Jon to accept being legitimized and hailing him as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North he was about to accept, he remember when he wanted Ned to go to the King and get legitimized but it never happened. Then suddenly he got all these memories of people telling him he's not a Stark and he will never be, like him and Robb sparring, he called himself King in the North but Robb told him he's not a Stark he's a Bastard. How did he get these memories all of a sudden you ask? Well he looked at Ghost right before all of these memories came rushing, Bloodraven didn't want Jon to become Lord of Winterfell, he either needs him at the wall being Lord Commander or B become King of Westeros (highly unlikely imo).
Second incident is where Ghost literally found Obsidian for them to kill wites and White Walkers (Others), I don't think a normal direwolf would know about it but a one controlled by a past Lord Commander and one of the Great Bastards of Aegon IV would know. Things like this point to the direwolves being controlled by Bloodraven, he's the one that controlled the mother to reach south of the wall to the Starks.
Why are you all so sure that Jon are gonna be resurrected?
Going to be interesting to see how different Jon is in the book if he comes back. The show had such a lackluster ending I can't help but want to go to the books to see how things "really" end.
Thank you to whomever is making these videos 🙏🏽 the choices of visuals with dialogue is spot on! Bravo! 👏
I think John will come back but he will be more like ghost, the one thing that makes the starks great but weak is their honour and complete transparency to the point of naivete and stupidity. Which is where John comes a cropper. Ghost is silent, discrete, more solitary and much more predatory I think those are the characteristics John will embody. Also it seems pretty likely that his spirit will live on within ghost while his body waits to be resurrected, so his ability to use ghost to see other things and obtain information will become much more pronounced. Up until now it has been subconscious or accidental, he doesn’t actually know how to become ghost and see what ghost sees at will. So all of that is likely to increase. I also think his single-mindedness will become much more about his family after he was stabbed, just like it was in the show and that will be his driving mission.
I really hope he is writing the last 2 books at once, let it be a surprise GRR
Thanks for posting these interviews!
Though I'm not the most well read on Tolkien, it's my understanding that Gandalf's spirit returned to Valinor (Gandalf, like the Elves has an immortal spirit). The Valar, realizing Gandalf was still needed in Middle Earth, embued his spirit with greater power, basically making him equivalent to Saruman in strength. Further, Gandalf remembers but also doesn't remember his "Grey" avatar. I guess having been resurrected, he was a new person though he took a familiar guise for the benefit of mortal men and the fellowship. In that context, his resurrection is pretty neat.
Furthermore, “Gandalf” is not human. He is one of the beings responsible for the creation of the world, alongside the other wizards and Sauron.
Elves dont have immortal spirits, though they can be resurrected in the undying lands (Valinor) such as with Finrod by the Valar. Nor does Gandalf - or the other Istari (and Maiar), for that matter. So when "darkness took" him, he fell into a state of nothingness and was revived not by the Valar, in his case, but by Eru Ilúvatar himself, to return to arda and to guide middle-earth in vanquishing Sauron.
I hope in the prequels we get to see people coming back from the dead as kind of zombies and I hope we get to see more of the stone men
Aren't the stone men basically just people driven to zombie-like insanity by greyscale affecting their brains?
@@juniperrodley9843 yep
It seems House of the Dragon doesn't focus at all on the magic aspect of the world, hopefully future seasons do because it's one of my favourite parts of the universe.
This is a great interviewer!
"Without giving away too many spoilers of major character deaths" **Shows picture after picture of exact characters being killed or revived**
Gandalf's resurrection makes sense in the mythos to be fair
1:15 I disagree, because you learn that Gandalf is a Maia just like the Balrog was and that he is actually a spirit. He returns to the West or to the halls of Mandos when he "dies" and the Balrog goes to the void with Morgoth. More main characters should have died though
The thing about Gandalf is that he never truly died he just lost his body but it was given back to him, Lord of the Rings is a VERY complex universe
The wizards of lotr were a big part of Tolkiens world and ots a shame they weren't included more in lotr
There's a difference between something being bad writing and something making sense in lore and bringing Gandalf back was bad writing
@@luans.40 definitely wasn’t
@@luans.40 Yes, "Nerd Empire", tell me more about how you understand writing fantasy more than Tolkien.
@@luans.40 Not, it wasn't. Tolkien was perfectly utilizing every aspect of his world. Gandalf was a maiar, an angelic being taking the form of a man, he was immortal. He returned back as Gandalf the white to fulfill his purpose...
There was actually lots of trade across Hadrian's wall and it didn't really demarcate the boundary, I think the most respected belief now is that it was something like a toll-gate. So the soldiers there probably had a good idea what was beyond the wall and interacted fairly often with those people. That wouldn't make for a great fantasty novel though.
The thing about Gandalf is that it is known he is NOT just an old man but something greater. And the reasoning on why he came back is great. He’s the only one of the Istari still trying to actively help Middle Earth and was rewarded with full use of his powers and sent back.
Meanwhile, Dave and Dan's very first action with no source material: Revive Jon completely unchanged with no physical or emotional cost.
"My characters that have come back from death are the worse for wear. In some ways they're not even the same characters anymore."
Yasss this is why I assume if Jon comes back that he'll feel no pain or emotions or become obsessed with his last thoughts before he died kind of like Lady Stoneheart.
Jon isn't dead. He is living in Ghost, so he will revive unscathed probably
in a world where people rise from death, what does it mean to die?
Technically, Gandalf's race can't die. It's more like a trance and being sent back because his mission is incomplete.
Pretty sure he was dead If he saw Iluvatar
@@ethemerdogan1855 it's been awhile since I've read the Silmarillion but I'm pretty sure his race can't die, technically. But they are for all intents and purposes he pretty much was dead for the story.
@@aureliusva well maiar I think k it is...they are like angels i think. So they reform and he returned as the white as the existing white (saruman) was corrupted. The Balrog were also the same race but corrupted 1000s yrs prior etc
Gandalf is the embodiment of a Maiar spirit from the undying lands. He is a lesser heavenly being created from Eru's (Tolkien's God) thought, like the Valar. Like the evil demigod entities, who don't die but get banished, Gandalf is unkillable... GRRM isn't talking about the technical aspects of the LOR. He's commenting on the author's decision, at a metalevel, to allow a main character to die and return leveled up.
Link has killed Ganondorf plenty of times.
Dragon Ball Z Miss A major opportunity then. Imagine whenever a character comes back to life something about them changes, instead of being like: cool well that was rough
Really, dude? You're going to take other peoples' content (interviews, art), repackage it, publish it, and not give them credit? Plagiarism.
Look, I'm ready to come back already in the Books. Sincerely, Jon.
this channel is great man keep up the good work
God damn is he a great writer
Honestly would’ve loved to see Renly revived; his brother is a family killer and wasn’t very popular.
Plus his character really isn’t fleshed out; he pretty much got tossed the main “developing” character role for Danearys
Gandalf coming back as Gandalf the white made a lot of sense to me, he didn’t just come back he replaced Saruman.
What happened to the "journey of so n so" episodes where it shows all the scenes that character was in..... I loved that and I can't find it anywhere
Even if I disagree with George I can’t help but respect that he has his own strong opinions on Tolkien. I love LOTR and I find it an almost perfect story. I find it admirable that George’s respects and loves LOTR as well but finds things he doesn’t like and accepts them while still loving the material.
2:55 The description reminds me of the Skull Knight from Berserk
Just thinking of the White Walkers being powered by Irn-Bru....
Many dislike Gandalf the white. Peter Jackson hated him, Ian McKellen disliked him, and now George RR martin dislikes him as well.
GRRM on characters dying is definitely the inspiration for "hollowing' in Dark Souls.
What they should have done with Jon Snow
Should have come back but darker
Is this John Hodgman interviewing George Martin? Great conversation.
Picts, rather than Scots... the Scots arrived in the early middle ages from Ireland.
Jon Snow's death was also quite impactful
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who has no love for Catelyn Stark and was not happy to see her come back. If anything bad happens to Jamie in WoW I'm going to be SO pissed 😭😭
I dont agree about Gandalf not coming back. Tolkien meant him to come back it wasent an afterthought. Gandalf is a maia a halfgod An ordinary man would ofc. die But Gandalf is not an ordinary man.
Yeh. I love Martin but i never understood his stance on Gandalf’s death in LOTR. He’s literally one of the most important and interesting characters. I couldn’t imagine LOTR without him.
Me neither. He follows it up with an explanation that his characters revivals change them. Gandalf was certainly different when he came back. Idk his stance on it is weird.
He wanted Gandalf to change for the worse when he came back not just change, and certainly not improve and get an upgrade, regardless of what Gandalf is, his resurrection makes death less powerful in LOTR. I can see how the story could still happen without Gandalf after his death, which certainly would have made his sacrifice more powerful.
Yeah, I think that's what he meant. If you die and you come back to life, but you come back as LESS than what you were, death still has its consequences. Gandalf just died and then came back even more powerful, and just as good as before. That on the other hand damages the feeling that deaths have consequences.
@@megashark1013 Well then he don't get it at all Gandalf defeated the Balrog unfortunately they didn't show it in the movie. But in the book you get to know that they fought down in the underworld. This is why Gandalf become Gandalf the white.
Leaving Gandalf dead would be powerful storywise, but it doesn't really make sense in the lore. being a Valar (basically a god) his presence in middle earth is just a part of him. He can not truly die from dying in middle earth. So when he dies he is brought back into middle earth as his presence is needed. (taking the role of the white wizard as Saruman failed his duty)
He restricts himself to a certain amount of power because the last time two Valars fought, a continent was destroyed and since then they are not allowed to unleash their full potential.
No other series has better illustrations IMO
2:24 is a description of hollowing in the Dark Souls series. Martin was a good fit for Elden Ring.
I both agree and disagree with Martin in his assessment of Gandalf. I think the story he's trying to tell is very different to that of Tolkien and therefore his approach to characters and their deaths is also very different, by necessity. Neither is better nor worse. Just different. Very glad we get to read both fantastic works. I just hope Martin finishes it!
To those who think bringing Gandalf back is bad writing. Well that's certainly an opinion.
If the author (in this case, Tolkien) purposely wanted the readers to realize that a character was an angel sent by the divinities, who didn't fail his task morally (like Saruman), and therefore was revived by the One above all, IMO: what's wrong with doing that?
Tolkien never truly revealed Gandalf's nature in the Lord of the Rings, but hinted, with story telling.
* Or as Tolkien would have said, I think, Gandalf's nature and his sacrifice led to his revival, things just work that way.
Tolkien didn't bring Boromir back.
Anyway, Gandalf was brought back, lost a bit of his former self, but "enhanced in power and knowledge". "When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman".
Jon Snow in the Show, however, is brought back and still knows nothing. Nothing seems to have changed in him, except maybe he's boring now: "muh Queen".
Now that's bad writing.
Anyone know where to find the full interview?
He "climbed" to the top of Hadrian's wall? That can't have been much of a climb since its mostly gone now.
A lot of the wall runs along the tops of hills - maybe that's what he meant
The world is not ready for Evil Jon Snow but i can't wait for it.
I am still not sure why Jon Snow was brought back. To kill Dany? No one else could've stabbed her?
This interview has nothing to do with the TV show, it's about the books which are way different. Jon dies as well in the books (the reason was a bit different) and is still dead. It's likely that he'll get resurrected in the next book.
he was brought back for no reason.
Considering this has to do with the books and not the show, Jon's resurrection most likely plays a different, more understandable purpose in the books
@@marcuso.530 well obv
Jon Snow was killed by insurrectionists and no, he was not brought back. The show is in no way canon
Jon will come back, but he won't really remember his family. It's going to make it even more heart breaking if he ever does reunite with Sansa or Arya.
I don’t think he will forget Arya in fact I think it will be the opposite he dies trying to save her from Ramsay she was the only reason he decided to break his vows, not to mention his last thought being “stick them with the pointy end.” He was more obsessed trying to go rescue her himself from Ramsay after the pink letter. As for Sansa it wouldn’t be that heartbreaking the two weren’t even that close.
"They lost something" For example, Jon Snow lost his lines of dialogue 😂😂😂😂😂😂
He was careful not to talk about John Snow. I think that was a big “f you” to him from the tv writers.
How`s the writing going Santa?
The seven gods of Westeros remind me a lot of Carl Jung's archetypes. I was surprised when he didn't site Jung as an influence for the religion
Did Gandalf officially die in the books though?
Except Jon Snow. Jon Snow definitely got the Gandalf treatment.
he has not been resurrected yet, im assuming it will be totally different to the show
That's John Hodgeman's voice. Where is this interview from?
I have to disagree with GRRM here. I like Gandalf the White more and one of the best moments is when he casts of his cloak before Theoden and exorcises Saruman. I never saw it as Gandalf dying either I saw it as part of his transformation to become a truly powerful wizard that could combat Saruman.
Yeah, Gandalf the White is more focused, more determined, he knows he's got no time to f*ck around anymore. I like both versions, but it's the White who has really the strength to get things done.
I disagree with the Tolkien criticism, he even disagreed with himself with the idea of transformation. Gandalf isn't Gandalf anymore when he returns.
In terms of narrative, he is the same.
I have a weird feeling the Lord of Light is meant to be islam.
Its closest real-world inspirations are actually Zoroastrianism, a much older religion that has impacted the formation of many other faiths, including all the Abrahamic faiths; and to a lesser extent Manichaeism, which was a rival to early Christianity and also predated Islam. Both, however, come from what we would now call Iran, and thus may have influenced Islam in both its cultural expression and articles of faith.
If killing a charter has to have consequences, then bring one back to life should have even more consequences.
Yes, which is seen in GRRM's ASOIAF
Always wondered what a person would be like after being revived. A period of brain death... Would you remember who you were? Would you function? So many questions.
I love how the canary is legit if the actress Michelle Fairely
my mans gone and dark souled this
George said here that death is a transformative experience, and that’s how he portrays it in his writing. Can that not be said of Gandalf? He died and came back and was not the same as before either.
...Kind of? I don't think his death has a lot of impact on him as a person per se, he basically just gets permisdion to use his powers more freely.
The difference is that Gandalf just came back way stronger and slightly more aloof I guess. He was still just as heroic, just as kind, just as charismatic. I think what George means is that death should have negative consequences in that they change the characters in negative ways.
@@kentknightofcaelin4537 His mannerisms completely change. He quits smoking. he forgets the names of his friends.
Pretty transformative.
Christopher Lee...who was actually friends with Tolkein...pronounced it...Tall..keen....Nobody ever pronounces it accurately (including myself...in the past)
Sorry if this common knowledge but is that John Hodgman? The algorithm put this on my feed.
INTERVIEWER: "How does one create a religion."
GEORGE: "You must've confused me with L. Ron Hubbard."
George said many times that the way he wrote his magic is very inspired by magic in the Lord of the Rings books specifically, i don't know why people keep saying that there is no magic in ASOIAF or that everything is telekinesis because of his other works, honestly just sounds like lack of imagination. GRRM's magic is as subtle and real as LOTR's, its just used to do more heinous things.
If you think Gandalf should have stayed dead, then you haven't understood a thing about Gandalf's role and the meaning of his character.
What do you mean?
I only watched the LOTR movies so I'm definitely not in a good position to judge Tolkien's works, but I find the movies, while excellent in their own way, only tell a typical good vs evil fantasy story. The majority of the characters are pretty 2-dimensional and one-sided. The only character from the fellowship who dies in this supposedly super perilous journey is the character with some shades of grey. All the other good guys survive.
It's an epic story but at the end of the day, still a fairy-tale, and nothing like ASOIAF. I'm not saying that George is the better writer compared to Tolkien, but the world he builds resembles far more our own and I find his stories much much more compelling because it's not a good vs evil story and those who are better won't necessarily emerge victorious in the end.
Gandalf came back because he wasn’t a mere man. He took the form of a man, and was resurrected more powerfully
Martin: Gandalf should have stayed dead
Also Martin: Brings back Jon Snow in a very similar way
That was not Martin, it was Benioff and Weiss.
@@Aqquila89 there is no way that he is dead in the books.
@@muffinman5741 But he hasn't brought him back yet. And if he ever does it, I don't think it's going to be like it was on the show.
I do disagree on Gandalf, he is like servant of the gods he’s not really human n he only comes back because Saruman loses his status because of corruption. Also Gandalf doesn’t really die in a sense his spirit returns to its original forum n he’s sent back. I think that one direct interference really heightens the threat that was Sauron
I don't agree about Gandalf. The moment when Gandalf realizes Frodo did it when Sauron falls and the final scene in Grey Havens is not something I would ever give up on, not to mention his sheer badassery during the siege of Minas Tirith, not to mention his arrival at Helms' Deep. These moments are just too good to lose for what - extra realism and grittiness? Nah.
Is this Jon Hogemen?
Where is the full interview?
Is he implying that Gandalf wasn't changed as a character when he died?
No.
Got to correct GRRM on history... but the folks on the other side of Hadrian's wall were 'picts'. Not 'scots'.
'scots' was a Roman name for people in Ireland, and they would migrate to Scotland during the period of migrations after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Though scots walkers would be pretty cool too
3:40 I love that version of Stannis much more than the TV show version