EPTAnd my bad on the Children of the Forest bit, that was just a mistake in my terminology. Where I said children of the forest I basically meant anything or anyone who can do what they do, and what Bran is learning to do at the end of DWDD.
[TV/BOOK] *SPOILERS* Game of Thrones Discussion - Page 414
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and Fire Click Here for the spoiler-free thread. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
And my bad on the Children of the Forest bit, that was just a mistake in my terminology. Where I said children of the forest I basically meant anything or anyone who can do what they do, and what Bran is learning to do at the end of DWDD. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On August 26 2013 02:46 Mikau wrote: There are no causality problems if he can't interact with anyone in a notable way. In the same way there are instances of light traveling faster than c, which doesn't 'break physics' because no information is being transferred. The notion of this requiring multiple instances of Bran is just a way for our brain to comprehend the difference in experiencing time, it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. I don't really think that comparing bran to a very small fast moving particle is going to get you very far. If coldhands is bran from the future, then that means at some point bran will travel back in time and become coldhands, which means that he could then change the path that he was on, especially seeing as he saves himself. There are a lot of causality problems with that. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On August 26 2013 02:46 Mikau wrote: There are no causality problems if he can't interact with anyone in a notable way. In the same way there are instances of light traveling faster than c, which doesn't 'break physics' because no information is being transferred. The notion of this requiring multiple instances of Bran is just a way for our brain to comprehend the difference in experiencing time, it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. And my bad on the Children of the Forest bit, that was just a mistake in my terminology. Where I said children of the forest I basically meant anything or anyone who can do what they do, and what Bran is learning to do at the end of DWDD. The theory that he tried to warn Ned but Ned dismissed it as the wind doesn't work that well in that context though, unless you create a rule that everyone will dismiss your attempts because the rules said so. Even the fact he can gather all the information he wants and bring it to "present" Bran can be an issue. It's even worse if it works with the future as well. Our minds just can't really handle messing with time very well. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On August 26 2013 02:50 packrat386 wrote: I don't really think that comparing bran to a very small fast moving particle is going to get you very far. If coldhands is bran from the future, then that means at some point bran will travel back in time and become coldhands, which means that he could then change the path that he was on, especially seeing as he saves himself. There are a lot of causality problems with that. The comparison actually does work. A large part of (special) relativity is based around causality, and how causality works in the context of high (near light) speeds. In fact, a lot of the rules we currently know or use for causality and how it works are derived from physics and relativity. So I do think the principle of 'doesn't hurt causality because information isn't being transferred' does carry over here. And I actually didn't realise we were talking about Bran being Coldhands, foolishly I thought we were talking a different Brandon (Bran's uncle or Bran the builder). I kinda forgot that at least Bran's uncle had nothing to do with the Wall and was killed by Aerys. If we're talking Coldhands = Bran then yes I agree that that would be stupid and create serious causality issues. On August 26 2013 02:52 SKC wrote: The theory that he tried to warn Ned but Ned dismissed it as the wind doesn't work that well in that context though, unless you create a rule that everyone will dismiss your attempts because the rules said so. Even the fact he can gather all the information he wants and bring it to "present" Bran can be an issue. It's even worse if it works with the future as well. Our minds just can't really handle messing with time very well. I agree that it doesn't really help my point, it was mostly just something I thought of as I was about to press enter and thought might be relevant to the discussion. Like you said, that would be weird, and assuming Bran = Coldhands, cheap. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
That is a photoshopped TV Daario, and what he would look like if his appearance mirrored his book counterpart. Though TBF, his mustache is lacking the golden tips. Come now, you can't deny that his facial hair doesn't get you wet like Dany.  | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
The worst part is if she would have put her scheming aside and thought objectively she could have befriended Margery, strengthened bonds between the Tyrells and Lannisters taken the good advice Kevan was giving her and Tommen's kingdom might have been safe against Daenerys. She is frustrating to read because she is just so plainly stupid, but thats the beauty in how he wrote her. The reader is supposed to know and think to themselves, "Your cunning plan is actually quite stupid." | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On August 26 2013 03:05 Mikau wrote: The comparison actually does work. A large part of (special) relativity is based around causality, and how causality works in the context of high (near light) speeds. In fact, a lot of the rules we currently know or use for causality and how it works are derived from physics and relativity. So I do think the principle of 'doesn't hurt causality because information isn't being transferred' does carry over here. And I actually didn't realise we were talking about Bran being Coldhands, foolishly I thought we were talking a different Brandon (Bran's uncle or Bran the builder). I kinda forgot that at least Bran's uncle had nothing to do with the Wall and was killed by Aerys. If we're talking Coldhands = Bran then yes I agree that that would be stupid and create serious causality issues. I agree that it doesn't really help my point, it was mostly just something I thought of as I was about to press enter and thought might be relevant to the discussion. Like you said, that would be weird, and assuming Bran = Coldhands, cheap. no one is claiming that coldhands is bran :S just that they are both a brandon, not the same brandon. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On August 27 2013 21:09 TSORG wrote: no one is claiming that coldhands is bran :S just that they are both a brandon, not the same brandon. As we all know, Coldhands=Benjen=Daario; so, by the transitive property, Coldhands=Daario. QED | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On August 01 2013 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: i dont like how grrm killed off kevan lannister. way too soon. basically he's saying hey guys the lannisters are gonna get totally fucked in the winds of winter so i can get them out of the way and slide the Others in as the main antagonists. varys was right ser kevan didn't deserve to die like that. makes the story less interesting that cersei is a shadow of her former self, jaime is dumb because of his new obsession with "honor," and tyrion is in meereen for who knows how long. kevan could have been a great viewpoint character for the winds of winter but oh well guess the greyjoy family drama is more important somehow. I don't think Cersei is a shadow of her former self, mostly because it seems too obviously/un-GRRM-like for her to be. I think this because, contrary to the way GRRM usually develops characters, we are literally told several times that Cersei couldn't possibly become relevant against because she's been shamed. That said, we have relatively little understanding of Cersei's own point of view, and of how much of her meekness might be put on. I don't see GRRM being so blunt/unsubtle about Cersei's downfall. If she's not going to be relevant in the future, that should be obvious from what happens to her; we shouldn't need several characters to assert it over and over. Tyrion should come back to Westeros in the next book (assuming he joins Danaerys) because there are only two books left and because, if there's going to be some sort of Danaerys vs Westeros reclamation war, it needs to happen soon. I don't think GRRM will leave that all for the last book, particularly given his tendency for slow pacing. | ||
|
Selendis
Australia509 Posts
On August 27 2013 12:27 B_Type13X2 wrote: After reading Feast for Crows I give GRRM credit he managed to make me despise a literary character. Cersei was unbearable not because of her lust for power but how terribly inept she was once she had it. And I enjoy the prophecy factor, Cersei ignores the rumors and the like that Robert knew about across the sea concerning Daenerys and her dragons and never considered for a moment that she technically has 2 younger brothers. if she had considered either of these things she would know that the prophecy is likely not referring to Margery Tyrell but of Daenerys the younger prettier queen coming across the sea and replacing her, and her brother Jaime who is coming ever more distant to her killing her in what will likely be viewed by him as defense of his king Tommen. The worst part is if she would have put her scheming aside and thought objectively she could have befriended Margery, strengthened bonds between the Tyrells and Lannisters taken the good advice Kevan was giving her and Tommen's kingdom might have been safe against Daenerys. She is frustrating to read because she is just so plainly stupid, but thats the beauty in how he wrote her. The reader is supposed to know and think to themselves, "Your cunning plan is actually quite stupid." Reading Cersei's POV was my guilty pleasure. I don't actually think Cersei is that bad, it's just her skills at the game of thrones is dwarfed by her opponents. She does blunder but with a bit of training she could have been on par with the "better players". It's a shame that she has loathed Tyrion all throughout her life, if they actually worked together they could have made up for each others' weaknesses. I think Cersei is a tragic figure because of the circumstances of her life and due to the sexism she has faced all her life. It's very difficult to keep power as a woman in Westeros when everyone is telling you to go back to making babies. Considering she has discouragement and hurdles at every step of the way, she did quite well. Contrast this to Dany, who faces similar problems of sexism but has ascended to messiah-hood thanks to her dragons. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
The reason Cersei's downfall is emphasized so heavily and we are explicitly told that she won't become relevant again is to trick us into thinking she's done, and then suddenly in the epilogue Varys kills Kevan. Instant resurrection for Cersei. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
| ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
In the light of this I think its pretty funny that some people called GRRM feminist, because there are some women with power or whatever. In fact though they are mostly irrational because they are overly emotional, involved in major fuckups, responsible for the downfall of their families etc. All of the intelligent or lets say rational people who are actually good at the game of thrones are men (Tywin, Tyrion, Kevan, Roose Bolton, Littlefinger, Varys, Illyrio, Doran Martell, etc). Maybe the Queen of Thornes being the only exception. | ||
|
Selendis
Australia509 Posts
On August 28 2013 02:07 Bigtony wrote: Cersei's only skill in the game of thrones is having a vagina and using the resources that other people have built up for her. Ok so her vagina is pretty much her only good playing card. This is Westeros, everybody is sexist. Nobody allows women any amount of power (unless they have absolutely no choice... or unless they are "whipped"). As for using resources others' built around them, that's what most of the main players do. The only self made men and women are Varys and Littlefinger and Dany (who has had help, but her ascendance at Astapor was her own doing). | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On August 27 2013 21:09 TSORG wrote: no one is claiming that coldhands is bran :S just that they are both a brandon, not the same brandon. That's what I thought. If he isn't (which in that theory he isn't, because he'd be the Knight's King aka a previous Brandon Stark, yes I've looked it up) there are no causality issues and no multiple instances. So the person I was arguing with most definitely thought Bran was Coldhands  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:40 Redox wrote: I actually think what GRRM did to Cercei was the meanest thing he has done to any character. She had always been an evil, scheming bitch of mediocre intelligence. But now he really assassinated her character by making her really stupid, paranoid, delusional, a whore, an alcoholic etc. And to finish it all off he has her driven naked through the city for all to see, including her breaking down and losing the last of her dignity. Because a simple death like for other characters would have been too kind. In the light of this I think its pretty funny that some people called GRRM feminist, because there are some women with power or whatever. In fact though they are mostly irrational because they are overly emotional, involved in major fuckups, responsible for the downfall of their families etc. All of the intelligent or lets say rational people who are actually good at the game of thrones are men (Tywin, Tyrion, Kevan, Roose Bolton, Littlefinger, Varys, Illyrio, Doran Martell, etc). Maybe the Queen of Thornes being the only exception. I think you're being rather unfair towards women in the books. First and foremost there's Dany. However much you dislike her current story, she is a self-made woman (from the moment she took control of her life as Drogo's husband in GoT through when she chose to walk into the fire to hatch the dragons and when she chose to free the slaves of Astapor). While she is now being written off as an incompetent ruler in Meereen who does nothing but mope after Daario, that doesn't wipe out the strong character that was built in preceding books. Secondly there's the warrior women characters like Brienne, Asha, Ygritte and of course Arya, who are strong in their own way and won't take shit from men in what is portrayed as a very male-dominated society. And finally there are characters like Sansa and Arianne, who while failing miserably at the game of thrones so far, are being groomed by some of the best in the business. And I guess Margaery falls in this group as well, with as her mentor her own grandmother. Cersei and Catelyn are pretty incompetent, but so are plenty of the male characters. Ned and Robb spring to mind as obvious examples, but lets not forget the utterly pointless quest of Quentyn Martell, who was described as utterly incompetent at every chance GRRM got. Writing about incompetent women does not make GRRM an anti-feminist. He treats his incompetent women equally to the incompetent men: they get brutalized in the game of thrones. The main difference is that Cersei gets a fair amount of PoV chapters so we can truly understand how utterly stupid she really is. As a reader you can immediately identify all of the plots against her that she is walking into with open arms, and how completely inane her own "clever plots" are. | ||
|
B_Type13X2
Canada122 Posts
If you want a poster child for feminist / strong women look at Brienne, she is pretty much perfect in that regard. Not attractive but damn capable despite having a vagina. Cersei I believe was simply just foil for the strong female characters that have/had good sense and cunning. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:40 Redox wrote: I actually think what GRRM did to Cercei was the meanest thing he has done to any character. She had always been an evil, scheming bitch of mediocre intelligence. But now he really assassinated her character by making her really stupid, paranoid, delusional, a whore, an alcoholic etc. And to finish it all off he has her driven naked through the city for all to see, including her breaking down and losing the last of her dignity. Because a simple death like for other characters would have been too kind. In the light of this I think its pretty funny that some people called GRRM feminist, because there are some women with power or whatever. In fact though they are mostly irrational because they are overly emotional, involved in major fuckups, responsible for the downfall of their families etc. All of the intelligent or lets say rational people who are actually good at the game of thrones are men (Tywin, Tyrion, Kevan, Roose Bolton, Littlefinger, Varys, Illyrio, Doran Martell, etc). Maybe the Queen of Thornes being the only exception. uhm Theon? uhm... also asha is the only rational greyjoy missandei is pretty brilliant. the tyrell women are pretty much the brains of the family. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On August 28 2013 07:48 Mikau wrote: That's what I thought. If he isn't (which in that theory he isn't, because he'd be the Knight's King aka a previous Brandon Stark, yes I've looked it up) there are no causality issues and no multiple instances. So the person I was arguing with most definitely thought Bran was Coldhands ok that would indeed be weird... | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://31.media.tumblr.com/92a2be2d26c2268fc1a4900b843e160a/tumblr_mn7ddvkf9C1rvjc81o1_500.jpg)
