EPT[TV/BOOK] *SPOILERS* Game of Thrones Discussion - Page 468
| 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. | ||
|
daemir
Finland8662 Posts
| ||
|
SwARmZzz
Canada193 Posts
| ||
|
sths
Australia192 Posts
Ah who am I kidding I'm still going to read the books anyways. | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
Also the very first reply in reddit has some legit questions and no real answers come up. | ||
|
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
On May 01 2014 10:54 Steveling wrote: Lol, that theory totally ignores the few hard facts we know about that story. Also the very first reply in reddit has some legit questions and no real answers come up. I like this theory and I'd like to hope this is along the lines of where grrm is going. We don't have any hard facts about the others, really. And the way the series goes, everything is deliberately told through POV characters, and anything about the others is either from the first chapter of got, or passed-down stories. What hard facts are you referring to? Most of the questions that were brought up can be answered pretty simply -- maybe the others are a people bound to their oaths and promises, the opposite of man in asoiaf. why are men on the wall? because they aren't fulfilling their promise and staying on the other side. why haven't the others attacked? because they can't break a vow they made. why are the wildlings north of the wall? because men don't keep their word, regardless. thats a bit generic, i guess, but the point still stands. asoiaf has been entirely about men manipulating men. having a twist like this with the others would fit with his writing. anyway i don't know if we will get a conclusion that satisfying to the others, since theyve been barely mentioned in 5 books. but it would be nice. and i mean come on, i gigantic magic wall of ice that stands for thousands of years -- made by man, or made by creatures who seem to craft things out of ice? winterfell is pretty impressive, sure, but i don't think brandon the builder was that good, yknow? | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
Both of these are pretty clear. Now if some of you wanted grrm to include a "he was so dead that he wouldn't be able to be risen/resurrected/cloned/transported from a parallel universe" line, then I'm afraid you just believe what you want to believe. Also if something like that happened it would be a very hard deus ex machina formulation and grrm avoids it like the plague. | ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10305 Posts
Interesting how the advancement of the Others has been directly tied to the decline of the Stark family [...] the King's Landing intrigue (Ned), the War of the Five Kings (Robb), Littlefinger (Sansa), the Night's Watch (Jon Snow), Davos/Stannis and the Boltons (Rickon) and Braavos (Arya) all effect the outcome of the endgame. I wonder what it's going to be like when Bran reaches "home". Is Benjen there? EDIT: Probably not relevant but the TV series, in the season 2 finale, juxtaposed Bran and Rickon leaving Winterfell with the large advancing army of wights. "A stark must always sit in winterfell" indeed. That is a very good point, seeing as the Stark are the "closest" to a Main-Family and all that is happened to them would have a greater purpose other than LOL GRRM hates heroes so he kills all the "good guys" Also: It would set up for a explanation and reasoning for Benjens introduction in the first book. It still seems wierd to have him in just to dissapear and have no other function than a motivation for Jon to go beyond the wall | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
That said, I'm pretty sure that Lightbringer is most likely the Night's Watch, not a literal sword, which may complicate the theory. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On May 23 2011 08:05 cyberspace wrote: I always blamed Sansa. If she hadn't went and told Cersei that they were leaving King's Landing, I think they could have all gotten away. And the story would be completely different. Can you imagine if Ned was around? How many people would rally behind him instead of the Lannisters. I think so too. It fits in many aspects. For example, Azor Ahai had to reforge Lightbringer thrice before it worked, and the killing of Lord Commander Mormont, and now possibly of Lord Commander Jon could be a sort of "reforging" of the Night's Watch, with the third time being the right one. Also and naturally, the vows of the Night's Watch seem to be way more than just words, and coincide with the story too, especially the "I am the sword in the darkness" part, which could be interpreted as a single sword in an ordinary night, or as "the" one sword during the time of darkness, i.e. The Long Night. I'm hoping this is how it turns out. That being said, I don't doubt that the Others are more than your average villain, and that they have a purpose beyond being evil. What I do doubt is GRRM's capacity to develop them as such in two books, when as it is now, we know next to nothing about them. | ||
|
Dismay
United States1180 Posts
| ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On May 01 2014 17:48 Spaylz wrote: I think so too. It fits in many aspects. For example, Azor Ahai had to reforge Lightbringer thrice before it worked, and the killing of Lord Commander Mormont, and now possibly of Lord Commander Jon could be a sort of "reforging" of the Night's Watch, with the third time being the right one. Also and naturally, the vows of the Night's Watch seem to be way more than just words, and coincide with the story too, especially the "I am the sword in the darkness" part, which could be interpreted as a single sword in an ordinary night, or as "the" one sword during the time of darkness, i.e. The Long Night. I'm hoping this is how it turns out. That being said, I don't doubt that the Others are more than your average villain, and that they have a purpose beyond being evil. What I do doubt is GRRM's capacity to develop them as such in two books, when as it is now, we know next to nothing about them. That seems arbitrary. There have been a thousand commanders. I believe GRRM himself has stated that not all prophecies will be realized. | ||
|
SpiZe
Canada3640 Posts
Anyway, while it seems fun, I think there is way too much guessing and not enough proof. | ||
|
Gladness
United States59 Posts
On May 01 2014 08:33 SmoKim wrote: This might have already been posted, nevertheless, it's a great read, especially now concidering the ending of episode 4 http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/23p48r/the_true_nature_and_purpose_of_the_others_and_the/ The best part of this theory is that it changes the meaning of the prince who was "promised" from "foretold by prophecy" to "sworn to a betrothal". As is widely known, prophecy with word play is the best kind of prophecy. Thanks for the fun read. | ||
|
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
On May 01 2014 17:09 Steveling wrote: The facts are a) night's king was killed by the king in the north and the king beyond the wall and b) there was no peace treaty or anything similar during his reign, only dark stories of horror, he was an usurper and probably x10 twisted as the worst Bolton ever. A man like that would certainly not act like a diplomat with some ice zombies, lol. Both of these are pretty clear. Now if some of you wanted grrm to include a "he was so dead that he wouldn't be able to be risen/resurrected/cloned/transported from a parallel universe" line, then I'm afraid you just believe what you want to believe. Also if something like that happened it would be a very hard deus ex machina formulation and grrm avoids it like the plague. 'Dark stories of horror' are told from unreliable, biased narrators. That's what history is all about. Thats what asoiaf is all about. It is interpreted one way and passed on, so calling this a fact is a crazy argument. Who the night's king was killed by is, similarly, stuff of passed-down stories and legend. Even so, this story doesn't take anything away from the theory. The whole basis of this theory is that GRRM loves history, point-of-view driven conflicts, and ambiguous moral characters. All of this lends to the others being something very different than what we are told. Arguing about the details of someones specific internet theory is dumb, but I think its extremely likely that the others will be the real sympathetic characters at the end. | ||
|
chillpenguin
United States90 Posts
On May 01 2014 17:09 Steveling wrote: The facts are a) night's king was killed by the king in the north and the king beyond the wall and b) there was no peace treaty or anything similar during his reign, only dark stories of horror, he was an usurper and probably x10 twisted as the worst Bolton ever. A man like that would certainly not act like a diplomat with some ice zombies, lol. Both of these are pretty clear. Now if some of you wanted grrm to include a "he was so dead that he wouldn't be able to be risen/resurrected/cloned/transported from a parallel universe" line, then I'm afraid you just believe what you want to believe. Also if something like that happened it would be a very hard deus ex machina formulation and grrm avoids it like the plague. lol at 8,000 year old stories being told by 90 year old women to 7 year old boys as being "facts". | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On May 02 2014 05:53 chillpenguin wrote: lol at 8,000 year old stories being told by 90 year old women to 7 year old boys as being "facts". Well, a lot of Old Nan's stories do turn out to be incredibly accurate. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On May 02 2014 06:12 ComaDose wrote: the sky really is blue because we live in a giant's eye That hasn't been disproved yet.  | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
if we see a zoom out of the planet from space in the show I am going to complain about spoilers! | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
Like, where do the Children fit in? Why are they fighting the Others, or the Others fighting them? They have always been north of the wall. Have they also forgotten about the pact? Cant imagine that. Also, the wildlings would have broken this pact a long time ago when they settled north of the wall. Actually, was there ever a time when there were no humans north of the wall? From what I know they were there since the wall was erected. In any case the Others should have attacked them a long time ago and driven them from their land, if they have a problem with them. And then they should just man their wall and protect it, not eradicate everything south of it. Lastly, the author of that theory tried too hard to make the Others into "good guys", as if that even matters. The Targaryens threatening "the world at large" is not a reason to basically do the same thing. In the end the reason for why they want to go south and kill everybody is not even important, they have to be stopped regardless from a human pov. edit: Oh another thing. If the Others made the wall, why is it that the undead (their thralls) can not pass it while the humans can without any problems? Should it not be the other way around then? | ||
| ||
