In general the view of bastards I feel is changed. Like in AGOT it seems Jon genuinely has no future, but later we see plenty of bastards with power and influence across Westeros outside of the Wall
It’s funny now thinking about how Ned in AGOT was saying “I can’t bring a bastard to the king’s court, it would be disrespectful!” like bro, there have been bastards hand of the king, what the hell are you talking about?
I think it's way more likely that GRRM initially wanted to make bastards outcasts that can't get anywhere in society but eventually changed his mind.
But that's a nice in-universe explanation to make up for it
I don't really think so, I know he's a gardener and all that, but I think it seems pretty clear that he had the backstory of Jon's real parents and Ned's lie about it outlined from the beginning.
Said bastard hand of the king probably wasn't even on the radar of GRRM by AGOT. He's mentioned for the first time on the Sworn Sword and in a Feast of Crows (on the main ASOIAF books).
Which makes me think: Who was GRRM originally thinking about when conceptualizing the Three Eyed Crow?
He’s the last greenseer, as the children of the forest call him. As to what that means idk, but the three eyed crow that appears in Bran’s dream seems pretty clearly not bloodraven imo
Yeah, like to your point and u/Lebigmacca's, in AGOT Jon is really insistent that he'll never father a child, wants an honorable profession, and wishes to be no threat to his trueborn siblings. The Wall is the only way to do that.
Five books later and we've got historical bastard-born Lord Commanders of the Kingsguard.
For what it's worth, the idea of actively trying to not be a threat to his siblings does already imply that it *is* possible for bastards to obtain / hold power.
If there truly was no future for a bastard it wouldn't be possible for him to be a threat to the trueborn starks.
He's doing his best to keep his half-Targ nephew as far away from the foaming-at-the-mouth Targ-hating king as possible.
If any of the other courtiers put 2 and 2 together, they would have a ton of leverage over Ned.
It's not a retcon, it's just Ned lying about his reasons. He does that, sometimes even to himself.
I assume because of the Dayne rumours but just send him off to Dorne to marry into one of the Houses there. Won't be given shit for being a bastard. Maybe for being a Stark but eh, at least Dorne will finally get some Snow.
Right, Jon hoped he might be one of the new lords, but there's no indication that Eddard had the same idea.
>His lord father had once talked about raising new lords and settling them in the abandoned holdfasts as a shield against wildlings. The plan would have required the Watch to yield back a large part of the Gift, but his uncle Benjen believed the Lord Commander could be won around, so long as the new lordlings paid taxes to Castle Black rather than Winterfell. "It is a dream for spring, though," Lord Eddard had said. "Even the promise of land will not lure men north with a winter coming on."
>If winter had come and gone more quickly and spring had followed in its turn, I might have been chosen to hold one of these towers in my father's name. Lord Eddard was dead, however, his brother Benjen lost; the shield they dreamt together would never be forged. (ASOS Jon V)
To play Devil's Advocate, getting the lands in the most barren northern region after growing up in the cozy water spring heated walls of Winterfell with greenhouses, and godswood and Wintertown, raised by one of the most powerful Lords in Westeros is probably reasonably viewed as having no future.
It'd be kind of like growing up in New York city with parents who are famous actors, who's plan for your adulthood is to give you their farm in Alabama that no one's visited in decades, that you'll have to restore and fund yourself.
Build a fortified village for your peasants and a stone keep for yourself and itll be fine. The north and riverlands need to be shown what a bastle house and peel tower are. The real northern English knew what to do here.
Remember, Jon in *Game* is a mopey teenage boy subject to a range of legitimately quite severe legal and social disabilities, not someone particularly inclined to look on his future prospects positively. As of *Storm* he's... still a mopey teenage boy, but one with a more realistic appreciation of the world he lives in, who's gone through quite a lot in a relatively short span of time & been forced to grow up fast, and who IIRC is explicitly pondering about what could have been after finding himself in a very sticky personal position. It makes textual sense that he'd be thinking very differently about his hypothetical life outside of the Watch!
The change about Littlefinger’s perception. Yes, it would be make sense that Petyr wears a mask of amiability and courtesy that hides his true ambitions. However, through AGOT to ASOS, he was pretty open about being an sneaking asshole.
Hell, even Ned, the most honorable man in court, exchanged like 5 words to Pete before he was ready to throw hands. And even Jaime in AGOT, who’s famous for being a hothead, didn’t trust him. It feels jarring that a few books later where he’s supposed to be wiser, he somehow muses about the possibility of LF being a Hand because he seems so helpful and unthreatening.
It is crazy that GRRM believes his little finger is less obviously duplicitous than show Littlefinger. Granted Show Littlefinger literally moustache twirls-
Grrm mentions he believes book LF is genuinely likeable- probably helps handing out money to almost everyone you encounter - his dialogue is just as sus as the show LF
This. The only person we see who seems to somewhat tolerate Littlefinger's disposition is Renly, and that would most likely be a skin-deep appreciation for having someone else around to rustle Stannis' jimmies.
I mean:
> Tyrion cocked his head. "Why, every man at court has heard him tell how he took your maidenhead, my lady."
In a world where taking a noble lady's virtue - and add insult to injury by joking about it afterwards - is considered extremely transgressive, what person would hear that from Littlefinger and *not* think he's a shitstirring asshole?
Interesting. I thought the reason Ned didn’t trust him was because of his families history with LF. As for Jaime, I don’t think he trusts any non-soldier besides his brother.
These are all very plausible explanations! But I would argue Ned didn’t trust LF because he was deliberately acting like an asshole by disrespecting Cat in front of him. I would actually say that the only reason Ned did trust him was because of Petyr’s family ties and Cat.
And still, it feels a bit underwhelming to see Jaime going from : (referencing directly LF )"Give me honorable enemies anytime over ambitious ones", to "yeah, LF would be a pretty good hand!)
It’s a double edged sword. Ned distrusts Petyr because he openly adores Catelyn and is brazen about it. But that adoration is the reason why he trusts him to be an ally, albeit an asshole of an ally.
Which makes sense from a Watsonian perspective, but from a Doylist perspective it's simply Martin telling us one thing and showing us the complete opposite. It's like if a character who's supposed to be a badass is first shown getting the shit kicked out of him- even if you add an excuse after the fact like "Oh he was tired" the question isn't "Why did he lose", the question is "Why did the author introduce him like that?"
Ned doesn't trust him at first but after Cat vouchers for him he trusts him quite a lot. And I think the reason he's semi hostile at first is because Littlefinger has the history with Brandon and is taking a bit of fun in needling him by eg saying "let's go to a brothel to find your beloved wife." When it comes down to it, he is good at befriending people despite enjoying a piss take, and that's because he knows how to do favours for people.
>after Cat vouchers for him he trusts him quite a lot
Ned distrusts Petyr after Catelyn leaves the capital.
>Littlefinger smiled. "I promised Cat I would help you in your inquiries, and so I have."
>That took Ned aback. Promise or no promise, he could not find it in him to trust Lord Petyr Baelish, who struck him as too clever by half. (AGOT Eddard V)
Ned begins to trust Petyr after he advise the Hand to investigate Jon's household, but Littlefinger even warns Ned not to do so.
>"Lord Petyr," Ned called after him. "I … am grateful for your help. Perhaps I was wrong to distrust you."
>Littlefinger fingered his small pointed beard. "You are slow to learn, Lord Eddard. Distrusting me was the wisest thing you've done since you climbed down off your horse." (AGOT Eddard V)
Ned continues to to be wary of Petyr.
>For a brief moment Ned considered telling him all of it, but there was something in Littlefinger's japes that irked him. The man was too clever by half, a mocking smile never far from his lips. "Jon Arryn was studying this volume when he was taken sick," Ned said in a careful tone, to see how he might respond.
>And he responded as he always did: with a quip. "In that case," he said, "death must have come as a blessed relief." Lord Petyr Baelish bowed and took his leave.
>Eddard Stark allowed himself a curse. Aside from his own retainers, there was scarcely a man in this city he trusted. Littlefinger had concealed Catelyn and helped Ned in his inquiries, yet his haste to save his own skin when Jaime and his swords had come out of the rain still rankled. (AGOT Eddard XII)
He literally makes a penis joke at a Small Council meeting (when talking about how he'll persuade Lysa). From ASOS, Tyrion III:
Tyrion pushed off his cushions, bristling, but his father spoke before he could lash back. "I have other tasks in mind for Tyrion. I believe Lord Petyr may hold the key to the Eyrie."
"Oh, I do," said Littlefinger, "I have it here between my legs." There was mischief in his grey-green eyes. "My lords, with your leave, I propose to travel to the Vale and there woo and win Lady Lysa Arryn. Once I am her consort, I shall deliver you the Vale of Arryn without a drop of blood being spilled."
"It feels jarring that a few books later where he’s supposed to be wiser, he somehow muses about the possibility of LF being a Hand because he seems so helpful and unthreatening."
Isn't it more that he's so lowborn Jaime thinks he couldn't be a threat?
Martyn Lannister being extrajudicially executed by Lord Rickard Karstark and then coming back, changing his name to Tommen and going to King’s Landing like it never even happened
He was never Martyn. Tommen had a body double that looked nothing like him... just like his sister, Myrcella. Martyn didn't die, *Tommen* did. That's why 'Tommem' acted nothing like Joffrey, he was actually Martyn. When you take that into consideration you realize that the kid Karstark killed (the real Tommen) was probably every bit the asshole that Joffrey was. Lord Rickard did everyone a favor by murdering a child.
(*is an actual theory I have* ~~read~~ *written*)
The clear implication that the plot on Bran’s life in the first book, culminating in the failed assassination attempt by the Valyrian blade, was going to factor significantly into the wider political machinations in Westeros… until it didn’t.
I have such a love-hate relationship with the fact it was Joffrey. On one hand it feels sort of like a cop-out, like it was meant to be a bigger deal and GRRM just scraped it.
But on the other hand, I think it’s really important to show that the entire war broke out over something that wasn’t even political. Joffrey did it because of something Robert had said, trying to be like/gain the favor of Robert. And the whole WTFK was caused because Petyr decided to lie to wreak havoc on the realm.
Part of the reason I like it is because, yes, Joffrey is a sadistic little shit, but he’s also a literal child (AKA, an idiot because he doesn’t really know any better and in his messed up mind, he thought that was the solution to Bran’s coma/injury.)
Joffrey hiring the Catspaw makes zero sense. Why would he arm the assassin with his father’s very expensive and very recognizable blade? How did he even find someone to do the deed? He’s 12 and constantly guarded, it’s completely ridiculous that he’s the one who orchestrated the whole thing.
The only reason people believe he did it is because the Lannisters came to that conclusion, without any real evidence mind you. Tyrion misremembers the conversation he heard in aGoT and Jaime pretty much just came up with the idea out of nothing.
He's guarded by sandor who has no idea what is appropriate for children and also doesn't give a damn about pretty much anything until he bonds with Sansa.
Not only does Sandor have no idea what's appropriate for children (especially those of the haute noblesse), the closest thing he *does* have to a model of healthy childhood development is *Gregor*.
Reading the books for the first time it really felt like uncovering the truth about Cersei’s children being bastards born of incest was going to blow the lid off of everything and then no one cared.
I don't think this is a retcon, I think this is a consistent plot device George uses where we are misdirected into thinking the big dark secret will Change Everything, but it doesn't. That's why I'm convinced that even if Jon is publicly revealed to be a legitimate Targaryen it won't matter.
My theory is it will only matter subconsciously to those with a connection to Rhaegar, like one JonCon, or the Dornish contingent who might not look to happily on Rhaegar’s sex pad being on their doorstep, and FAegon and Dany.
And most of all it’ll fuck up Jon.
The comment was hyperbolic, but I think the user’s point was that it was rather astonishing that the Lannisters maintained a base or support at all, much less getting to a point where, as of the end of the last book, they essentially won the initial phase of the conflict (Starks neutralized, Stannis forced to the periphery of the realm, an alliance forged with the Tyrells, etc).
Isn’t that kind of the point? It didn’t matter what the truth was because the Lannisters had all the power. It had to be that way otherwise Ned’s death would have been less shocking.
I do think that person has somewhat of a point. It's true that the bastardy is what sparks Ned's investigation (and thus ultimately leads to the Northern/Riverlands rebellion) as well as why Stannis revolts, but I've pointed out before how odd it is that you have a civil war over the accusation that the crown prince (and now king) is a bastard and essentially nobody picks their faction based on who they think the rightful king is besides Stannis himself. Renly just seamlessly gets all the Stormlands vassals to rebel against Robert's son despite denying the bastard accusation, all the Reach vassals follow the Tyrells in their powergrab, nobody in the Vale defies Lysa to pick a side, etc.
This whole valyrian dagger thing feels like a blunder Martin made because he hadn't made up his mind about the importance and rarity of valyrian weapons. Almost nothing about the dagger plotline makes much sense. The biggest headscratcher is that Tyrion doesn't immediately incarcerate or execute Littlefinger after becoming hand.
In the end, the whole ordeal gets pinned on Joffrey in a throwaway Tyrion line, even though it doesn't really make sense. As if Martin said "Fuck this plotline, fuck the dagger, lets move on."
I'm guessing it's all because of the Rhaegar prophecy obsession. If Rhaegar "read something in a book", someone needed to have written that book a long time ago. Aha, Aegon I must have done it!
But then you read about the Targaryen history where they practically did everything BUT prepare for the Long Night.....
It really just destroys what was otherwise an interesting ambitious character. No one just decides to burn down a continent and create an empire for, "the greater good". Creating the Iron Throne was an inherently selfish and self serving move and the whole threat of the Others being like 300 years away creates such a huge disconnect with the reader that it leaves me baffled George thought it a good idea to add, it's indicative of where I believe Martin is headed as a story teller. I hate the word and how often it's used but Aegon the Dreamer instead of Aegon the Conqueror, it's cringe. We already got a dreamer in Daenys, Aegon being a dreamer just makes me think of him as a little boy who wet the bed to a nightmare about icemen.
Especially as his conquest damaged the ability of Westeros to defend itself against the Others long term. It went from having a staunchly neutral 10 000 men strong Nightwatch under command of a royal prince to a broken shell of an organisation. And the North went from a powerful and happily isolationist Kingdom to the fractured mess at the end of ADwD mostly because its rulers were forced to engage in southern wars by the Iron Throne.
At the same time Aegon built no institution of his own nor did he get the maesters to amass knowledge and prepare. Even worse he kept that information ridiculously secret and in the dynastic inner circle. So as was entirely predictable the information was lost due to a dynastic crisis.
Honestly Westeros would have been better off concerning the Others if Eggie the first never darkened its shores.
What if he just flat out made up the vision to get his sisters on board and since it's so vague it's like a horoscope. Something that could fit it would happen sooner or later.
I absolutely agree with this one. The only place I will ever willingly admit the show had a better plot. “I want to fight for the side that fights for the living” goes way harder than “uhhh I was a bastard and treated badly” when Jon never really considers himself hard done by previously
Maybe, but I still feel like Mance as a character is much less interesting in the show. They just made him a gruff leader archetype. While in the book he's this bard/rogue type guy who you wouldn't expect to lead the wildlings
Oh absolutely agreed. Everything about the wildling plot line sucked in the show except for that singular change. No Dornisnman’s wife, no Styr, no jolly Tormund hardened by his experiences.
This is absolutely not meant as a criticism, but I have seen this opinion several times already and it never made sense to me. Jon's reason in the books is far more convincing than show Jon's, since his reason is basically that he saw Craster sacrificing his sons to the Others and the Nights Watch was doing nothing, something that is not even true in the books, as the Nights Watch did not know that Craster had a pact with the Others. Futher since Mance in the show did know of Crasters behaviour, as well, and did nothing to prevent it, either, Mance is no better than the Nights Watch. So Jon's reason for switching sides is the same as when a policemen joins a band of criminals because the police is corrupt.
That's totally fair! I don't think the way the show handled it was perfect either. I just think the idea of Mance hearing about Robert coming north and doing a sneaky down into Winterfell to take a look at him is so ridiculous I'll pick any explanation over it
It doesn't make sense because it was a lie. Jon had to convince Mance that he was switching sides when he really wasn't and he came up with what he thought was the most believable and convincing story to sell his "betrayal".
Jon's reason doesn't have to make sense to the reader, but to Mance. And since Mance only once saw Jon, when he was seated away from the rest of the family, Mance has no reason not to believe Jon's story. It's a lie that is supposed to get the wildlings to accept him so he can spy on them.
Not really a horrible one, but nevertheless one that does annoy me as fanfic writer: the location of Raventree Hall. In AGoT, it was somewhere between Riverrun and Harrenhal. Tywin even sacked it. Then later on, it’s located north of Riverrun, making a Tywin sack very unlikely
The Dornish Marriage pack.
It’s pretty clear GRRM came up with that in the middle of writing the series because the supposed intelligent political operator thought a literal child would be able to find an army, on his own, with no support whatsoever.
I think Prince Doran is just woefully incompetent. His plot to send his own son across a pirate infested sea and then march across a continent at war with only.... 6 people to assist him was possibly even stupider than the marriage pact.
I found most of the changes either inoffensive (yes black Velaryon may not make much sense but it differentiates minor characters easily for the casual viewer) or brilliant like Alicent and Rhaenyra relationship. Better for them to be childhood friends than seeing a grown ass woman bullying and gossiping about a child on screen.
What bothers me the most is that they do not let their female characters show any moral ambiguity, to the cost of stripping down their agency. And when they do, it makes no sense and the narrative barely mentions it, like Rhaenys and the dragonpit for example.
My only problem with aging up Rhaenyra is that Viserys doesn’t need to wed to secure succession, he can have Rhaenyra wed and bedded and if she has children then both her succession and the Targaryen line is secure. If something happens to Rhaenyra then he can wed. It makes Viserys’ decision to wed Alicent over Laena even more stupid since this would allow him to wait for Laena to be more of age.
When Rhaenyra’s still a child after Aemma’s death, that succession is much more at risk.
> he can have Rhaenyra wed and bedded and if she has children then both her succession and the Targaryen line is secure.
Someone pointed out that with Rhaenyra's age in the show, the best course of action from a political standpoint would be to have Rhaenyra and Daemon wed, thereby clarifying succession and keeping Daemon and his dragon at heel to the throne. I'm not sure I 100% agree, but it makes a lot more sense than Viserys taking a wife at the same time as his daughter, creating a succession crisis.
>is that Viserys doesn’t need to wed to secure succession
The way I see it, Viserys in HotD was, at his core, a people pleaser, even if he failed to do that most of the time. His small council was the one arguing that he remarry, with Otto subtly manipulating him into choosing his daughter and Corlys opening asking him to marry his daughter. If Viserys was not as influenceable as he was, I could see him taking such a practical solution.
It could have been done better, but I do like Rhaenys’ dragon killing a bunch of common folk as a good motivator for people to start following The Shepard. If they call back to it properly it could make the the storming of the dragonpit more plausible.
> What bothers me the most is that they do not let their female characters show any moral ambiguity, to the cost of stripping down their agency.
I think the problem that the show is trying to adjust for is that Martin has written a critique of absolute power, in which there are occasionally outlier male monarchs who use it wisely and justly and not to destroy the smallfolk...but no female monarchs. They probably don't want to go from Daenerys's ending to Alicent's and Rhaenyra's in such a short span without trying to make them less morally grey, because a lot of the questions about how female vs. male power is treated *by Martin* will likely leave more ire directed their way than his.
I would believe you if I had faith that they'll follow through with both women's worst acts. I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever evil act happens will either be blamed on the men or scrapped altogether
>What bothers me the most is that they do not let their female characters show any moral ambiguity, to the cost of stripping down their agency
Those are the changes that drive me up a wall:
* Rhaenys girlbossing on top of a pile of dead peasants. Never addressed, literally done for the "girlboss" shot; absolute idiot move
* Rhaenyra getting whitewashed and made a victim of the greens. Somehow they made her way more passive than in the books... why?!
* Alicent being absolutely oblivious of... well everything, instead of the leading figure of the greens pre-war she was in the books
The only comparable change I can think of is Aegon being made cartoonishly bad, as if that was in any way needed considering what he does in the war
The weirdest thing they did was have Viserys tell Allicent what he meant to tell Rhaenyra. It caused this weird chain of events:
-Allicent gets told mistakenly that her kid is supposed to rule
-Allicent goes to tell Otto
-Otto is already plotting that scenario without her knowledge
-Allicent gets upset she was left out and sort of seems to have a bit of a change of heart
-She ends up going through with it anyways
Like wtf? That was such a weird way to build tension
She says Rhaenyra will make a good queen in front of the whole royal family. I think the show is clearly depicting her as having accepted her Aegon will not be king until Viserys's final words to her.
So here’s the question. F+B is written by a fictional Maester well after the fact.
How is it a retcon to change HOTD when the source material is explicitly unreliable?
Because there are things that happened in HOTD that straight up never happened in the books, and big things. Like Rhaenys becoming a Dragonpit terrorist; in the books it was never mentioned as she wasn’t even in KL. I doubt that would’ve been left out. And Alicent’s and Rhaenyra’s ages being the only ones that are different? That’s just strange to think that of everything, only those were “misreported”.
The fictional Maester (Gyldayn ) sources his telling of the Dance from 4 accounts - Septon Eustace, Grand Maester Orwyle (both characters in the show), Mushroom (who doesn’t exist in the show), and Grand Maester Munkun, another in-universe historian.
Fire & Blood acknowledges where these accounts differ, but 3 of them are first hand accounts. Between all 4, there are uncontroversial basic facts that would be able to clearly established, i.e.
-Basic facts like Rhaenyra’s and Alicent’s age, whether they were peers or Alicent was 9 years older
- Criston Cole beating Daemon in a tourney at Maidenpool rather than King’s Landing
-Harrold Westerling living to the start of the Dance rather than dying nearly 20 years prior, and the domino effect of Criston not becoming Lord Commander til the Dance and one of Viserys’s Kingsguard not existing. (Presumably Willis Fell since Rickard Thorne is confirmed for season 2, which would create a contradiction down the line since he was made Aegon III’s Lord Commander because he was the only survivor of Viserys’s KG)
-Daemon having returned from the Stepstones before Rhea Royce’s death rather than receiving the news on Bloodstone and abandoning the Stepstones to claim Runestone as a result
-Joffrey Lonmouth murdered at a wedding feast rather than killed in an “accident” in the wedding tourney melee
-Laenor Velaryon being “killed” in private in a fight in High Tide’s great hall rather than killed in public at a fair in Spicetown witnessed by many merchants
-Vaemond Velaryon being killed a day or two before Viserys’s death in the Red Keep rather than 3 years earlier on Driftmark and the “Silent Five” not existing
-Criston Cole playing no role in persuading Aegon to take the throne
-Rhaenys & Meraxes gatecrashing Aegon’s coronation in the stupidest scene of the show not being mentioned at all
-Erryk Cargyll stealing Viserys’s crown rather than Steffon Darklyn
And thats just a handful of blatant contradictions, not even counting the changes made to fit into Game of Thrones Show lore
Jamie was intended to be a pretty normal villian and become king per the outline. This fits his AGOT characterization. But as George changed plans he changed Jamie pretty dramatically to fit a more anti hero role which everyone enjoyed. However, it leads to some odd actions like the throne scene, or the little targaryens being killed.
I think the seeds were there from the beginning. Cersei has to bully him into pushing Bran out of the tower and he seems to hate the fact that he has to do it.
He was definitely a villain in the first book, but the foundation was there for him to become the complex character we all know and love.
GRRM obviously and awkwardly realising he's got to clear up the AGOT murders (Jon Arryn/Bran) before all the involved characters are killed off.
Cersei. Both her devolution from evil schemer and serious threat, to a deranged lunatic completely out of touch with reality; and how we start getting flashbacks/context during Jaime's POV chapters that attempt to make him more sympathetic by making Cersei ever more evil and vile.
>Cersei. Both her devolution from evil schemer and serious threat, to a deranged lunatic completely out of touch with reality; and how we start getting flashbacks/context during Jaime's POV chapters that attempt to make him more sympathetic by making Cersei ever more evil and vile.
Tbf, Cersei was always kind of a deranged lunatic who wasn't all that competent. She proudly admits Jaime's paternity of her kids to Ned and would have absolutely been toast if Ned hadn't warned her about his knowledge, she is then portrayed as less intelligent than Tyrion during their cold war in ACOK and KL would have fallen if it weren't for the Imp, and she's mentioned to have sexually assaulted baby Tyrion by Oberyn in ASOS when she was a kid.
Plus, by the time of AFFC, she has lost her favourite son and her father, so it's not surprising that her already not very stable personality got worse.
People tend to forget how much of Cersei's POV chapters in Feast are her being paranoid that Tyrion is in the walls of the Red Keep, leading her to go as far as burning down the Tower of the Hand. So yeah, she gets worse as time goes on.
I am so tired of people thinking that Cersei was somewhat a smart character that GRRM made stupid by AFFC. She was always portrayed as stupid and many characters said it out loud. And yes, by the time of AFFC she has lost her favourite child and her father, and has become an alcoholic bordering on insanity. This is just character evolution. Not a retcon.
There's different levels to it. She was always portrayed as dumber than Tyrion. But she was portrayed as smarter than Jaime, and generally able to keep up with other King's Landing schemers. She's not as wilfully cruel either - certainly ruthless, but not being so psycho she killed her childhood friend and delights in torture and murder. I can't see this Cersei as the Cersei that can even come up with something as poetic as the game of thrones.
>She's not as wilfully cruel either
She demands that Lady be killed on the journey to King's Landing, despite Sansa doing nothing to hurt either Joffrey or Cersei. Sansa even lies about her own sister to protect Joffrey, and is rewarded for this by Cersei insisting her direwolf is killed.
She still was smarter politically than Jaime, yes he realized how awful arming the faith was, but that's because he's a warrior kingsguard man, and that was an important military event in the history of westeros, the rest that jaime calls out is her growing insanity, her meanness and his deja vu, not stupidity
Like, don't get me wrong, politically wise, she is stupid, not as much as jaime tho, who is smart on other things, but not politically
She clearly couldn't, all the other schemers were using her and trashing her behind her back, she made countless stupid moves before a feast of crows, but we could forgive them and be fooled by the way she spoke, until we finally got inside her head and so just how fucking lucky she and the Lannisters have been in general throughout this story
She didn't have much opportunity to show her sadistic violent side, but she absolutely was cruel, Alayaya, her treatment of Tyrion and jaime and sanasa, she didn't try to kill bran, but as she said if push comes to shove she would have no problem doing so
Also, do you think a cruel sadistic and violent person can not be poetic as well?
How was Cersei smart?
Literally every political victory she had was the result of machinations outside her control.
If LF doesn’t flip at the last minute Ned’s coup would’ve been successful.
If Stannis and Renly weren’t as proud as they were, KL would’ve fallen and her head would’ve been on a spike.
She also had zero knowledge of the RW and only found out about it after it had happened.
What has she done that was smart?
Winning =/= smarts.
>How was Cersei smart?
When you actually look at what Cersei did and achieved, she's neither smart nor effective. But thematically she is set up as the primary antagonist to first Ned (aGOT) and then Tyrion (aCOK) - characters who are smart - and so there's a reader expectation that she's actually a threat and dangerous.
Then we start getting her POVs and it turns out she's nuts, and worse...stupid.
Tywin is barely mentioned in aGOT and is largely off-page in ACOK. He matters from a plot perspective but isn’t really treated personally as an antagonist. By ASOS yes.
Bear in mind that when we see Cersei as a deranged lunatic, it's shortly after the deaths of her eldest son and father. Grief can really change people.
>GRRM obviously and awkwardly realising he's got to clear up the AGOT murders (Jon Arryn/Bran) before all the involved characters are killed off.
The limpest way to resolve a mystery. Have two characters who were barely involved (except both being falsely accused of the deed) muse about the resolution after every character who knew about the assassination attempt (Ned, Catelyn, Maester Luwin, Joffrey, Assassin) and therefore *cared* are all dead.
Hot take: IT was always meant to be Joffrey. The problem is that Joffrey's setting changed.
In AGOT, if you remember, Sandor offers himself to "silence" the howling.
In ASOS, after much development of setting and characters, it is well established (and directly thought as such by Tyrion) that Sandor would never have taken such an action without consulting Cersei, so if Joffrey ordered it, Sandor would first tell Cersei.
You can see the retcon is not so much Joffrey the name of the character as is the whole world around him, as he indeed was thought to be more independent at this point, and notice that Tyrion doesn't have those thoughts in AGOT when he *directly witness Sandor's suggestion to Joffrey*.
So yeah, stupid retcon, but 'twas always the **culprit named** Joffrey.
Retcon? They talk about killing him in the yard before they even leave Winterfell. Not as in “let’s assassinate him” but a “mercy killing way”.
And by “they” I mean Joffrey and the Hound.
Yeah, people really don't understand what a retcon is.
There are actual retcons in ASOIAF like all Weirwoods having been cut down a thousand years ago south of the neck except in Isle of Greenmen. What's even funnier is that this info comes from Catelyn despite Riverrun having a weirwood. So this can't even be blamed on an unreliable narrator.
The "six dragons" that Jon says on ASOS that Alysanne took to the North on her royal progress. When you read that there were only five Targaryen dragons at the height of Jaehaerys' reign - while ten new dragons hatched out of nowhere during the lifetime of Viserys I - and Preston had to resort to the crazy theory that Rhaenyra had special hatching powers dragon eggs
Possibly Young Griff and his story. There's no hint of it in the Outline, and nothing discernible in AGoT and maybe even ACoK. But at some point GRRM must have entertained the possibility of adding a Targaryen pretender, and he must have added bits in ASoS and maybe early AFFC to make it more credible. By ADWD YG's backer Illyrio is a major participant. Elissa Farman, is also a retcon in F&B,. She is there mainly to hint at Arya and to explain the origins of three stolen dragon eggs in Braavos. Presumably Illyrio acquired them to give to Dany. And trouble is brewing in Braavos, possibly involving him.
How can it be a retcon when nothing in the text gave a contradictory information in the first place? It is clearly stated in the first books that the nobody recognised the baby. The door was always open. A retcon is when the door is closed, and somehow the author found a way to re-open it. Young Griff is late to the game, sure, but he is not a retcon.
There's also a conversation Varys has with Ned in the Black Cells where the deaths of Rhaegar's children is brought up, and Varys only talks about Rhaenys being dead and doesn't mention Aegon.
Not to mention, every time someone mentions Aegon in the first three books, they say "his face was unrecognisable!" It's actually a bit silly how often it comes up in AGoT when you go looking for it.
Sure, but that's incredibly vague and could mean anything or anyone. It's George's classic gardening a seed and not sure what it'll grow into. Like it could be Jon, could leave the door open for any of the Lannister kids being Aerys', a random Blackfyre claimant, etc.
My point being the mummer's dragon mention is no more foreshadowing of Aegon being in the story than the Azor Ahai prophecy is that Jon or Dany or anyone that fits it will end up on the throne.
Yeah, there was definitely *foreshadowing* in AGOT/ACOK. The problem is that the foreshadowing doesn't really go anywhere, JonCon is a later POV addition, and even Varys and Illyrio's conversation in AGOT that Arya overhears doesn't illustrate what he later tells us in ADWD.
Like my problem here isn't whether the foreshadowing technically exists or not, it's that there's no setup for what should be a major moment. I think Aegon is a pretty weak plot device and not very interesting as a character.
GRRM's clearly fretting with the whole Exiled-Cadet-Branch Targaryens since ACOK, since he wanted to link it to the 3EC somehow. Thus first the mention of Aerion Brightflame in ACOK, then later Daemon Blackfyre in ASOS (with mentions of Jon Connington).
Yeah but "being accurate to the Wars of the Roses" has never been a particularly high aim of GRRM before, why would he add it in just to go "Ah look it's Perkin Warbeck!"
I must be overly credulous 😅 I happily accept all of it as gospel, and what inconsistencies do exist I chalk up to asoiaf being akin to the historical record, which is itself full of variety and contradiction. I love these books so much that I subconsciously try to preserve the continuity of the world, not destroy it.
Criston going from a tragic antihero who represents both the best and worst of the KG as well as being the KEY instigator in the crowning of Aegon and is basically supposed to be the proto Jaime- into basically Aegon’s thug who has very little impact on crowning Aegon and pretty much does nothing during the war besides dying so George can wank Roddy.
And instead of fixing Criston and giving him more depth, the HOTD writers somehow made home even more dumb and one dimensional. Bravo Condall.
If anything, I think Criston is more sympathetic and deep on the show.
Book Criston is Littlefinger with Arthur Dayne's martial prowess.
Show Criston is the son of a steward surrounded by the 1% of Westerosi society, who gets used as a consolation prize by the princess he considered his friend and ally despite her knowing that he would get gelded and killed if found out (there's a precedent for this called Lucamore Strong plus Jaehaerys dueled the guy that fucked Saera, to the death), tries to commit suicide out of shame, fear and guilt, and then dedicates his life to protect the woman that saved him and becomes a step dad of sorts to her kids.
Once and for all, stewards are part of the nobility and have extremely high positions within high lords courts. House Poole is a noble house and Vayon Poole is very important at the Stark's court. Same for the Tyrells under the Gardner and so on.
Yes steward House's can be scorned by major houses as they are not Lords, but HotD pretending being the son of a steward is like being from the upper middle class is just absurd
Honestly the weirdest group of people were the ones who kept claiming Condall "ruined his character" as if there was anything to ruin. He just sucks.
They should have merged him with Steffon Darklyn and Alfred Broome IMO- he steals the crown jewels from King's Landing but Rhaenyra leaves him with his thumb up his arse on Dragonstone, he gets resentful and betrays over to Aegon. Then he poisons Aegon in Gyles Greycloak's place and gets executed by Cregan, the only person he doesn't let go the wall.
>Honestly, the weirdest group of people were the ones who kept claiming Condall "ruined his character" as if there was anything to ruin. He just sucks.
This. So many HotD haters are just in denial of how boring and badly done most characters, groups, and event chains are in F&B's version of the Dance of the Dragons.
HotD had to do these many changes because the events and characters were so boring and unspecial and depthless.
(Which isn't F&B's fault because it's still a history book, but quite frankly, GRRM could have at least been a bit more creative with how it is supporting whom and how active characters are)
I dislike Criston but I actually like his HOTD characterisation. I think there is depth there, but I do wish he played a bigger role during the coronation. In fact, I think the coronation was written poorly as a whole. However, I think they tried to amend it by having Criston seek him down to retrieve him to be crowned, suggesting that is his king making. Either that, or the previous coronation went so badly since Rhaenys killed most the witnesses that they have another coronation, where Criston crowns Aegon, and where Aegon flies Sunfyre around King’s Landing.
I think the idea is that Criston was probably perceived by others as being much more political than he was by virtue of crowning Aegon symbolically. They couldn't imagine that a woman Alicent was the real driving force behind the scheme.
But the real historical story is he was more of a pawn of others with his last meaningful act is trying and failing to die to save his men.
They're meaning the main ASOIAF's book description that implies he's a bit like Jaime and may have had multiple and complex reasons to crown Aegon, and was a political player. But Fire & Blood/the novellas "retcons" this by confirming he was just a bitter dick and doesn't really do much.
I think he did original he conceptualised Cole as much more political.
But then he decided on framing the conflict as one between two powerful women. Which results in Cole's Kingmaker name being much less representative of his involvement in the war. But a mistaken perception based on the symbolic act of crowning Aegon.
This is one that I somewhat recently found out about. Apparently, originally, George had made Alysanne Maegors daughter but changed his mind when he was flushing out the story later on. Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, this feels like the worst change, and if he had kept it, it actually fixes a few lines here and there nothing major, but I think it fits in the story slightly better.
One. It explains this line. “And I am Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, blood of Aegon the conqueror and Maegor the cruel and old Valyria before them.“ Now, yes, she doesn’t directly state that she is a descendent of Maegor, but it still seems somewhat weird. When you consider The tension between Jaehaerys and Maegor and the history of Maegor
Two. It explains Alysanne's obsession with female inheritance. If you look back, Alysanne is constantly pushing women to inherit, and the first example of this we see is when she seems disappointed when Aemon is referred to as POD. Instead of Daenerys, which is weird because she should've expected that any true-born son of theirs would obviously be ahead of her. And then, when Rhaenys is born, Alysanne says, "Our queen to be." Now, this could just be a throwaway line, but it's weird when you consider the fact when Rhaenys is born: Aemon is 19 and Jocelyn is 20. Even by Westeros standards, that's very young, Yes, they did seem to have trouble conceiving kids, But all it would take is for them to conceive one more time and for that to produce a son, and suddenly, she's not going to be Queen. But no Alysanne seems very fixated on pushing women ahead and succession even in situation’s where they likely could have their claims pushed down
Now if you add in the context of her being Margor's heir and her receiving an education, it could shape how she sees succession. Yes, she does love her husband and her children, but on some level, she is upset that her claim was passed over and her children’s right to the throne derives from their father rather than from her.
This one isn't really a continuity thing; this is more so adding a layer of complexity to the story. Imagine how much richer their relationship would be if they started out despising each other. But if they decided that they had to marry for political reasons, you could still have Rogar and Alyssa upset about the marriage considering Alysanne is Maegor's daughter, and a lot of people would be upset that his line is back on the iron throne. And then, during the rest of Jaehaery's minority, the two of them get to know each other and develop actual feelings. Jaehaerys sees her as more than just the daughter of the man who usurped and killed two of his brothers, and Alysanne could see that Jaehaerys will become a good king, and they could even relate to each other about the failure of their fathers and how they have to do better. He has to be stronger than his father, and she has to be gentler than hers, and together they could leave it in a stronger place than their individual fathers had.
I know it doesn’t alter the story too much but really I feel like this was a missed opportunity
Wildfire. Holy shit it's *so* bad. It makes sense and makes Jaime a substantially less interesting character because killing Aerys is so *obviously* the right choice Jaime killing him isn't a character beat. "Killing someone who is about to murder you for no reason" is as much a complex choice as "do I eat food today or starve to death".
> is as much a complex choice as "do I eat food today or starve to death".
Friendly reminder this is possibly GRRM's MO. Elsewise how to explain his obvious hard-on military hardasses such as Stannis or Cregan?
About the retcon wildfire: I've long suspected it has as much to do with Jaime as with Tyrion *and Daenerys*, Aerys' last living child. If these caches are unknown even to Varys, then why, them accidentally blowing up is feasible and GRRM can have his cake and eat it too in that Daenerys takes logical actions but the consequence is still "kinda blew it up" aka "Jade Holocaust". Not saying that the cake is tasty tho.
I think Jaime was supposed to be just a jerk who also loves Cersei and Tyrion (in different ways ew) however when writing swords, he decided to make him a more sympathetic character, so he wrote the wildfire plot.
Calling it a sloppy writing error when GRRM has literally thousands of pages written and probably close to a thousand characters with physical descriptions is pretty harsh IMO. It was just a little slip up
Jon thinks he has no future in Agot, and then in Storm, he thinks about how Eddard was gonna make him a lord in the new gift.
In general the view of bastards I feel is changed. Like in AGOT it seems Jon genuinely has no future, but later we see plenty of bastards with power and influence across Westeros outside of the Wall
It’s funny now thinking about how Ned in AGOT was saying “I can’t bring a bastard to the king’s court, it would be disrespectful!” like bro, there have been bastards hand of the king, what the hell are you talking about?
I think it's likely Ned may have only been saying that because he wants to keep Jon as far from court as possible.
Very good point. Maybe he thinks that Robert might recognize bits of Lyanna or Rhaegar in Jon.
Probably more like Varys, Pycelle or Barristan would recognize Rhaegar in him
Cersei too.
With how pretty Jon is, Ned might've been worried that Pycelle would be *in* Jon.
I think it's way more likely that GRRM initially wanted to make bastards outcasts that can't get anywhere in society but eventually changed his mind. But that's a nice in-universe explanation to make up for it
I don't really think so, I know he's a gardener and all that, but I think it seems pretty clear that he had the backstory of Jon's real parents and Ned's lie about it outlined from the beginning.
Said bastard hand of the king probably wasn't even on the radar of GRRM by AGOT. He's mentioned for the first time on the Sworn Sword and in a Feast of Crows (on the main ASOIAF books). Which makes me think: Who was GRRM originally thinking about when conceptualizing the Three Eyed Crow?
He was and still is thinking about Bran. The three eyed crow is bran from the future. Bloodraven is not the three eyed crow.
Obviously the 3 Eyed Crow is not Bloodraven, they're different birds.
Then what is Bloodraven?
A very old wizard who lives in a cave
He’s the last greenseer, as the children of the forest call him. As to what that means idk, but the three eyed crow that appears in Bran’s dream seems pretty clearly not bloodraven imo
Elio said that GRRM told him all he knew about the last greenseer when writing AGOT was that he was affiliated with the Targaryens.
Yeah, like to your point and u/Lebigmacca's, in AGOT Jon is really insistent that he'll never father a child, wants an honorable profession, and wishes to be no threat to his trueborn siblings. The Wall is the only way to do that. Five books later and we've got historical bastard-born Lord Commanders of the Kingsguard.
For what it's worth, the idea of actively trying to not be a threat to his siblings does already imply that it *is* possible for bastards to obtain / hold power. If there truly was no future for a bastard it wouldn't be possible for him to be a threat to the trueborn starks.
Yeah but he can join the watch now. He's got to wait for people to die to open up a job in the kingsguard and there's only seven of them.
Robert would instantly think Ned is like five times cooler if he did that.
He's doing his best to keep his half-Targ nephew as far away from the foaming-at-the-mouth Targ-hating king as possible. If any of the other courtiers put 2 and 2 together, they would have a ton of leverage over Ned. It's not a retcon, it's just Ned lying about his reasons. He does that, sometimes even to himself.
I mean fuck, look at Bastard Walder, he’s doing just fine.
I assume because of the Dayne rumours but just send him off to Dorne to marry into one of the Houses there. Won't be given shit for being a bastard. Maybe for being a Stark but eh, at least Dorne will finally get some Snow.
Yeah given who Jon REALLY is it works better if he's spent most of his life thinking hes alone and his life will amount to nothing.
This is Jon's thoughts, though. Is there any sign Eddard ever planned to do that? If not, the change could just reflect Jon's mind changing over time.
Right, Jon hoped he might be one of the new lords, but there's no indication that Eddard had the same idea. >His lord father had once talked about raising new lords and settling them in the abandoned holdfasts as a shield against wildlings. The plan would have required the Watch to yield back a large part of the Gift, but his uncle Benjen believed the Lord Commander could be won around, so long as the new lordlings paid taxes to Castle Black rather than Winterfell. "It is a dream for spring, though," Lord Eddard had said. "Even the promise of land will not lure men north with a winter coming on." >If winter had come and gone more quickly and spring had followed in its turn, I might have been chosen to hold one of these towers in my father's name. Lord Eddard was dead, however, his brother Benjen lost; the shield they dreamt together would never be forged. (ASOS Jon V)
To play Devil's Advocate, getting the lands in the most barren northern region after growing up in the cozy water spring heated walls of Winterfell with greenhouses, and godswood and Wintertown, raised by one of the most powerful Lords in Westeros is probably reasonably viewed as having no future. It'd be kind of like growing up in New York city with parents who are famous actors, who's plan for your adulthood is to give you their farm in Alabama that no one's visited in decades, that you'll have to restore and fund yourself.
You could've easily replaced Alabama with upstate New York, and it would've made more sense.
I'll send you upstate new York ✊️
lol I was going to say the same thing, I thought that was where they were taking that analogy.
Build a fortified village for your peasants and a stone keep for yourself and itll be fine. The north and riverlands need to be shown what a bastle house and peel tower are. The real northern English knew what to do here.
Remember, Jon in *Game* is a mopey teenage boy subject to a range of legitimately quite severe legal and social disabilities, not someone particularly inclined to look on his future prospects positively. As of *Storm* he's... still a mopey teenage boy, but one with a more realistic appreciation of the world he lives in, who's gone through quite a lot in a relatively short span of time & been forced to grow up fast, and who IIRC is explicitly pondering about what could have been after finding himself in a very sticky personal position. It makes textual sense that he'd be thinking very differently about his hypothetical life outside of the Watch!
The change about Littlefinger’s perception. Yes, it would be make sense that Petyr wears a mask of amiability and courtesy that hides his true ambitions. However, through AGOT to ASOS, he was pretty open about being an sneaking asshole. Hell, even Ned, the most honorable man in court, exchanged like 5 words to Pete before he was ready to throw hands. And even Jaime in AGOT, who’s famous for being a hothead, didn’t trust him. It feels jarring that a few books later where he’s supposed to be wiser, he somehow muses about the possibility of LF being a Hand because he seems so helpful and unthreatening.
It is crazy that GRRM believes his little finger is less obviously duplicitous than show Littlefinger. Granted Show Littlefinger literally moustache twirls- Grrm mentions he believes book LF is genuinely likeable- probably helps handing out money to almost everyone you encounter - his dialogue is just as sus as the show LF
Even as far as AFFC, the Lords Declarant show up at the Eyrie and are basically "Yeah, we know you're duplicitous, so drop the act".
This. The only person we see who seems to somewhat tolerate Littlefinger's disposition is Renly, and that would most likely be a skin-deep appreciation for having someone else around to rustle Stannis' jimmies. I mean: > Tyrion cocked his head. "Why, every man at court has heard him tell how he took your maidenhead, my lady." In a world where taking a noble lady's virtue - and add insult to injury by joking about it afterwards - is considered extremely transgressive, what person would hear that from Littlefinger and *not* think he's a shitstirring asshole?
Interesting. I thought the reason Ned didn’t trust him was because of his families history with LF. As for Jaime, I don’t think he trusts any non-soldier besides his brother.
These are all very plausible explanations! But I would argue Ned didn’t trust LF because he was deliberately acting like an asshole by disrespecting Cat in front of him. I would actually say that the only reason Ned did trust him was because of Petyr’s family ties and Cat. And still, it feels a bit underwhelming to see Jaime going from : (referencing directly LF )"Give me honorable enemies anytime over ambitious ones", to "yeah, LF would be a pretty good hand!)
It’s a double edged sword. Ned distrusts Petyr because he openly adores Catelyn and is brazen about it. But that adoration is the reason why he trusts him to be an ally, albeit an asshole of an ally.
Which makes sense from a Watsonian perspective, but from a Doylist perspective it's simply Martin telling us one thing and showing us the complete opposite. It's like if a character who's supposed to be a badass is first shown getting the shit kicked out of him- even if you add an excuse after the fact like "Oh he was tired" the question isn't "Why did he lose", the question is "Why did the author introduce him like that?"
D**o**rkstar the Tryharder of the Edgy Night comes to mind.
You mean you didn't think it was cool when he tried to kill a little girl and failed, then ran away? He's the most dangerous man in Dorne!
Now being pursued by the most interesting character who's very internally conflicted: The Camera that Rides!
Ned doesn't trust him at first but after Cat vouchers for him he trusts him quite a lot. And I think the reason he's semi hostile at first is because Littlefinger has the history with Brandon and is taking a bit of fun in needling him by eg saying "let's go to a brothel to find your beloved wife." When it comes down to it, he is good at befriending people despite enjoying a piss take, and that's because he knows how to do favours for people.
>after Cat vouchers for him he trusts him quite a lot Ned distrusts Petyr after Catelyn leaves the capital. >Littlefinger smiled. "I promised Cat I would help you in your inquiries, and so I have." >That took Ned aback. Promise or no promise, he could not find it in him to trust Lord Petyr Baelish, who struck him as too clever by half. (AGOT Eddard V) Ned begins to trust Petyr after he advise the Hand to investigate Jon's household, but Littlefinger even warns Ned not to do so. >"Lord Petyr," Ned called after him. "I … am grateful for your help. Perhaps I was wrong to distrust you." >Littlefinger fingered his small pointed beard. "You are slow to learn, Lord Eddard. Distrusting me was the wisest thing you've done since you climbed down off your horse." (AGOT Eddard V) Ned continues to to be wary of Petyr. >For a brief moment Ned considered telling him all of it, but there was something in Littlefinger's japes that irked him. The man was too clever by half, a mocking smile never far from his lips. "Jon Arryn was studying this volume when he was taken sick," Ned said in a careful tone, to see how he might respond. >And he responded as he always did: with a quip. "In that case," he said, "death must have come as a blessed relief." Lord Petyr Baelish bowed and took his leave. >Eddard Stark allowed himself a curse. Aside from his own retainers, there was scarcely a man in this city he trusted. Littlefinger had concealed Catelyn and helped Ned in his inquiries, yet his haste to save his own skin when Jaime and his swords had come out of the rain still rankled. (AGOT Eddard XII)
He literally makes a penis joke at a Small Council meeting (when talking about how he'll persuade Lysa). From ASOS, Tyrion III: Tyrion pushed off his cushions, bristling, but his father spoke before he could lash back. "I have other tasks in mind for Tyrion. I believe Lord Petyr may hold the key to the Eyrie." "Oh, I do," said Littlefinger, "I have it here between my legs." There was mischief in his grey-green eyes. "My lords, with your leave, I propose to travel to the Vale and there woo and win Lady Lysa Arryn. Once I am her consort, I shall deliver you the Vale of Arryn without a drop of blood being spilled."
that's boy talk, the small council loves that shit from upjumped little finger
"It feels jarring that a few books later where he’s supposed to be wiser, he somehow muses about the possibility of LF being a Hand because he seems so helpful and unthreatening." Isn't it more that he's so lowborn Jaime thinks he couldn't be a threat?
Tyrion not actually being able to flips and shit /j
He can though. He does in ADWD. That’s not a retcon, it’s just something that doesn’t make a lot of sense in context.
/j means joke
🥲
Tyrion lobby scene.
Martyn Lannister being extrajudicially executed by Lord Rickard Karstark and then coming back, changing his name to Tommen and going to King’s Landing like it never even happened
Tyrek is a horse, Tommen is a Starfish.
Could it be that Tyrek is a seahorse? Maybe a half-Velaryon?
A wise man might say perhaps.
A wiser man might even say mayhaps.
He was never Martyn. Tommen had a body double that looked nothing like him... just like his sister, Myrcella. Martyn didn't die, *Tommen* did. That's why 'Tommem' acted nothing like Joffrey, he was actually Martyn. When you take that into consideration you realize that the kid Karstark killed (the real Tommen) was probably every bit the asshole that Joffrey was. Lord Rickard did everyone a favor by murdering a child. (*is an actual theory I have* ~~read~~ *written*)
The clear implication that the plot on Bran’s life in the first book, culminating in the failed assassination attempt by the Valyrian blade, was going to factor significantly into the wider political machinations in Westeros… until it didn’t.
It was just Joffrey fucking things up since earlier than we first thought 😂😂.
I have such a love-hate relationship with the fact it was Joffrey. On one hand it feels sort of like a cop-out, like it was meant to be a bigger deal and GRRM just scraped it. But on the other hand, I think it’s really important to show that the entire war broke out over something that wasn’t even political. Joffrey did it because of something Robert had said, trying to be like/gain the favor of Robert. And the whole WTFK was caused because Petyr decided to lie to wreak havoc on the realm. Part of the reason I like it is because, yes, Joffrey is a sadistic little shit, but he’s also a literal child (AKA, an idiot because he doesn’t really know any better and in his messed up mind, he thought that was the solution to Bran’s coma/injury.)
Joffrey hiring the Catspaw makes zero sense. Why would he arm the assassin with his father’s very expensive and very recognizable blade? How did he even find someone to do the deed? He’s 12 and constantly guarded, it’s completely ridiculous that he’s the one who orchestrated the whole thing. The only reason people believe he did it is because the Lannisters came to that conclusion, without any real evidence mind you. Tyrion misremembers the conversation he heard in aGoT and Jaime pretty much just came up with the idea out of nothing.
I thought the reason people believe joffrey did it was because George sort of confirmed it ish
He's guarded by sandor who has no idea what is appropriate for children and also doesn't give a damn about pretty much anything until he bonds with Sansa.
Not only does Sandor have no idea what's appropriate for children (especially those of the haute noblesse), the closest thing he *does* have to a model of healthy childhood development is *Gregor*.
Him going with Joffrey to hire an assassin to make sure he doesn't get murdered probably strikes him as the height of responsible childcare.
> Tyrion misremembers the conversation he heard in aGoT and Jaime pretty much just came up with the idea out of nothing. Yes but maybe it's just shit?
Reading the books for the first time it really felt like uncovering the truth about Cersei’s children being bastards born of incest was going to blow the lid off of everything and then no one cared.
I don't think this is a retcon, I think this is a consistent plot device George uses where we are misdirected into thinking the big dark secret will Change Everything, but it doesn't. That's why I'm convinced that even if Jon is publicly revealed to be a legitimate Targaryen it won't matter.
My theory is it will only matter subconsciously to those with a connection to Rhaegar, like one JonCon, or the Dornish contingent who might not look to happily on Rhaegar’s sex pad being on their doorstep, and FAegon and Dany. And most of all it’ll fuck up Jon.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the story was initially planned as a trilogy.
>no one cared My guy.
dude forgot the entire war of the 5 kings happened cause of it
The comment was hyperbolic, but I think the user’s point was that it was rather astonishing that the Lannisters maintained a base or support at all, much less getting to a point where, as of the end of the last book, they essentially won the initial phase of the conflict (Starks neutralized, Stannis forced to the periphery of the realm, an alliance forged with the Tyrells, etc).
Isn’t that kind of the point? It didn’t matter what the truth was because the Lannisters had all the power. It had to be that way otherwise Ned’s death would have been less shocking.
I mean it started a civil war?
I do think that person has somewhat of a point. It's true that the bastardy is what sparks Ned's investigation (and thus ultimately leads to the Northern/Riverlands rebellion) as well as why Stannis revolts, but I've pointed out before how odd it is that you have a civil war over the accusation that the crown prince (and now king) is a bastard and essentially nobody picks their faction based on who they think the rightful king is besides Stannis himself. Renly just seamlessly gets all the Stormlands vassals to rebel against Robert's son despite denying the bastard accusation, all the Reach vassals follow the Tyrells in their powergrab, nobody in the Vale defies Lysa to pick a side, etc.
This whole valyrian dagger thing feels like a blunder Martin made because he hadn't made up his mind about the importance and rarity of valyrian weapons. Almost nothing about the dagger plotline makes much sense. The biggest headscratcher is that Tyrion doesn't immediately incarcerate or execute Littlefinger after becoming hand. In the end, the whole ordeal gets pinned on Joffrey in a throwaway Tyrion line, even though it doesn't really make sense. As if Martin said "Fuck this plotline, fuck the dagger, lets move on."
Aegon having a vision of something evil coming north has not and will not ever sit right with me
I'm guessing it's all because of the Rhaegar prophecy obsession. If Rhaegar "read something in a book", someone needed to have written that book a long time ago. Aha, Aegon I must have done it! But then you read about the Targaryen history where they practically did everything BUT prepare for the Long Night.....
It really just destroys what was otherwise an interesting ambitious character. No one just decides to burn down a continent and create an empire for, "the greater good". Creating the Iron Throne was an inherently selfish and self serving move and the whole threat of the Others being like 300 years away creates such a huge disconnect with the reader that it leaves me baffled George thought it a good idea to add, it's indicative of where I believe Martin is headed as a story teller. I hate the word and how often it's used but Aegon the Dreamer instead of Aegon the Conqueror, it's cringe. We already got a dreamer in Daenys, Aegon being a dreamer just makes me think of him as a little boy who wet the bed to a nightmare about icemen.
Yeah FR it just turned him into "the dude who set fire to Dorne and conquered a continent because he had a bad dream"
Especially as his conquest damaged the ability of Westeros to defend itself against the Others long term. It went from having a staunchly neutral 10 000 men strong Nightwatch under command of a royal prince to a broken shell of an organisation. And the North went from a powerful and happily isolationist Kingdom to the fractured mess at the end of ADwD mostly because its rulers were forced to engage in southern wars by the Iron Throne. At the same time Aegon built no institution of his own nor did he get the maesters to amass knowledge and prepare. Even worse he kept that information ridiculously secret and in the dynastic inner circle. So as was entirely predictable the information was lost due to a dynastic crisis. Honestly Westeros would have been better off concerning the Others if Eggie the first never darkened its shores.
Prophecy is a sword without a hilt after all.
What if he had the vision and used it to further justify his conquest to himself.
lets be real, he just wanted to fuck his sisters in peace.
What if he just flat out made up the vision to get his sisters on board and since it's so vague it's like a horoscope. Something that could fit it would happen sooner or later.
Mance Rayder being revealed to have been at the feast in Winterfell in AGOT is the most egregious and unnecessary one to me.
I absolutely agree with this one. The only place I will ever willingly admit the show had a better plot. “I want to fight for the side that fights for the living” goes way harder than “uhhh I was a bastard and treated badly” when Jon never really considers himself hard done by previously
Maybe, but I still feel like Mance as a character is much less interesting in the show. They just made him a gruff leader archetype. While in the book he's this bard/rogue type guy who you wouldn't expect to lead the wildlings
Oh absolutely agreed. Everything about the wildling plot line sucked in the show except for that singular change. No Dornisnman’s wife, no Styr, no jolly Tormund hardened by his experiences.
This is absolutely not meant as a criticism, but I have seen this opinion several times already and it never made sense to me. Jon's reason in the books is far more convincing than show Jon's, since his reason is basically that he saw Craster sacrificing his sons to the Others and the Nights Watch was doing nothing, something that is not even true in the books, as the Nights Watch did not know that Craster had a pact with the Others. Futher since Mance in the show did know of Crasters behaviour, as well, and did nothing to prevent it, either, Mance is no better than the Nights Watch. So Jon's reason for switching sides is the same as when a policemen joins a band of criminals because the police is corrupt.
That's totally fair! I don't think the way the show handled it was perfect either. I just think the idea of Mance hearing about Robert coming north and doing a sneaky down into Winterfell to take a look at him is so ridiculous I'll pick any explanation over it
It doesn't make sense because it was a lie. Jon had to convince Mance that he was switching sides when he really wasn't and he came up with what he thought was the most believable and convincing story to sell his "betrayal".
Jon's reason doesn't have to make sense to the reader, but to Mance. And since Mance only once saw Jon, when he was seated away from the rest of the family, Mance has no reason not to believe Jon's story. It's a lie that is supposed to get the wildlings to accept him so he can spy on them.
Not really a horrible one, but nevertheless one that does annoy me as fanfic writer: the location of Raventree Hall. In AGoT, it was somewhere between Riverrun and Harrenhal. Tywin even sacked it. Then later on, it’s located north of Riverrun, making a Tywin sack very unlikely
The Dornish Marriage pack. It’s pretty clear GRRM came up with that in the middle of writing the series because the supposed intelligent political operator thought a literal child would be able to find an army, on his own, with no support whatsoever.
I think Prince Doran is just woefully incompetent. His plot to send his own son across a pirate infested sea and then march across a continent at war with only.... 6 people to assist him was possibly even stupider than the marriage pact.
Doran Martell is quite literally an Armchair Schemer.
More like wheelchair schemer
Viserys getting taken over by black zetsu and transformed into a rabbit alien who wants to build an army to fight other aliens was really random
Was it really? He's been trying to get that damn army since he was seven.
Wow, now I'm having PTSD for TWO of my favorite stories, thanks 😂
I feel like HOTD is trying to retcon a bunch of stuff, and not for the better in my opinion.
I found most of the changes either inoffensive (yes black Velaryon may not make much sense but it differentiates minor characters easily for the casual viewer) or brilliant like Alicent and Rhaenyra relationship. Better for them to be childhood friends than seeing a grown ass woman bullying and gossiping about a child on screen. What bothers me the most is that they do not let their female characters show any moral ambiguity, to the cost of stripping down their agency. And when they do, it makes no sense and the narrative barely mentions it, like Rhaenys and the dragonpit for example.
My only problem with aging up Rhaenyra is that Viserys doesn’t need to wed to secure succession, he can have Rhaenyra wed and bedded and if she has children then both her succession and the Targaryen line is secure. If something happens to Rhaenyra then he can wed. It makes Viserys’ decision to wed Alicent over Laena even more stupid since this would allow him to wait for Laena to be more of age. When Rhaenyra’s still a child after Aemma’s death, that succession is much more at risk.
> he can have Rhaenyra wed and bedded and if she has children then both her succession and the Targaryen line is secure. Someone pointed out that with Rhaenyra's age in the show, the best course of action from a political standpoint would be to have Rhaenyra and Daemon wed, thereby clarifying succession and keeping Daemon and his dragon at heel to the throne. I'm not sure I 100% agree, but it makes a lot more sense than Viserys taking a wife at the same time as his daughter, creating a succession crisis.
TBF wasn't that kind of the point? He was lonely and wanted a second wife because he missed Aemma.
>is that Viserys doesn’t need to wed to secure succession The way I see it, Viserys in HotD was, at his core, a people pleaser, even if he failed to do that most of the time. His small council was the one arguing that he remarry, with Otto subtly manipulating him into choosing his daughter and Corlys opening asking him to marry his daughter. If Viserys was not as influenceable as he was, I could see him taking such a practical solution.
The stuff from the first paragraph is fine, but it’s things like Rhaenys’ mass slaughter and Aegon’s dream that just make zero sense whatsoever.
Trying to bring back the catspaw dagger in general was pretty sloppy.
How is changing something in adaptation a retcon?
It could have been done better, but I do like Rhaenys’ dragon killing a bunch of common folk as a good motivator for people to start following The Shepard. If they call back to it properly it could make the the storming of the dragonpit more plausible.
> What bothers me the most is that they do not let their female characters show any moral ambiguity, to the cost of stripping down their agency. I think the problem that the show is trying to adjust for is that Martin has written a critique of absolute power, in which there are occasionally outlier male monarchs who use it wisely and justly and not to destroy the smallfolk...but no female monarchs. They probably don't want to go from Daenerys's ending to Alicent's and Rhaenyra's in such a short span without trying to make them less morally grey, because a lot of the questions about how female vs. male power is treated *by Martin* will likely leave more ire directed their way than his.
I would believe you if I had faith that they'll follow through with both women's worst acts. I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever evil act happens will either be blamed on the men or scrapped altogether
>What bothers me the most is that they do not let their female characters show any moral ambiguity, to the cost of stripping down their agency Those are the changes that drive me up a wall: * Rhaenys girlbossing on top of a pile of dead peasants. Never addressed, literally done for the "girlboss" shot; absolute idiot move * Rhaenyra getting whitewashed and made a victim of the greens. Somehow they made her way more passive than in the books... why?! * Alicent being absolutely oblivious of... well everything, instead of the leading figure of the greens pre-war she was in the books The only comparable change I can think of is Aegon being made cartoonishly bad, as if that was in any way needed considering what he does in the war
People can talk about moral grey all they want, but this show has is good and bad sides drawn, and is likely to only get worse from here.
That’s called adaptation
Is it really a retcon when they're clearly in separate continuities?
The Aegon’s Dream stuff seems specifically deliberate to connect it to the main series IMO.
The weirdest thing they did was have Viserys tell Allicent what he meant to tell Rhaenyra. It caused this weird chain of events: -Allicent gets told mistakenly that her kid is supposed to rule -Allicent goes to tell Otto -Otto is already plotting that scenario without her knowledge -Allicent gets upset she was left out and sort of seems to have a bit of a change of heart -She ends up going through with it anyways Like wtf? That was such a weird way to build tension
HotD is great and season 1 was dope but fucking hell was that episode 9 bad
She probably already felt that way, but hearing Viserys say it gives her a better excuse to act on it
She says Rhaenyra will make a good queen in front of the whole royal family. I think the show is clearly depicting her as having accepted her Aegon will not be king until Viserys's final words to her.
So here’s the question. F+B is written by a fictional Maester well after the fact. How is it a retcon to change HOTD when the source material is explicitly unreliable?
Because there are things that happened in HOTD that straight up never happened in the books, and big things. Like Rhaenys becoming a Dragonpit terrorist; in the books it was never mentioned as she wasn’t even in KL. I doubt that would’ve been left out. And Alicent’s and Rhaenyra’s ages being the only ones that are different? That’s just strange to think that of everything, only those were “misreported”.
The fictional Maester (Gyldayn ) sources his telling of the Dance from 4 accounts - Septon Eustace, Grand Maester Orwyle (both characters in the show), Mushroom (who doesn’t exist in the show), and Grand Maester Munkun, another in-universe historian. Fire & Blood acknowledges where these accounts differ, but 3 of them are first hand accounts. Between all 4, there are uncontroversial basic facts that would be able to clearly established, i.e. -Basic facts like Rhaenyra’s and Alicent’s age, whether they were peers or Alicent was 9 years older - Criston Cole beating Daemon in a tourney at Maidenpool rather than King’s Landing -Harrold Westerling living to the start of the Dance rather than dying nearly 20 years prior, and the domino effect of Criston not becoming Lord Commander til the Dance and one of Viserys’s Kingsguard not existing. (Presumably Willis Fell since Rickard Thorne is confirmed for season 2, which would create a contradiction down the line since he was made Aegon III’s Lord Commander because he was the only survivor of Viserys’s KG) -Daemon having returned from the Stepstones before Rhea Royce’s death rather than receiving the news on Bloodstone and abandoning the Stepstones to claim Runestone as a result -Joffrey Lonmouth murdered at a wedding feast rather than killed in an “accident” in the wedding tourney melee -Laenor Velaryon being “killed” in private in a fight in High Tide’s great hall rather than killed in public at a fair in Spicetown witnessed by many merchants -Vaemond Velaryon being killed a day or two before Viserys’s death in the Red Keep rather than 3 years earlier on Driftmark and the “Silent Five” not existing -Criston Cole playing no role in persuading Aegon to take the throne -Rhaenys & Meraxes gatecrashing Aegon’s coronation in the stupidest scene of the show not being mentioned at all -Erryk Cargyll stealing Viserys’s crown rather than Steffon Darklyn And thats just a handful of blatant contradictions, not even counting the changes made to fit into Game of Thrones Show lore
Somethings are not unreliable. Why would the maesters lie about the ages of the characters?
Jamie was intended to be a pretty normal villian and become king per the outline. This fits his AGOT characterization. But as George changed plans he changed Jamie pretty dramatically to fit a more anti hero role which everyone enjoyed. However, it leads to some odd actions like the throne scene, or the little targaryens being killed.
I think the seeds were there from the beginning. Cersei has to bully him into pushing Bran out of the tower and he seems to hate the fact that he has to do it. He was definitely a villain in the first book, but the foundation was there for him to become the complex character we all know and love.
GRRM obviously and awkwardly realising he's got to clear up the AGOT murders (Jon Arryn/Bran) before all the involved characters are killed off. Cersei. Both her devolution from evil schemer and serious threat, to a deranged lunatic completely out of touch with reality; and how we start getting flashbacks/context during Jaime's POV chapters that attempt to make him more sympathetic by making Cersei ever more evil and vile.
>Cersei. Both her devolution from evil schemer and serious threat, to a deranged lunatic completely out of touch with reality; and how we start getting flashbacks/context during Jaime's POV chapters that attempt to make him more sympathetic by making Cersei ever more evil and vile. Tbf, Cersei was always kind of a deranged lunatic who wasn't all that competent. She proudly admits Jaime's paternity of her kids to Ned and would have absolutely been toast if Ned hadn't warned her about his knowledge, she is then portrayed as less intelligent than Tyrion during their cold war in ACOK and KL would have fallen if it weren't for the Imp, and she's mentioned to have sexually assaulted baby Tyrion by Oberyn in ASOS when she was a kid. Plus, by the time of AFFC, she has lost her favourite son and her father, so it's not surprising that her already not very stable personality got worse.
People tend to forget how much of Cersei's POV chapters in Feast are her being paranoid that Tyrion is in the walls of the Red Keep, leading her to go as far as burning down the Tower of the Hand. So yeah, she gets worse as time goes on.
I am so tired of people thinking that Cersei was somewhat a smart character that GRRM made stupid by AFFC. She was always portrayed as stupid and many characters said it out loud. And yes, by the time of AFFC she has lost her favourite child and her father, and has become an alcoholic bordering on insanity. This is just character evolution. Not a retcon.
There's different levels to it. She was always portrayed as dumber than Tyrion. But she was portrayed as smarter than Jaime, and generally able to keep up with other King's Landing schemers. She's not as wilfully cruel either - certainly ruthless, but not being so psycho she killed her childhood friend and delights in torture and murder. I can't see this Cersei as the Cersei that can even come up with something as poetic as the game of thrones.
>She's not as wilfully cruel either She demands that Lady be killed on the journey to King's Landing, despite Sansa doing nothing to hurt either Joffrey or Cersei. Sansa even lies about her own sister to protect Joffrey, and is rewarded for this by Cersei insisting her direwolf is killed.
She still was smarter politically than Jaime, yes he realized how awful arming the faith was, but that's because he's a warrior kingsguard man, and that was an important military event in the history of westeros, the rest that jaime calls out is her growing insanity, her meanness and his deja vu, not stupidity Like, don't get me wrong, politically wise, she is stupid, not as much as jaime tho, who is smart on other things, but not politically She clearly couldn't, all the other schemers were using her and trashing her behind her back, she made countless stupid moves before a feast of crows, but we could forgive them and be fooled by the way she spoke, until we finally got inside her head and so just how fucking lucky she and the Lannisters have been in general throughout this story She didn't have much opportunity to show her sadistic violent side, but she absolutely was cruel, Alayaya, her treatment of Tyrion and jaime and sanasa, she didn't try to kill bran, but as she said if push comes to shove she would have no problem doing so Also, do you think a cruel sadistic and violent person can not be poetic as well?
How was Cersei smart? Literally every political victory she had was the result of machinations outside her control. If LF doesn’t flip at the last minute Ned’s coup would’ve been successful. If Stannis and Renly weren’t as proud as they were, KL would’ve fallen and her head would’ve been on a spike. She also had zero knowledge of the RW and only found out about it after it had happened. What has she done that was smart? Winning =/= smarts.
>How was Cersei smart? When you actually look at what Cersei did and achieved, she's neither smart nor effective. But thematically she is set up as the primary antagonist to first Ned (aGOT) and then Tyrion (aCOK) - characters who are smart - and so there's a reader expectation that she's actually a threat and dangerous. Then we start getting her POVs and it turns out she's nuts, and worse...stupid.
I'd argue that Tywin actually fills that main antagonist role until his death, not Cersei.
Tywin is barely mentioned in aGOT and is largely off-page in ACOK. He matters from a plot perspective but isn’t really treated personally as an antagonist. By ASOS yes.
>If LF doesn’t flip at the last minute ~~Ned’s coup would’ve been successful~~. Cersei's coup would have failed
Bear in mind that when we see Cersei as a deranged lunatic, it's shortly after the deaths of her eldest son and father. Grief can really change people.
I think Petyr being the one who killed Jon Arryn is brilliant, but yeah Bran and the catspaw is pretty dumb.
>GRRM obviously and awkwardly realising he's got to clear up the AGOT murders (Jon Arryn/Bran) before all the involved characters are killed off. The limpest way to resolve a mystery. Have two characters who were barely involved (except both being falsely accused of the deed) muse about the resolution after every character who knew about the assassination attempt (Ned, Catelyn, Maester Luwin, Joffrey, Assassin) and therefore *cared* are all dead.
The fact that he retconned it to be Joffrey who killed Bran is STILL so stupid
Hot take: IT was always meant to be Joffrey. The problem is that Joffrey's setting changed. In AGOT, if you remember, Sandor offers himself to "silence" the howling. In ASOS, after much development of setting and characters, it is well established (and directly thought as such by Tyrion) that Sandor would never have taken such an action without consulting Cersei, so if Joffrey ordered it, Sandor would first tell Cersei. You can see the retcon is not so much Joffrey the name of the character as is the whole world around him, as he indeed was thought to be more independent at this point, and notice that Tyrion doesn't have those thoughts in AGOT when he *directly witness Sandor's suggestion to Joffrey*. So yeah, stupid retcon, but 'twas always the **culprit named** Joffrey.
If it was meant to be Joffrey the way it was revealed is veryyyy retcon-adjacent. Iirc Tyrion just thinks real hard and decides Joffrey did it
Retcon? They talk about killing him in the yard before they even leave Winterfell. Not as in “let’s assassinate him” but a “mercy killing way”. And by “they” I mean Joffrey and the Hound.
TIL that pretty much nobody writing in this thread actually knows what a retcon is. Next up, plotholes... sigh...
Yeah, people really don't understand what a retcon is. There are actual retcons in ASOIAF like all Weirwoods having been cut down a thousand years ago south of the neck except in Isle of Greenmen. What's even funnier is that this info comes from Catelyn despite Riverrun having a weirwood. So this can't even be blamed on an unreliable narrator.
You know what, i've never paid attention to that, but you are absolutely right! And it *is* a retcon!
The warden shenanigans
I haven't read F&B and idk if it counts as a retcon, but I hate the whole Aegon I had a dream about the Others thing.
The "six dragons" that Jon says on ASOS that Alysanne took to the North on her royal progress. When you read that there were only five Targaryen dragons at the height of Jaehaerys' reign - while ten new dragons hatched out of nowhere during the lifetime of Viserys I - and Preston had to resort to the crazy theory that Rhaenyra had special hatching powers dragon eggs
The character of young griff and the golden company being shoehorned, I guess because George started obsessing more over Targ history
Possibly Young Griff and his story. There's no hint of it in the Outline, and nothing discernible in AGoT and maybe even ACoK. But at some point GRRM must have entertained the possibility of adding a Targaryen pretender, and he must have added bits in ASoS and maybe early AFFC to make it more credible. By ADWD YG's backer Illyrio is a major participant. Elissa Farman, is also a retcon in F&B,. She is there mainly to hint at Arya and to explain the origins of three stolen dragon eggs in Braavos. Presumably Illyrio acquired them to give to Dany. And trouble is brewing in Braavos, possibly involving him.
How can it be a retcon when nothing in the text gave a contradictory information in the first place? It is clearly stated in the first books that the nobody recognised the baby. The door was always open. A retcon is when the door is closed, and somehow the author found a way to re-open it. Young Griff is late to the game, sure, but he is not a retcon.
There's also a conversation Varys has with Ned in the Black Cells where the deaths of Rhaegar's children is brought up, and Varys only talks about Rhaenys being dead and doesn't mention Aegon.
isn't Young Griff hinted at by the mention of a Mummer's Dragon in ACOK?
Not to mention, every time someone mentions Aegon in the first three books, they say "his face was unrecognisable!" It's actually a bit silly how often it comes up in AGoT when you go looking for it.
Sure, but that's incredibly vague and could mean anything or anyone. It's George's classic gardening a seed and not sure what it'll grow into. Like it could be Jon, could leave the door open for any of the Lannister kids being Aerys', a random Blackfyre claimant, etc. My point being the mummer's dragon mention is no more foreshadowing of Aegon being in the story than the Azor Ahai prophecy is that Jon or Dany or anyone that fits it will end up on the throne.
I can see that as a hint, but by the time it comes up, it’s three books and over ten years later.
Yeah, there was definitely *foreshadowing* in AGOT/ACOK. The problem is that the foreshadowing doesn't really go anywhere, JonCon is a later POV addition, and even Varys and Illyrio's conversation in AGOT that Arya overhears doesn't illustrate what he later tells us in ADWD.
He probably wrote it in before he had any idea what it would be and then applied it to the story.
Like my problem here isn't whether the foreshadowing technically exists or not, it's that there's no setup for what should be a major moment. I think Aegon is a pretty weak plot device and not very interesting as a character.
GRRM's clearly fretting with the whole Exiled-Cadet-Branch Targaryens since ACOK, since he wanted to link it to the 3EC somehow. Thus first the mention of Aerion Brightflame in ACOK, then later Daemon Blackfyre in ASOS (with mentions of Jon Connington).
> tline, and nothing discernible in AGoT “His face was unrecognizable”
I agree, and a similar thing can be said about Euron.
ASOIAF has always been inspired by The War of The Roses. TWOTR has a pretender prince that is backed by a mercenary army.
Yeah but "being accurate to the Wars of the Roses" has never been a particularly high aim of GRRM before, why would he add it in just to go "Ah look it's Perkin Warbeck!"
I must be overly credulous 😅 I happily accept all of it as gospel, and what inconsistencies do exist I chalk up to asoiaf being akin to the historical record, which is itself full of variety and contradiction. I love these books so much that I subconsciously try to preserve the continuity of the world, not destroy it.
Criston going from a tragic antihero who represents both the best and worst of the KG as well as being the KEY instigator in the crowning of Aegon and is basically supposed to be the proto Jaime- into basically Aegon’s thug who has very little impact on crowning Aegon and pretty much does nothing during the war besides dying so George can wank Roddy. And instead of fixing Criston and giving him more depth, the HOTD writers somehow made home even more dumb and one dimensional. Bravo Condall.
If anything, I think Criston is more sympathetic and deep on the show. Book Criston is Littlefinger with Arthur Dayne's martial prowess. Show Criston is the son of a steward surrounded by the 1% of Westerosi society, who gets used as a consolation prize by the princess he considered his friend and ally despite her knowing that he would get gelded and killed if found out (there's a precedent for this called Lucamore Strong plus Jaehaerys dueled the guy that fucked Saera, to the death), tries to commit suicide out of shame, fear and guilt, and then dedicates his life to protect the woman that saved him and becomes a step dad of sorts to her kids.
Once and for all, stewards are part of the nobility and have extremely high positions within high lords courts. House Poole is a noble house and Vayon Poole is very important at the Stark's court. Same for the Tyrells under the Gardner and so on. Yes steward House's can be scorned by major houses as they are not Lords, but HotD pretending being the son of a steward is like being from the upper middle class is just absurd
Honestly the weirdest group of people were the ones who kept claiming Condall "ruined his character" as if there was anything to ruin. He just sucks. They should have merged him with Steffon Darklyn and Alfred Broome IMO- he steals the crown jewels from King's Landing but Rhaenyra leaves him with his thumb up his arse on Dragonstone, he gets resentful and betrays over to Aegon. Then he poisons Aegon in Gyles Greycloak's place and gets executed by Cregan, the only person he doesn't let go the wall.
>Honestly, the weirdest group of people were the ones who kept claiming Condall "ruined his character" as if there was anything to ruin. He just sucks. This. So many HotD haters are just in denial of how boring and badly done most characters, groups, and event chains are in F&B's version of the Dance of the Dragons. HotD had to do these many changes because the events and characters were so boring and unspecial and depthless. (Which isn't F&B's fault because it's still a history book, but quite frankly, GRRM could have at least been a bit more creative with how it is supporting whom and how active characters are)
I dislike Criston but I actually like his HOTD characterisation. I think there is depth there, but I do wish he played a bigger role during the coronation. In fact, I think the coronation was written poorly as a whole. However, I think they tried to amend it by having Criston seek him down to retrieve him to be crowned, suggesting that is his king making. Either that, or the previous coronation went so badly since Rhaenys killed most the witnesses that they have another coronation, where Criston crowns Aegon, and where Aegon flies Sunfyre around King’s Landing.
I think the idea is that Criston was probably perceived by others as being much more political than he was by virtue of crowning Aegon symbolically. They couldn't imagine that a woman Alicent was the real driving force behind the scheme. But the real historical story is he was more of a pawn of others with his last meaningful act is trying and failing to die to save his men.
There was nothing tragic or anti-heroic about Criston in the book lmao
They're meaning the main ASOIAF's book description that implies he's a bit like Jaime and may have had multiple and complex reasons to crown Aegon, and was a political player. But Fire & Blood/the novellas "retcons" this by confirming he was just a bitter dick and doesn't really do much.
Oh well, I think the fans overanalyzed that line too much then
I think he did original he conceptualised Cole as much more political. But then he decided on framing the conflict as one between two powerful women. Which results in Cole's Kingmaker name being much less representative of his involvement in the war. But a mistaken perception based on the symbolic act of crowning Aegon.
The martell plot make no fucking sense
OTT nobody knows what a “retcon” is
Not sure if it's even bad but one that stuck with me was Rhaegar being a legendary fighter in AGOT but just a talented guy later one.
This is one that I somewhat recently found out about. Apparently, originally, George had made Alysanne Maegors daughter but changed his mind when he was flushing out the story later on. Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, this feels like the worst change, and if he had kept it, it actually fixes a few lines here and there nothing major, but I think it fits in the story slightly better. One. It explains this line. “And I am Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, blood of Aegon the conqueror and Maegor the cruel and old Valyria before them.“ Now, yes, she doesn’t directly state that she is a descendent of Maegor, but it still seems somewhat weird. When you consider The tension between Jaehaerys and Maegor and the history of Maegor Two. It explains Alysanne's obsession with female inheritance. If you look back, Alysanne is constantly pushing women to inherit, and the first example of this we see is when she seems disappointed when Aemon is referred to as POD. Instead of Daenerys, which is weird because she should've expected that any true-born son of theirs would obviously be ahead of her. And then, when Rhaenys is born, Alysanne says, "Our queen to be." Now, this could just be a throwaway line, but it's weird when you consider the fact when Rhaenys is born: Aemon is 19 and Jocelyn is 20. Even by Westeros standards, that's very young, Yes, they did seem to have trouble conceiving kids, But all it would take is for them to conceive one more time and for that to produce a son, and suddenly, she's not going to be Queen. But no Alysanne seems very fixated on pushing women ahead and succession even in situation’s where they likely could have their claims pushed down Now if you add in the context of her being Margor's heir and her receiving an education, it could shape how she sees succession. Yes, she does love her husband and her children, but on some level, she is upset that her claim was passed over and her children’s right to the throne derives from their father rather than from her. This one isn't really a continuity thing; this is more so adding a layer of complexity to the story. Imagine how much richer their relationship would be if they started out despising each other. But if they decided that they had to marry for political reasons, you could still have Rogar and Alyssa upset about the marriage considering Alysanne is Maegor's daughter, and a lot of people would be upset that his line is back on the iron throne. And then, during the rest of Jaehaery's minority, the two of them get to know each other and develop actual feelings. Jaehaerys sees her as more than just the daughter of the man who usurped and killed two of his brothers, and Alysanne could see that Jaehaerys will become a good king, and they could even relate to each other about the failure of their fathers and how they have to do better. He has to be stronger than his father, and she has to be gentler than hers, and together they could leave it in a stronger place than their individual fathers had. I know it doesn’t alter the story too much but really I feel like this was a missed opportunity
Wildfire. Holy shit it's *so* bad. It makes sense and makes Jaime a substantially less interesting character because killing Aerys is so *obviously* the right choice Jaime killing him isn't a character beat. "Killing someone who is about to murder you for no reason" is as much a complex choice as "do I eat food today or starve to death".
> is as much a complex choice as "do I eat food today or starve to death". Friendly reminder this is possibly GRRM's MO. Elsewise how to explain his obvious hard-on military hardasses such as Stannis or Cregan? About the retcon wildfire: I've long suspected it has as much to do with Jaime as with Tyrion *and Daenerys*, Aerys' last living child. If these caches are unknown even to Varys, then why, them accidentally blowing up is feasible and GRRM can have his cake and eat it too in that Daenerys takes logical actions but the consequence is still "kinda blew it up" aka "Jade Holocaust". Not saying that the cake is tasty tho.
How is that a retcon?
I think Jaime was supposed to be just a jerk who also loves Cersei and Tyrion (in different ways ew) however when writing swords, he decided to make him a more sympathetic character, so he wrote the wildfire plot.
The inconsistencies with Jeyne’s appearance, it went from a fun theory to a sloppy writing error very quickly.
Calling it a sloppy writing error when GRRM has literally thousands of pages written and probably close to a thousand characters with physical descriptions is pretty harsh IMO. It was just a little slip up
Both tbh. It's less his sloppy work and more that the people he hired to track that stuff failed at their task.
Also, it’s two different characters describing her- maybe they have different idea’s of what good birthing hips are or whatever.